Proof Behind Product Labeling and Certification

19 minute learn

Animal Charity Evaluators’ Higher for Animals: Proof-Primarily based Insights for Efficient Animal Advocacy useful resource is an ongoing mission by which we distill key analysis on totally different animal advocacy interventions to assist us consider their influence in numerous contexts. We’ve made this analysis publicly obtainable to assist knowledgeable determination making about find out how to assist essentially the most animals. Chances are you’ll learn extra concerning the methodology in our latest announcement.

This can be a residing doc and we need to make it as useful, accessible, and up-to-date as doable, so please be at liberty to attain out with suggestions! To maintain updated with ACE’s analysis and the work of the superb organizations that we assist, make sure you join our mailing checklist.

To assist make this info extra accessible to a variety of audiences, we’re spotlighting one intervention every month by way of a collection of social media and weblog posts spotlighting one intervention every month. This month—for the 4th version—we’re specializing in the proof round Product Labeling and Certification.

Intervention Highlight #41: Product Labeling and Certification

What is that this intervention?

• This class refers to applications or schemes to label or certify merchandise as vegan or vegetarian, in addition to cruelty-free, eco/local weather, well being, and higher-welfare labeling and certification schemes. These applications goal to make use of labels or certifications to extend or lower the visibility, demand, and consumption of sure merchandise or menu gadgets. Examples of ways embrace launching labelling schemes; campaigning for brand spanking new merchandise to obtain veg*n/plant-based labels; and lobbying manufacturers to decide to labeling their merchandise.

What’s our total evaluation of this intervention? How assured are we on this evaluation?

• Product labels typically fall into three classes: ingredient-based (e.g., “veg*n” or “plant-based”), environmental (e.g. “low-emission”), and welfare-based (e.g. “cage-free”). Research on ingredient-based labels present blended outcomes, with most proof suggesting no or restricted influence on lowering animal product consumption. Analysis on environmental labels suggests that there’s a important threat of those shifting consumption from higher-emitting animal merchandise (e.g., beef) to lower-emitting animal merchandise (e.g., rooster), with no improve within the consumption of plant-based merchandise, leading to extra struggling because of the small animal substitute downside. Virtually half of shoppers state being prepared to pay extra for merchandise with labels indicating greater animal welfare, and these do seem to shift improve shopper demand in some contexts, however their effectiveness is lowered by humane-washing (i.e., misleading labels), the massive variety of totally different labels, shoppers’ lack of belief within the labels, confusion about their which means, and shoppers’ value sensitivity.
• We expect that ingredient-based and environmental product labeling seems to be a much less promising tactic than others we reviewed because of the proof suggesting no or restricted influence on shopper habits and the chance of hurt when labels are tied to environmental impacts. Nonetheless, animal-welfare labels look like a extra promising tactic given analysis signifies shoppers’ concern for animal welfare, their willingness to pay extra for high-welfare merchandise, and case research of this translating into growing demand for high-welfare merchandise. These are broad, preliminary assessments and we anticipate the effectiveness of any intervention to differ considerably relying on the context and the strategy taken; see under for additional particulars.
• We consider this intervention is probably going stronger when:
  • Labels are examined and tailor-made to context, since effectiveness varies by nation and viewers.
  • Campaigns account for shopper segments, specializing in much less price-sensitive teams for welfare labels, and doubtless pairing with nationwide schemes to lift perceived worth.
  • The environmental label is simplified, avoiding a number of or conflicting schemes that may dilute influence.

• Conversely, the intervention is probably going weaker, or might have unintended detrimental penalties, when:
  • Methods assume one label time period will work in all places, as an alternative of adapting to native preferences and testing.
  • Environmental labels insufficiently tackle the dangers of steering decisions towards lower-emission animals (e.g., rooster or fish) somewhat than plant-based merchandise, risking small-animal substitute.
  • A number of or conflicting labels (e.g., eco vs. diet scores) seem collectively, lowering readability and effectiveness.

• Our confidence in these assessments is average. Most cited research are latest and peer-reviewed, together with a number of randomized managed trials (RCTs). Nonetheless, a good portion of the analysis measures buy intent, which can not translate on to real-world buying habits. Moreover, research about the long run results of labels are missing, and many of the research have been performed in Europe and the U.S., limiting generalizability.
• The effectiveness of this intervention is prone to differ throughout international locations, merchandise, and audiences. Some labels seem to resonate extra with sure teams — for instance, impartial phrases or phrases like “wholesome and sustainable” are usually extra interesting to meat-eaters than labels corresponding to “vegan” or “plant-based”. We due to this fact suppose that additional analysis is warranted, particularly into how effectiveness varies between international locations and merchandise, and the way totally different labels will be simpler for various shopper segments.

