@article{Schmitz:27613,
      recid = {27613},
      author = {Schmitz, John D. and Nayga, Rodolfo M., Jr.},
      title = {FOOD NUTRITIONAL QUALITY: A PILOT STUDY ON CONSUMER  AWARENESS},
      journal = {Journal of Food Distribution Research},
      address = {1991-06},
      number = {856-2016-56590},
      pages = {16},
      year = {1991},
      abstract = {Retail food demand studies are becoming increasingly  concerned with the role of nutrition and health, yet  consumer perceptions and attitudes are often ignored. The  purpose of this pilot study is to determine consumer  perceptions involving nutrition levels for selected foods.  The influence of demographics and information about  nutrition and health on perceptions toward meat items are  determined. Results generally indicate that consumer  perceptions toward fat and cholesterol levels in meats are  based on the comparison of animal sources, not the  comparison of individual cuts or preparation  techniques.

Recent efforts in the study of retail food  demand have moved toward the role of nutrition and health.  Several attempts have been made to measure the role that  nutrition plays in food value or purchase habits (LaFrance  (1983), Huffman (1988), Brown and Shrader (1990)). These  studies use actual nutritional content of foods consumed to  estimate demand impacts. However, it is possible that  consumers perceive the nutritional elements of certain  foods to be significantly different than actual levels.  Differences between actual and perceived levels represent  measurement error in these variables. Such errors may  adversely affect the results of our demand  studies.

Consumer misperceptions may be an especially  important issue when a utility maximization model such as  Lancaster's Consumer Goods Characteristics Model (CGCM) is  used. In such a model, the utility function arguments are  the characteristics of the goods not the goods themselves.  If consumers misperceive the nutritional value of food  products, such models should include the perceived levels  of nutrition, not the actual levels. The CGCM has been used  extensively in recent years. In particular, CGCM was used  by Ladd and Suvannant (1976) to test if food prices were a  sum of the values of certain nutrients; by Adrian and  Daniels (1976) to estimate nutrient demand based in part on  demographic variables; by Morgan, Metzen, and Johnson  (1979) to estimate hedonic prices for breakfast cereal  characteristics; and by Terry, Brooker, and Eastwood (1986)  to estimate the demand for nutrients. Each of these studies  used actual nutrition levels. If, however, perceived  nutrition levels are different than the actual levels, the  results and conclusions may be affected.

Results from  these models vary widely. In the case of some nutrients,  the implicit values can switch from significantly positive  to significantly negative across models. Some of the  variability may be associated with specification and  differences in time periods. However, some variation may  result from differences in perceptions which also change  over time.

Models which do not directly specify nutrient  levels may fall prey to another problem. Work by Brown and  Schrader (1990) and later by Capps and Schmitz (1990)  utilize an index of nutritional awareness. Models of this  nature allow for consumer perceptions to be included.  However, when results of these models are reviewed, the  results are compared to actual data, not perceptions. These  results may be compared to the wrong benchmarks. Thus  perceptions need to be considered, regardless of the  approach used.},
      url = {http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/27613},
      doi = {https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.27613},
}