IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/uerseb/358890.html

The Prevalence of Competing and Complementary Claims on U.S. Food Product Packaging: A Case Study of Claims on Milk and Yogurt

Author

Listed:
  • Stewart, Hayden
  • Kuchler, Fred
  • Sweitzer, Megan

Abstract

Food products sold at retail stores may carry a variety of claims on packaging, including claims about human health (low fat), environmental stewardship (USDA Organic), and the types of inputs used in making the food (non-genetically modified organism or non-GMO). This study examines which claims appeared most frequently on fluid milk and yogurt product packaging, the number of claims that appeared on products, which ones were complementary (appearing together), and which ones competed for consumers’ attention (appearing on separate products). Emphasis is placed on claims related to farm production methods. Label Insight and Circana (formerly IRI) data for 2022 were used to conduct the study. Claims that a product is USDA Organic certified were found on 10.9 percent of fluid milk products and 8.9 percent of yogurt products. Organic products were also more likely to contain animal welfare and non-GMO claims than conventional fluid milk and yogurt products. Natural food claims were more common than organic claims and commonly appeared with hormone-free claims. Complementary claims fell into two groups: Verified claims that required farmers, suppliers, or retailers to incur some expenses appeared together, and claims that required little or no new activities or costs appeared together. The two groups rarely overlapped.

Suggested Citation

  • Stewart, Hayden & Kuchler, Fred & Sweitzer, Megan, 2025. "The Prevalence of Competing and Complementary Claims on U.S. Food Product Packaging: A Case Study of Claims on Milk and Yogurt," Economic Brief 358890, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:uerseb:358890
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.358890
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/358890/files/EB-44.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.358890?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. Gillespie, Jeffrey & Njuki, Eric & Terán, Angel, 2024. "Structure, Costs, and Technology Used on U.S. Dairy Farms," Economic Research Report 344571, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    2. Darby, Michael R & Karni, Edi, 1973. "Free Competition and the Optimal Amount of Fraud," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 16(1), pages 67-88, April.
    3. Gillespie, Jeffrey & Raszap Skorbiansky, Sharon & Law, Jonathan, 2024. "U.S. Certified Organic Dairy Production: Three Decades of Growth," Economic Research Report 346026, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    4. Wilson, Lacey & Lusk, Jayson L., 2020. "Consumer willingness to pay for redundant food labels," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    5. Kuchler, Fred & Greene, Catherine & Bowman, Maria & Marshall, Kandice K. & Bovay, John & Lynch, Lori, 2017. "Beyond Nutrition and Organic Labels—30 Years of Experience With Intervening in Food Labels," Economic Research Report 291967, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    6. 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.
    7. Lim, Kar H. & Hu, Wuyang & Nayga, Rodolfo M., Jr., 2021. "Consumer Preference for Grass-Fed Beef: A Case of Food Safety Halo Effect," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 46(3), September.
    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. Page, Elina T. & Short, Gianna & Sneeringer, Stacy & Bowman, Maria, "undated". "The Market for Chicken Raised Without Antibiotics, 2012–17," USDA Miscellaneous 315418, United States Department of Agriculture.
    2. 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.
    3. Evelina Fridell Lif & Tommy Lundström & David Pålsson & Marie Sallnäs & Emelie Shanks, 2025. "Foster Care on the Market: Swedish Independent Foster Care Agencies in an International Context," Social Inclusion, Cogitatio Press, vol. 13.
    4. Darby, Michael R. & Lott, John Jr., 1989. "Qualitative information, reputation, and monopolistic competition," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 87-103, June.
    5. Caswell, Julie A., 1998. "How Labeling of Safety and Process Attributes Affects Markets for Food," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 27(2), pages 151-158, October.
    6. Sheldon, Ian & Roe, Brian & Olimov, Jafar, 2015. "“Regulation of Food Quality: Deep Capture and Economies of Scope between Innovation and Influence”," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 212255, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    7. Jérôme Ballet & Aurélie Carimentrand, 2010. "Fair Trade and the Depersonalization of Ethics," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 92(2), pages 317-330, April.
    8. De Jaegher, Kris, 2010. "Physician incentives: Cure versus prevention," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 124-136, January.
    9. J. K. Pappalardo, 2022. "Economics of Consumer Protection: Contributions and Challenges in Estimating Consumer Injury and Evaluating Consumer Protection Policy," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 201-238, June.
    10. Dulleck, Uwe & Kerschbamer, Rudolf, 2003. "Price Discrimination in Markets for Experts' Services," CEPR Discussion Papers 4155, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    11. Feser, Daniel & Runst, Petrik, 2015. "Energy efficiency consultants as change agents? Examining the reasons for EECs’ limited success," ifh Working Papers 1 (2015), Volkswirtschaftliches Institut für Mittelstand und Handwerk an der Universität Göttingen (ifh).
    12. Briggs, Elten & Janakiraman, Narayan, 2017. "Slogan recall effects on marketplace behaviors: The roles of external search and brand assessment," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 98-105.
    13. Balafoutas, Loukas & Fornwagner, Helena & Kerschbamer, Rudolf & Sutter, Matthias & Tverdostup, Maryna, 2020. "Diagnostic Uncertainty and Insurance Coverage in Credence Goods Markets," IZA Discussion Papers 13848, IZA Network @ LISER.
    14. Belacin, Gisele, 2008. "Disponibilidad a pagar por atributos de calidad. Un estudio aplicado para el caso de la leche fluida," Nülan. Deposited Documents 635, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Sociales, Centro de Documentación.
    15. Mimra, Wanda & Rasch, Alexander & Waibel, Christian, 2016. "Second opinions in markets for expert services: Experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 131(PB), pages 106-125.
    16. Dulsrud, Arne & Norberg, Hans Martin, 2006. "Social Limits to Trust. The Significance of Embeddedness for Consumers Coping with Uncertainty," 99th Seminar, February 8-10, 2006, Bonn, Germany 7760, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. Emons, Winand, 2001. "Credence goods monopolists," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 19(3-4), pages 375-389, March.
    18. Gál, Róbert Iván & Csaba, Iván, 1997. "A bőség zavara: tökéletlen fogyasztói információ és verseny a háziorvosi szolgáltatások piacán [The confusion of plenty: imperfect consumer information and competition on the market of family doctor services]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(7), pages 673-686.
    19. Dhaval M. Dave, 2013. "Effects of Pharmaceutical Promotion: A Review and Assessment," NBER Working Papers 18830, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Raszap Skorbiansky, Sharon, 2025. "Organic Situation Report, 2025 Edition," Economic Information Bulletin 349417, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:358890. 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.