What does the analysis say about how efficient this intervention is?

Veg*n labels

• The outcomes of a U.S. retrospective research by Faunalytics counsel that whereas vegan/plant-based labels are one of the frequent kinds of intervention (skilled by 83% of members), comparatively few individuals (25%) think about them to have lowered their animal product consumption. Notice that this research depends on self-report information, and that a few of the responses may have been influenced by availability bias, a type of reminiscence error by which extra memorable experiences usually tend to be remembered.
• A 2024 Brazil on-line research discovered that labeling a cheese different as a ‘plant-based product’ had no important impact on the likelihood of members selecting it (out of two merchandise) throughout a discrete alternative experiment. Notice, nonetheless, that this on-line experiment might not generalize to real-world habits. The researchers additionally performed an eye-tracking research, the outcomes of which point out that the ‘plant-based’ label triggered a number of revisitations. This led to a refined discount in alternative likelihood, suggesting potential shopper confusion or hesitation.
• A number of research that assess the effectiveness of labeling veg*n gadgets on menus discovered that labels don’t appear to be an efficient technique for growing demand or buy intent for these meals:
  • A U.S. research with three randomized managed experiments confirmed that the veg*n menu merchandise was most well-liked by members when it was unlabeled, and when it was labeled the opposite possibility was as an alternative most well-liked. Within the two discipline experiments, members have been requested to decide on between a vegan and a vegetarian possibility. All choices contained an outline of the substances, whereas the labeled type contained a “vegan” label. The vegan possibility was most well-liked by members who noticed the unlabeled type. In distinction, members who noticed the labeled type most well-liked the vegetarian possibility as an alternative. Within the on-line experiment, members have been requested to pick out between two choices, one vegan and the opposite vegetarian or with meat. General they discovered labels had a detrimental influence on decisions. Notice that these experiments solely included “vegan” labels and didn’t embrace “plant-based” labels.
  • A web-based research involving a consultant pattern of Danish meat-eaters discovered that impartial labeling (i.e., with no express indication {that a} dish doesn’t include meat) of a vegan dish elevated the chance of members deciding on that dish in comparison with express labeling (i.e., vegetarian, meat-free, vegan, or plant-based). Individuals have been 2.6 occasions extra prone to choose the dish beneath impartial labeling than beneath express labeling. Moreover, the researchers discovered that “meat-reducers” have been as seemingly to decide on a neutrally labeled vegetarian dish as an explicitly labeled one. Notice that actual meals consumption was not measured.
• As for results of veg*n labels on shoppers’ attitudes, a number of research discovered that a veg*n label will increase a product’s perceived healthiness and sustainability:
  • A 2024 Dutch experiment, that randomly labeled meat substitutes vegetarian or meat merchandise, discovered that members within the vegetarian label situation perceived the merchandise as considerably more healthy and extra sustainable than the meat label situation. Nonetheless, the product high quality analysis (style, appetizing, texture, and common product analysis) was not considerably totally different between the meat and vegetarian label circumstances.
  • A U.Ok.-based on-line research discovered that customers perceived burgers and nuggets labeled as plant-based to be considerably more healthy than unlabeled burgers and nuggets.
  • Two on-line research present that vegetarian burgers have been perceived as being decrease in energy than their non-vegetarian equivalents.

