Abstract
AbstractFood labeling is intended to clarify information for consumers, yet sometimes labeling can be misleading. This study examines US consumer choice for labeled and unlabeled products across meat animal species in which differing regulations exist by species regarding hormone use in production and where consumer perception of hormone use by species varies. In the case of hormone use in US meat animal production, pork and poultry products labeled as being produced with no added hormones must also state that federal regulations prohibit the use of hormones in production. However, this required information is often obscured on retail labels. Results from expected utility models indicate that after consumers receive information regarding regulations and actual hormone use across species, the difference in utility and in willingness to pay for products labeled “produced with no added hormones” versus unlabeled product is lower for products where hormone use is restricted by federal regulations [EconLit Citations: Q13, D12, Q18].
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
