Animal Charity Evaluators’ Better for Animals: Evidence-Based Insights for Effective Animal Advocacy resource is an ongoing project in which we distill key research on different animal advocacy interventions to help us evaluate their impact in different contexts. We have made this research publicly available to support informed decision making about how to help the most animals. You may read more about the methodology in our recent announcement.
This is a living document and we want to make it as helpful, accessible, and up-to-date as possible, so please feel free to reach out with feedback! To keep up to date with ACE’s research and the work of the amazing organizations that we support, be sure to sign up for our mailing list.
To help make this information more accessible to a wide range of audiences, we are spotlighting one intervention each month through a series of social media and blog posts spotlighting one intervention each month. This month—for the 4th edition—we are focusing on the evidence around Product Labeling and Certification.
Intervention Spotlight #41: Product Labeling and Certification
What is this intervention?
This category refers to programs or schemes to label or certify products as vegan or vegetarian, as well as cruelty-free, eco/climate, health, and higher-welfare labeling and certification schemes. These programs aim to use labels or certifications to increase or decrease the visibility, demand, and consumption of certain products or menu items. Examples of tactics include launching labelling schemes; campaigning for new products to receive veg*n/plant-based labels; and lobbying brands to commit to labeling their products.
What is our overall assessment of this intervention? How confident are we in this assessment?
Product labels generally fall into three categories: ingredient-based (e.g., “veg*n” or “plant-based”), environmental (e.g. “low-emission”), and welfare-based (e.g. “cage-free”). Studies on ingredient-based labels show mixed results, with most evidence suggesting no or limited impact on reducing animal product consumption. Research on environmental labels suggests that there is a significant risk of these shifting consumption from higher-emitting animal products (e.g., beef) to lower-emitting animal products (e.g., chicken), with no increase in the consumption of plant-based products, resulting in more suffering due to the small animal replacement problem. Almost half of consumers state being willing to pay more for products with labels indicating higher animal welfare, and these do appear to shift increase consumer demand in some contexts, but their effectiveness is reduced by humane-washing (i.e., deceptive labels), the large number of different labels, consumers’ lack of trust in the labels, confusion about their meaning, and consumers’ price sensitivity.
We think that ingredient-based and environmental product labeling appears to be a less promising tactic than others we reviewed due to the evidence suggesting no or limited impact on consumer behavior and the risk of harm when labels are tied to environmental impacts. However, animal-welfare labels appear to be a more promising tactic given research indicates consumers’ concern for animal welfare, their willingness to pay more for high-welfare products, and case studies of this translating into increasing demand for high-welfare products. These are broad, preliminary assessments and we expect the effectiveness of any intervention to vary significantly depending on the context and the approach taken; see below for further details.
We believe this intervention is likely stronger when:
Labels are tested and tailored to context, since effectiveness varies by country and audience.
Campaigns account for consumer segments, focusing on less price-sensitive groups for welfare labels, and probably pairing with national schemes to raise perceived value.
The environmental label is simplified, avoiding multiple or conflicting schemes that can dilute impact.
Conversely, the intervention is likely weaker, or may have unintended negative consequences, when:
Strategies assume one label term will work everywhere, instead of adapting to local preferences and testing.
Environmental labels insufficiently address the risks of steering choices toward lower-emission animals (e.g., chicken or fish) rather than plant-based products, risking small-animal replacement.
Multiple or conflicting labels (e.g., eco vs. nutrition scores) appear together, reducing clarity and effectiveness.
Our confidence in these assessments is moderate. Most cited studies are recent and peer-reviewed, including several randomized controlled trials (RCTs). However, a significant portion of the research measures purchase intent, which may not translate directly to real-world purchasing behavior. Furthermore, studies about the longer term effects of labels are lacking, and most of the studies were conducted in Europe and the U.S., limiting generalizability.