Local weather labels

• Just a few experimental research discovered that labels centered on the environmental influence of veg*n merchandise are efficient at lowering the demand for meat or lowering meat consumption or buy intent:
  • A web-based China experimental research discovered that meals identification labels (i.e., indicating environmental, well being, and animal welfare advantages) efficiently decreased the demand for conventional pork merchandise whereas growing the relative demand for plant-based and cultured pork. Notice that this research solely measured demand somewhat than precise purchases.
  • An RCT performed in a digital actuality grocery store confirmed that the environmental label considerably lowered the environmental influence of meals decisions by encouraging shifts (particularly from meat to plant-based gadgets) at no dietary, monetary or hedonic value.
  • A web-based experimental U.S. research the place members have been randomly assigned to certainly one of 4 circumstances to check two various factors: label sort (carbon footprint vs. management) and burger sort (beef vs. plant-based) discovered that there was a optimistic impact of carbon footprint labels on perceived sustainability. Whereas the carbon footprint label had no direct influence on buy intent, researchers counsel a mediation impact, the place the labels affect buy intention by way of perceived environmental sustainability. Moreover, they counsel that this mediation impact is stronger for the meat burger than the plant-based burger. Notice that the researchers solely measured buy intent somewhat than precise purchases.
• Nonetheless, different experimental research (largely centered on menu gadgets) discovered that environmental labels are ineffective, and should even be dangerous when it comes to animal welfare:
  • A 2025 RCT that aimed to check the consequences of ecolabels on the environmental influence of scorching meal gadgets bought at worksite cafeterias discovered no important impact of the intervention on the environmental influence of meals offered.
  • In distinction, a research of Swedish and Danish ferry passengers discovered that whereas introducing carbon labels didn’t have an effect on total shares of plant- or meat-based meals, it did obtain a discount in CO2 by way of shifts within the course of lower-emitting meat and fish meals. This seemingly worsened outcomes for animals, because of the small animal substitute downside. (See “Beneath what circumstances is that this intervention kind of efficient” under.)
  • Equally, one Swedish research discovered that the site visitors mild carbon label will increase the willingness to buy lower-emissions protein merchandise corresponding to rooster and meat substitutes, particularly amongst shoppers who’re already extremely sustainable purchasers. As with the earlier research, there’s a threat that this may worsen outcomes for animals due to the small animal substitute downside.

Warning labels

• We additionally discovered a number of research suggesting that utilizing warning labels on meat meals will be efficient at growing intentions to cut back meat consumption:
  • A web-based RCT research (involving a U.Ok. nationally consultant pattern) discovered that every one warning labels on meat meals of their experiment (i.e., well being label, local weather label, and pandemic label) lowered the proportion of meat meals chosen considerably in comparison with the management group, with reductions starting from -7.4% to -10%. Notice that the research didn’t embrace an animal welfare warning label. A follow-up research by the identical researchers discovered related outcomes (a 9.2% or 9.8% discount in meat meal choice) when labels centered on results of local weather labels alone. Moreover, notice that as a result of they didn’t distinguish between kinds of meats, there could be a threat of small animal substitute which may worsen the outcomes for animals.
  • One other research confirmed that graphic well being warning labels can not directly affect individuals’s intentions to cut back their meat consumption by producing emotions of disgust, though that impact is insignificant. Nonetheless, these graphic labels may also provoke backlash by making individuals really feel manipulated, which may cut back their intention to lower meat consumption.

Welfare labels

• A 2024 German research discovered that animal welfare labels elevated the share of households’ meat purchases with the very best animal welfare requirements by 2.19 proportion factors for the typical German family; on the identical time, the willingness to pay for these requirements elevated by 0.31 EUR/500g. Youthful members confirmed the strongest response to the animal welfare labels.
• A number of research counsel that shoppers assist animal welfare labels and are prepared to pay extra for merchandise with animal welfare labels:
  • A research prompt that U.S. residents favor obligatory labels disclosing the usage of gestation crates (stalls) for pigs and cages for laying hens and can be prepared to pay about 20% greater pork and egg costs to achieve entry to this particular manufacturing info.
  • A more moderen experiment discovered that there’s a willingness to pay for an animal welfare label that isn’t affected on common by an extra tax.
  • A survey in Australia discovered that offering shoppers with further details about the welfare circumstances behind on-package animal welfare labels considerably elevated their willingness to purchase merchandise related to greater than standard animal welfare requirements.
  • In keeping with a survey of UK shoppers, 91% of respondents supported animal welfare labels on animal merchandise, with 63% contemplating themselves ‘very supportive’.
  • A survey of Canadian shoppers discovered that their egg buying choices are pushed by animal welfare considerations, even to the extent of accepting greater costs for perceived greater welfare. Nonetheless, the research additionally revealed that customers are continuously misled by egg packaging and labels, leading to inaccurate beliefs about hen welfare circumstances and, consequently, costlier, misinformed purchases. Notice that this can be a self-report survey and due to this fact precise purchases weren’t measured.
  • Equally, a Faunalytics research discovered that whereas U.S. adults are involved about animal welfare, and depend on product packaging for related info, they typically do not need a robust understanding of what animal welfare labels imply and are vulnerable to deceptive welfare claims. To counter this, Faunalytics recommends educating shoppers about animal welfare certifications, making a single go-to welfare certification (just like “USDA Natural”), and dealing to ban misleading welfare claims.
• A research in 4 European international locations (Finland, the Netherlands, Spain, and Italy) that questioned 2.433 shoppers to discover the limitations to the effectiveness of labels discovered that whereas there are variations in opinions throughout international locations and shopper teams, some points nonetheless persist. These points embrace (i) low shopper belief within the labels, (ii) market saturation because of the extreme variety of labels, (iii) shopper confusion concerning label meanings, (iv) difficulties balancing animal welfare labels with product value, (v) a scarcity of consistency between animal welfare requirements and shoppers’ private beliefs about animal welfare, and (vi) limitations within the animal-based sectors’ capability to innovate animal welfare labeling practices.
• In keeping with a U.Ok. shopper research, price-sensitive shoppers – who’re over half of shoppers – exhibit nearly no willingness to pay further for merchandise with animal welfare labeling.

