Labeling a food as “organic” entails a claim about its production but is silent on its calorie content. Nevertheless, people infer that organic cookies are lower in calories and can be eaten more often than conventional cookies (Study 1). These inferences are observed even when the nutrition label conveys identical calorie content and are more pronounced among perceivers high on pro-environmentalism. Moreover, when evaluating a person with a weight-loss goal, forgoing exercise is deemed more acceptable when the person has just chosen organic rather than conventional dessert (Study 2). These results reflect an “organic/natural”-“healthy” association that is capable of biasing everyday judgments about diet and exercise.

In January 2020, the United States implemented a federal bioengineered labeling standard for food products that contain genetically modified material set to go into effect in January 2022. This bioengineered label indicates which products contain detectable levels of genetic material that have been modified through lab techniques that cannot be achieved in nature. An already existing alternative to the bioengineered label is the Non-GMO Project verified label which has been on the market since 2007, and indicates products free of genetically modified material through lab techniques. As consumers are now confronted with multiple labels pertaining to information related to genetic engineering, it is important to understand how people interpret these labels as it can lead to a greater understanding of how they inform consumer choice. We conducted a survey with 153 biology and environmental studies undergraduate students at Binghamton University in Binghamton, New York, asking questions about participants' views on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and related terminology, corresponding food labels and how these labels influence their purchasing decisions. Results demonstrated a lack of awareness of the bioengineered label compared to the Non-GMO Project verified label. Additionally, individuals associated ‘bioengineered’ and ‘genetically modified’ with differing themes, where ‘bioengineered’ was more often associated with a scientific theme and ‘genetically modified’ was more often associated with an agricultural theme. There was also a discrepancy in how individuals said these labels influenced their purchases vs how the labels actually influenced purchasing decisions when participating in choice experiments. While the majority of participants reported that neither the Non-GMO Project verified label nor the bioengineered label influenced their purchasing decisions, in choice experiments, the majority of respondents chose products with the Non-GMO Project verified label. This study can give insight into overall perceptions of different terminologies associated with genetic engineering, in addition to how these labels are interpreted by consumers, and how they could affect purchasing decisions with the implementation of the new bioengineered label.

Despite the heightened efforts to implement eco-labeling schemes as the market-based vehicle for improving environmental quality, the overall effectiveness of eco-labels are still uncertain due to complex and sometimes unexpected market responses. In this paper, we assess the overall changes in carbon emissions resulting from two types of labeling on fresh apples, carbon labels and location designation labels (e.g., locally grown), both of which can have mixed implications for carbon emissions due to fluctuating supply chain factors. We employ an equilibrium displacement model that integrates existing estimates of differences across production systems, and our own estimates of consumer responses to labels in order to simulate the changes in prices, trade flows and estimate carbon impacts across several scenarios in the US fresh apple market. We find that both labels ultimately affect market outcomes and overall carbon emissions. With location designation labels, consumers’ preference for local products leads to a net decrease in carbon emissions during the local growing season, while the interaction of various market dynamics results in a subsequent net increase in carbon emissions during the local off-season. The interaction of a carbon label with the location label lowers the overall attractiveness of products and reduces the quantity demanded, and thus, reduces the carbon emissions in both seasons. Overall, providing the location designation label increases annual carbon emissions, whereas providing both the location designation and carbon labeling decreases annual emissions. In short, the dynamics and interdependency of labeling strategies are important to consider in the context of eco-labeling.