Does prior knowledge of food fraud affect consumer behavior? Evidence from an incentivized economic experiment

Autoři: Syed Imran Ali Meerza aff001;  Christopher R. Gustafson aff002
Působiště autorů: Department of Agriculture, Arkansas Tech University, Russellville, Arkansas, United States of America aff001;  Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska, United States of America aff002
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(12)
Kategorie: Research Article
prolekare.web.journal.doi_sk: 10.1371/journal.pone.0225113


This study uses a laboratory experiment to examine whether prior knowledge of food fraud persistently affects consumer behavior. We invited regular consumers of olive oil to participate in an olive oil valuation experiment. We used a within-subject design to compare consumers’ willingness to pay (WTP) for Italian extra virgin olive oil (EVOO) before and after receiving information about labeling scandals in the Italian olive oil industry. After the first round of bidding, but before introducing information about labeling scandals or otherwise mentioning food fraud, we surveyed participants about whether they had heard of food fraud. Results indicate that prior knowledge of food fraud plays an important role in explaining consumers’ valuation behavior, both in the pre-information baseline bidding and in how they update their valuation in response to information about a food fraud scandal. Consumers who reported prior knowledge of food fraud partially accounted for the possibility of food fraud in their initial pre-information valuation, submitting significantly lower bids than participants who did not report prior knowledge. They also reacted less to olive oil fraud information than consumers who reported no prior knowledge of food fraud. Findings of this study highlight the potential long-term consequences of increasing consumer awareness of food fraud incidents on consumer WTP for products in industries that have experienced food fraud scandals.

Klíčová slova:

Experimental economics – Food consumption – Italian people – Italy – Olives – Surveys – Vegetable oils – Behavioral economics


1. Morehouse J, Freienstein C, Cardoso L, Matlock S, Katz D, Henry C, et al. Consumer Product Fraud: Deterrence and Detection. Tech. rep. Grocery Manufacturers Association & A.T. Kearney; 2010.

2. Lotta F, Bogue J. Defining Food Fraud in the Modern Supply Chain. European Food and Feed Law Review. 2015; 10(2): 114–122.

3. Elliott C. Review into the Integrity and Assurance of Food Supply Networks. 2014 Jul.

4. Premanandh J. Horse meat scandal–A wake-up call for regulatory authorities. Food Control. 2013; 34(2): 568–569.

5. Meerza SIA, Giannakas K, Yiannaka A. Markets and welfare effects of food fraud. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics. 2019; 63(4): 759–789.

6. Moore JC, Spink J, Lipp M. Development and Application of a Database of Food Ingredient Fraud and Economically Motivated Adulteration from 1980 to 2010. Journal of Food Science. 2012; 77(4): 118–126.

7. Johnson R. Food fraud and economically motivated adulteration of food and food ingredients. Tech. rep. Congressional Research Service; 2014.

8. Agnoli L, Capitello R, Salvo MD, Longo A, Boeri M. Food fraud and consumers’ choices in the wake of the horsemeat scandal. British Food Journal. 2016; 118(8): 1898–1913.

9. Meerza SIA, Gustafson CR. Consumer Response to Food Fraud. In Agricultural & Applied Economics Association; 2018; Washington D.C., United States.

10. Rieger J, Kuhlgatz C, Anders S. Food scandals, media attention and habit persistence among desensitised meat consumers. Food Policy. 2016; 64: 82–92.

11. Kendall H, Kuznesof S, Dean M, Chan MY, Clark B, Home R, et al. Chinese consumers attitudes, perceptions and behavioural responses towards food fraud. Food Control. 2019; 95: 339–351.

12. Frankel N. Evaluation of extra-virgin olive oil sold in California. Tech. rep. UC Davis Olive Center Report; 2011.

13. Kirchgaessner S. Extra virgin on the ridiculous: Italian olive oil producers accused of fraud. 2015 Nov.

14. Becker GM, Degroot MH, Marschak J. Measuring utility by a single-response sequential method. Behavioral Science. 1964; 9: 226–232. 5888778

15. Corrigan JR, Rousu MC. Posted Prices and Bid Affiliation: Evidence from Experimental Auctions. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 2006; 88(4): 1078–1090.

16. Vickrey W. Counterspeculation, Auctions, and Competitive Sealed Tenders. The Journal of Finance. 1961; 16(1): 8–37.

17. Shogren JF, Margolis M, Koo C, List JA. A random nth-price auction. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization. 2001; 46(4): 409–421.

18. List JA, Shogren JF. Price Information and Bidding Behavior in Repeated Second-Price Auctions. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 1999; 81(4): 942.

19. Squires N. Italian olive oil scandal: Seven top brands’ sold fake extra virgin. 2015 Nov.

20. Akerlof G. The Market for Lemons: Quality Uncertainity and the Market. In Uncertainty in Economics.: Elsevier; 1978; 84(3): 488–500.

21. Bronnenberg BJ, Dub JP, Gentzkow M, Shapiro JM. Do Pharmacists Buy Bayer? Informed Shoppers and the Brand Premium. The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 2015; 130(4): 1669–1726.

22. Agnew JR, Szykman LR. Asset Allocation and Information Overload: The Influence of Information Display, Asset Choice, and Investor Experience. Journal of Behavioral Finance. 2005; 6(2): 57–70.

23. Feng L, Seasholes MS. Do Investor Sophistication and Trading Experience Eliminate Behavioral Biases in Financial Markets? Review of Finance. 2005; 9(3): 305–351.

24. Gustafson CR. The Role of Knowledge in Choice, Valuation, and Outcomes for Multi-Attribute Goods. Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization. 2015; 13(1):33–43.

25. Gustafson CR, Lybbert TJ, Sumner DA. Consumer knowledge affects valuation of product attributes: Experimental results for wine. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics. 2016; 65: 85–94.

26. Dillaway R, Messer KD, Bernard JC, Kaiser HM. Do Consumer Responses to Media Food Safety Information Last? Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy. 2011; 33(3): 363–383.

27. Liaukonyte J, Streletskaya NA, Kaiser HM. The Long-Term Impact of Positive and Negative Information on Food Demand. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne dagroeconomie. 2015; 63(4): 539–562.

28. Warner K, Timme B, Lowell B, Hirshfield M. Oceana study reveals seafood fraud nationwide. Tech. rep. OCEANA; 2013.

29. Macrae CN, Visokomogilski A, Golubickis M, Sahraie A. Self-relevance enhances the benefits of attention on perception. Visual Cognition. 2018; 26(7): 475–481.

Článok vyšiel v časopise


2019 Číslo 12