Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/uerseb/340804.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Prevalence of the “Natural” Claim on Food Product Packaging

Author

Listed:
  • Kuchler, Fred
  • Sweitzer, Megan
  • Chelius, Carolyn
Abstract
U.S. food suppliers make claims about their production processes on food packaging that highlight attributes some consumers want while charging a higher price than for unlabeled products. Some labels use such claims as “USDA Organic” and “raised without antibiotics,” which require different and more expensive production techniques than conventional agriculture. However, food suppliers can use the label that claims the food is “natural” at a relatively low cost because regulatory agencies treat the claim as meaning nothing artificial was added and the product was minimally processed. Numerous consumer food choice studies concluded that consumers equate the natural label on food with healthier food choices and more costly production practices that signify environmental stewardship. Informed by these previous studies’ findings, the authors of this report estimate the frequency with which food suppliers make the natural claim on food packaging labels. Estimates are based on scanner data and comprehensive label data. Across all foods in 2018, 16.3 percent of retail food expenditures and 16.9 percent of all items purchased (unit sales) were for foods labeled natural, whereas 11.0 percent of Universal Product Codes (UPC) in stores were labeled natural on the packaging. Expenditures for food labeled natural were larger than expenditures for foods labeled USDA Organic. Natural labels were found predominately on processed products. For example, 95.6 percent of expenditures for vitamins and meal supplements were for products labeled natural, compared with 0.5 percent of expenditures for potatoes.

Suggested Citation

  • Kuchler, Fred & Sweitzer, Megan & Chelius, Carolyn, 2023. "The Prevalence of the “Natural” Claim on Food Product Packaging," Economic Brief 340804, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:uerseb:340804
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.340804
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/340804/files/EB-35.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.340804?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. F. Kuchler & M. Bowman & M. Sweitzer & C. Greene, 2020. "Evidence from Retail Food Markets That Consumers Are Confused by Natural and Organic Food Labels," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 43(2), pages 379-395, June.
    2. Julianna M. Butler & Christian A. Vossler, 2018. "What is an Unregulated and Potentially Misleading Label Worth? The case of “Natural”-Labelled Groceries," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 70(2), pages 545-564, June.
    3. Maria Bowman & Kandice K. Marshall & Fred Kuchler & Lori Lynch, 2016. "Raised Without Antibiotics: Lessons from Voluntary Labeling of Antibiotic Use Practices in The Broiler Industry," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 98(2), pages 622-642.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kelly R. Wilson & Robert L. Myers & Mary K. Hendrickson & Emily A. Heaton, 2022. "Different Stakeholders’ Conceptualizations and Perspectives of Regenerative Agriculture Reveals More Consensus Than Discord," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-14, November.
    2. Carlson, Andrea & Greene, Catherine & Raszap Skorbiansky, Sharon & Hitaj, Claudia & Ha, Kim & Cavigelli, Michel & Ferrier, Peyton & McBride, William, 2023. "U.S. Organic Production, Markets, Consumers, and Policy, 2000-21," USDA Miscellaneous 333551, United States Department of Agriculture.
    3. Hennessy, David A., 2018. "Managing Derived Demand For Antibiotics In Animal Agriculture," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274359, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    4. Ralf Buckley, 2023. "Sector-Scale Proliferation of CSR Quality Label Programs via Mimicry: The Rotkäppchen Effect," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-11, July.
    5. Wilson, Lacey & Lusk, Jayson L., 2020. "Consumer willingness to pay for redundant food labels," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    6. Karolina Woś & Lisa Marie Borghoff & Andrijana Horvat & Flavio Paoletti & Eleonora Saggia Civitelli & Ewa Rembiałkowska, 2022. "Preliminary Analysis of Voluntary Information on Organic Milk Labels in Four European Union Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-18, December.
    7. Page, Elina T. & Short, Gianna & Sneeringer, Stacy & Bowman, Maria, 2021. "The Market for Chicken Raised Without Antibiotics, 2012–17," USDA Miscellaneous 315418, United States Department of Agriculture.
    8. Beckman, Jayson & Dyck, John & Heerman, Kari, 2017. "The Global Landscape of Agricultural Trade, 1995-2014," Economic Information Bulletin 265270, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    9. Timothy N. Cason & Steven Y. Wu, 2019. "Subject Pools and Deception in Agricultural and Resource Economics Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 73(3), pages 743-758, July.
    10. Christian A. Vossler & Dong Yan, 2019. "An Experimental Investigation of Updating under Ambiguity," Working Papers 2019-02, University of Tennessee, Department of Economics.
    11. Felgendreher, Simon, 2018. "Do consumers choose to stay ignorant? The role of information in the purchase of ethically certified products," Working Papers in Economics 717, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    12. F. Kuchler & M. Bowman & M. Sweitzer & C. Greene, 2020. "Evidence from Retail Food Markets That Consumers Are Confused by Natural and Organic Food Labels," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 43(2), pages 379-395, June.
    13. Page, Elina T & Short, Gianna & Sneeringer, Stacy & Bowman, Maria, 2021. "The Market for Chicken Raised Without Antibiotics, 2012–17," Economic Information Bulletin 327364, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    14. Giovanna Piracci & Fabio Boncinelli & Leonardo Casini, 2023. "Investigating Consumer Preferences for Sustainable Packaging Through a Different Behavioural Approach: A Random Regret Minimization Application," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 86(1), pages 1-27, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:uerseb:340804. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ersgvus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.