"Government-imposed labeling restrictions have become increasingly common, with the stated intention of preventing consumer confusion. One such restriction is proposed U.S. regulation that prevents meat alternatives from labeling their product with the word "meat." This thesis used data collected from a representative sample of 1,502 U.S. consumers to empirically examine whether consumers were confused about the ingredients and nutritional content associated with meat and meat alternatives. Furthermore, we examined whether restricting the word "meat" on meat alternatives reduced any consumer confusion as well as substitution between meat and meat alternatives. Results suggested that over 30% of consumers cannot accurately distinguish between meat and meat alternatives and that the labeling restrictions actually induced a higher level of consumer confusion. Consumer perceptions of trans-fat and cholesterol decreased by 2.78 and 3.78 percentage points. Perceptions of calories per serving decreased by 10.17 for meat alternatives, but perceptions of protein content in meat alternatives increased by 4.04 percentage points after the regulation was imposed. Furthermore, results suggested that labeling restrictions are likely to have an ambiguous effect on substitution between meat and meat alternatives."--Page ii.
Read
