Online via Drovers News Source. 3 pages., Announces a petition from the United States Cattlemen's Association to the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service to address "Product of the U.S.A. and "Made in the U.S.A. claims on U.S beef. Includes a link to full petition (199 pages). The petition ends: "To eliminate the likelihood of confusion and to better inform consumers, USDA contends that voluntary labels indication 'Made in USA' and 'Product of USA' or similar content should be limited to beef from cattle born, raise, and harvested in the United States."
Online via https://newprairiepress.org/jac, Authors identified five labels related to animal welfare that are frequently found on food packages in USA grocery stores Results of a controlled online experiment among consumers showed that while most consumers lacked knowledge regarding meaning of the labels and certification standards, they relied on the labels with simplistic terms as heuristic cues to judge the ethical treatment of hens on the farm. The selected labels did not lead consumers to pay a higher premium for the labeled products.
14 pages., Online via Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)., Authors tested label effectiveness involving "supermarket shoppers on a rural American Indian reservation." Results showed added value and willingness to pay through tailoring the label to the local community.
18 pages., via online journal, As food products marketed as “gluten-free” become increasingly popular, many consumers start to exclude sources of gluten (e.g., wheat, barley, and rye) from their diets for both medical and non-medical purposes. The grain industry is facing a growing challenge to (re)boost consumers’ confidence in the healthiness and safety of its commodities. Using 561 participants recruited from the Amazon Mechanical Turk workers’ panel, this study implemented a 2 (pretzels vs. potato chips) * 2 (positive- vs. negative- frame) * 2 (wheat image vs. no wheat image) experiment to examine the effects of gluten-free labels on consumers’ perceived healthiness and safety of wheat, perceived benefits of labeled products, and their evaluation of the shown labels. Results showed that consumers evaluate the gluten-free labels most positively when they appear on products that could have contained gluten. For products that are naturally gluten-free, adding a gluten-free label only decreased consumers’ confidence in such labels. The presence of gluten-free labels increased consumers’ perceived benefits of the labeled products when they do not contain any misleading information (e.g., image of a wheat head). However, some gluten-free labels could have negative impacts on consumers’ perceptions of the healthiness and safety of wheat. Overall, food producers and marketers might have undervalued consumers’ literacy and overestimated their susceptibility to marketing strategies. We discussed the implications for food marketers, regulators, and communicators.
1 page., Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of International Communication Association. Special issue article., Authors meta-analyzed 57 studies, conducted in 13 countries with a cumulative N of 42,854. Findings suggested that while pictorial warnings increased affective and some cognitive risk appraisals, they did not increase beliefs about disease risk.
7 pages., Online via UI e-subscription, Through experiment methodology, authors investigated the relative influence of nutritional warnings and two marketing strategies commonly used in food labels, nutrition claims, and fruit images on consumers' healthfulness judgments. Findings documented the impact of nutritional warnings on perceived healthfulness.
