ArticlePloS one2022
Is it really a piece of cake to label Geographical Indications with the Nutri-Score? Consumers' behaviour and policy implications.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To improve the dietary habits of the population, the EU, within the Farm to Fork strategy (F2F), is strongly supporting the Nutri-Score (NS) Front Of Pack (FOP) label. Under the NS system, Geographical Indications (GIs) are generally scored as "unhealthy" food, given the predominance of products of animal origin among GIs which are, notoriously, high-fat products. This study aims to determine the impact of the NS label on consumers' preferences for two Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) cheeses, in comparison with generic ones. A Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) was conducted on 600 Italian consumers through the estimation of a Random Parameter Logit model. Results highlighted that Italian consumers are generally not familiar with the NS and perceive it as a positive characteristic of the product, even if it is signalling an unhealthy choice (D score). However, consumers aware of the Nutri-Score meaning are willing to pay less to buy a product considered "unhealthy" according to this system. Furthermore, we found that consumers who already knew the NS system have homogeneous behaviours in rejecting the product, independently of the association with a PDO certification. This result has important implications on the agri-food sector. If the Nutri-Score becomes mandatory in the EU, consumers might refuse many GIs due to their negative Nutri-Score values. However, the quality of these products is recognized and protected worldwide. In this vein, the GI policy could be questioned by the F2F strategy: both of them aims to reduce information asymmetry producing, at the same time, contrasting results. Within the Geographical Indication policy, the PDO and PGI goods are protected for their quality attributes, which are strictly linked to their geographical origin of the products and traditional know-how. However, the EU adoption of the Nutri-Score could damage these products, reducing their perceived quality/value.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.