The power of food labels: Marketing environmental impacts and animal welfare on meat labels as gains versus nonlosses and the influence on attitudes and voting intentions

Consumers receive information about how their food is (or is not) produced on a regular basis through the labels they see in the grocery store. Production labeling claims like eco-friendly, cage-free, and no hormones offer information about the product they are on and about the conventionally produced products that do not carry these claims. The theories of loss aversion and regulatory focus suggest that messages, such as food production claims, can be framed as gains or nonlosses and have different persuasive effects, but the theories contradict each other. This study used an experimental design with a convenience sample of 660 college students to examine how consumers' attitudes toward food products are affected by gain- and nonloss-framed production labeling claims about animal welfare and environmental impact and whether this on-package marketing can also affect intent to support an animal welfare ballot initiative.;The results did not reveal different attitudinal effects between gain- and nonloss-framed production claims as predicted by loss aversion and regulatory focus theories; however, the presence of the production claims did significantly reduce positive The results did not reveal different attitudinal effects between gain- and nonloss-framed production claims as predicted by loss aversion and regulatory focus theories; however, the presence of the production claims did significantly reduce positive attitudes toward the product without claims. Exposure to the production claims increased positive attitudes toward the product they were on, but these attitudes did not translate into intentions to support the animal welfare ballot initiative. Over 75% of the sample indicated they intended to support the policy regardless of the treatment.;This study attempted to frame nonlosses and gains equivalently, but qualitatively. The results suggest that in the absence of numbers or quantifiable information, the biases of loss aversion, framing effects, and regulatory focus fit effect are minimized. Regardless of how production claims were framed, it is clear that they are a source of information affecting consumers' attitudes towards conventional agriculture products and perhaps even the production system. Agricultural communicators should not underestimate the effects that food marketing and advertising can have on consumers' attitudes toward conventional agriculture and its products, and consider these effects in addition to messages put forth by activist groups and mass media.