Price effectiveness

• We discovered no cost-effectiveness estimates on product labeling.

Energy of proof

• Most cited research are latest and peer-reviewed, together with a number of randomized managed trials (RCTs), which strengthens the methodological robustness of some findings.
• Nonetheless, the general variety of experimental research is comparatively small, limiting the generalizability and certainty of conclusions.
• A number of research depend on self-reported or retrospective information, that are topic to recall bias and social desirability bias.
• Some research don’t differentiate between various kinds of meat which makes it tough to rule out a threat of small animal substitute.
• A good portion of the analysis measures buy intent somewhat than precise buying habits, which can not translate on to real-world influence.
• There’s variation in labeling terminology examined throughout research (e.g., “vegan” vs “plant-based” vs “wholesome”), which complicates synthesis and comparability of outcomes.
• The long-term results of labeling interventions stay underexplored; most research assess short-term or one-time responses.

Beneath what circumstances is that this intervention kind of efficient?

Veg*n labels

• The selection of language (e.g., “plant-based” vs. “vegan”) influences effectiveness, though research outcomes are inconsistent:
  • “Plant-based” seems simpler than “vegan.” A web-based research concentrating on U.Ok. college students discovered of their experiments that the label “plant-based” outperformed the label “vegan” by 9 proportion factors. One other on-line survey concentrating on populations within the U.S. and Germany discovered that the ‘plant-based’ label was barely extra interesting to members than the ‘vegetarian’ and ‘vegan’ labels. Equally, a 2025 Serbian on-line survey discovered no distinction in impact between “plant-based” and “vegan” labels on the choice for plant-based merchandise, however a laboratory experiment by which members tasted plant-based meals with totally different labels discovered a slight choice for merchandise labeled “plant-based.”
  • In distinction, outcomes of a discipline experiment in a U.S. college, monitoring over 150,000 real-world shopper choices, discovered that menu gadgets have been 23-24% extra prone to promote once they have been labeled as vegetarian/vegan than once they have been labeled as plant-based. Whereas this can be a massive pattern measurement, the research was restricted to 1 restaurant on one U.S. college campus, and due to this fact is probably not generalizable.
  • “Wholesome and sustainable” seems simpler than “vegan” and “plant-based.” An RCT research discovered that the meals possibility with out meat and dairy was much less prone to be chosen when it was labeled “vegan” (chosen by 20% of members) or “plant-based” (chosen by 27% of members), and extra prone to be chosen when it was labeled “wholesome” (chosen by 42%), or “wholesome and sustainable” (chosen by 43%). This labeling impact was stronger amongst self-proclaimed red-meat eaters.
  • Impartial labeling seems simpler than express labeling. In a Danish research, members have been 2.6 occasions extra prone to choose the vegan dish beneath impartial labeling (e.g., an asterisk with info elsewhere on the menu card that the meal is appropriate for vegetarians) than beneath express labeling (i.e., vegetarian, meat-free, vegan, or plant-based).
  • Summary labels (e.g., “meat-free” or “dairy-free”) seem extra interesting than concrete (e.g., “plant-based” or “lentil-based”) labels. A 2025 research of British shoppers examined how totally different front-of-pack descriptors influenced attraction and related style, well being, and sustainability expectations, discovering that meals described with excessive ranges of abstraction have been essentially the most interesting and perceived as tastiest. (Perceptions of well being and sustainability differed little relying on the descriptor.) Notice that this research didn’t examine “vegan” or “vegetarian” labels.
• A research analyzing the affect of vegan labeling on product notion and consumption intentions discovered that labeling “sudden vegan merchandise” (i.e., merchandise that aren’t anticipated to be vegan by default) impacts perceived healthiness and sustainability (positively), and anticipated style (negatively). This impact was absent for “anticipated vegan merchandise” i.e., when shoppers already assumed the merchandise have been vegan. Examples of anticipated vegan merchandise are glazed merchandise and a number of other alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks, and examples of sudden vegan merchandise are merchandise manufactured from dough or containing chocolate.

Local weather labels

• The place doable, lengthier informational labels could also be simpler than easy identification labels. A Danish research of actual buying habits at three academic context canteens investigated the consequences of an intervention combining an elevated variety of plant-based choices with informational messages concerning the environmental advantages of lowering meat consumption. The research discovered a rise of 38% in plant-based meal gross sales alongside a lower of 19% in meat-based gross sales after introducing the intervention. Nonetheless, it’s tough to untangle the consequences of the labels and messaging from these of accelerating plant-based choices.
• A cross-country survey of 6,500 shoppers in a number of Western European international locations, the U.S., and China discovered the shoppers’ curiosity in sustainable certifications for meals differ with nation, gender and age. For instance, U.S. males confirmed a higher curiosity in sustainability certifications for cheese, cured meats, and produce than members within the different 5 international locations. Equally, Chinese language shoppers—throughout all genders and age teams—persistently reported greater curiosity in certifications for these merchandise in addition to for pork and beef.
• Environmental labels threat worsening outcomes for farmed animals because of the small animal substitute downside. A research of Swedish and Danish ferry passengers discovered that introducing carbon labels didn’t have an effect on total shares of plant- or meat-based meals; nonetheless, it did obtain a discount in CO2 by way of shifts within the course of lower-emitting meat and fish meals.
• A Belgian research discovered that conflicting labels (Eco- and Nutri-scores) lowered shoppers’ perceived environmental influence of meals merchandise. This highlights the chance of lowered efficacy the place different (probably conflicting) labels are current.

Animal welfare labels

• A 2023 research of British shoppers discovered that simply over half of shoppers fall right into a “price-sensitive class,” who will not be prepared to pay further for an animal welfare label. The identical survey discovered that even amongst these prepared to pay further, devoted animal welfare labels elicited a smaller premium than these for a nationwide farming scheme, suggesting that for these prepared to pay extra for meat, native assist and ethnocentric priorities (i.e., the idea that one’s personal nation or tradition is superior to others, notably concerning services and products) might take priority over animal welfare considerations.

Our priorities for enhancing this proof evaluation

To enhance future iterations of this evaluation, we plan to:

• Incorporate further high-quality experimental research, particularly randomized managed trials that monitor actual buying habits somewhat than intentions or self-reports.
• Increase protection to incorporate extra non-Western and low-/middle-income international locations, enhancing the worldwide relevance of the abstract.
• Seek for cost-effectiveness analyses or associated implementation information (e.g. prices of certification, scalability limitations).
• Hunt down longitudinal research that look at the sturdiness of labeling results over time.
• Embrace analysis on unintended penalties, corresponding to whether or not labeling results in ethical licensing or elevated complacency amongst shoppers.
• Embrace analysis on different kinds of labels corresponding to natural labels and cruelty-free labels.
• Evaluation proof on trade responses to labeling schemes, together with reformulation, lobbying, or co-opting of certification programs.

Final up to date Dec 19, 2025

We wish to thank Samuel Mazzarella for his modifying and suggestions, and Claire Demontreuil for her useful suggestions as peer-reviewer for the veg*n labels sections.

About Maria Salazar

Maria initially joined ACE as a analysis intern in September 2017 and was excited to rejoin ACE as a Researcher in July 2019. She holds a bachelor’s diploma in ecology and a grasp’s diploma in utilized {and professional} ethics, and has a number of years of expertise managing and growing outreach and analysis initiatives at native and worldwide animal advocacy charities.

ACE is devoted to making a world the place all animals can thrive, no matter their species. We take the
guesswork out of supporting animal advocacy by directing funds towards essentially the most impactful charities and applications,
primarily based on proof and analysis.

167
Recipients engaged on promising initiatives

42
International locations throughout six continents.

$68M
Donations throughout the animal advocacy motion.