The effectiveness of this intervention is likely to vary across countries, products, and audiences. Some labels appear to resonate more with certain groups — for example, neutral terms or phrases like “healthy and sustainable” tend to be more appealing to meat-eaters than labels such as “vegan” or “plant-based”. We therefore think that further research is warranted, especially into how effectiveness varies between countries and products, and how different labels can be more effective for different consumer segments.
What does the research say about how effective this intervention is?
Veg*n labels
The results of a U.S. retrospective study by Faunalytics suggest that while vegan/plant-based labels are one of the most common types of intervention (experienced by 83% of participants), relatively few people (25%) consider them to have reduced their animal product consumption. Note that this study relies on self-report data, and that some of the responses may also have been influenced by availability bias, a form of memory error in which more memorable experiences are more likely to be remembered.
A 2024 Brazil online study found that labeling a cheese alternative as a ‘plant-based product’ had no significant effect on the probability of participants choosing it (out of two products) during a discrete choice experiment. Note, however, that this online experiment may not generalize to real-world behavior. The researchers also conducted an eye-tracking study, the results of which indicate that the ‘plant-based’ label triggered multiple revisitations. This led to a subtle reduction in choice probability, suggesting potential consumer confusion or hesitation.
Several studies that assess the effectiveness of labeling veg*n items on menus found that labels don’t seem to be an effective strategy for increasing demand or purchase intent for those meals:
A U.S. study with three randomized controlled experiments showed that the veg*n menu item was preferred by participants when it was unlabeled, and when it was labeled the other option was instead preferred. In the two field experiments, participants were asked to choose between a vegan and a vegetarian option. All options contained a description of the ingredients, while the labeled form contained a “vegan” label. The vegan option was preferred by participants who saw the unlabeled form. In contrast, participants who saw the labeled form preferred the vegetarian option instead. In the online experiment, participants were asked to select between two options, one vegan and the other vegetarian or with meat. Overall they found labels had a negative impact on choices. Note that these experiments only included “vegan” labels and didn’t include “plant-based” labels.
An online study involving a representative sample of Danish meat-eaters found that neutral labeling (i.e., with no explicit indication that a dish does not contain meat) of a vegan dish increased the likelihood of participants selecting that dish compared to explicit labeling (i.e., vegetarian, meat-free, vegan, or plant-based). Participants were 2.6 times more likely to select the dish under neutral labeling than under explicit labeling. Additionally, the researchers found that “meat-reducers” were as likely to choose a neutrally labeled vegetarian dish as an explicitly labeled one. Note that real food consumption was not measured.
As for effects of veg*n labels on consumers’ attitudes, several studies found that a veg*n label increases a product’s perceived healthiness and sustainability:
A 2024 Dutch experiment, that randomly labeled meat substitutes vegetarian or meat products, found that participants in the vegetarian label condition perceived the products as significantly healthier and more sustainable than the meat label condition. However, the product quality evaluation (taste, appetizing, texture, and general product evaluation) was not significantly different between the meat and vegetarian label conditions.
A U.K.-based online study found that consumers perceived burgers and nuggets labeled as plant-based to be significantly healthier than unlabeled burgers and nuggets.
Two online studies show that vegetarian burgers were perceived as being lower in calories than their non-vegetarian equivalents.
Climate labels
A few experimental studies found that labels focused on the environmental impact of veg*n products are effective at reducing the demand for meat or reducing meat consumption or purchase intent:
An online China experimental study found that food identity labels (i.e., indicating environmental, health, and animal welfare benefits) successfully decreased the demand for traditional pork products while increasing the relative demand for plant-based and cultured pork. Note that this study only measured demand rather than actual purchases.
An RCT conducted in a virtual reality supermarket showed that the environmental label significantly reduced the environmental impact of food choices by encouraging shifts (specifically from meat to plant-based items) at no nutritional, financial or hedonic cost.
An online experimental U.S. study where participants were randomly assigned to one of four conditions to test two different factors: label type (carbon footprint vs. control) and burger type (beef vs. plant-based) found that there was a positive effect of carbon footprint labels on perceived sustainability. While the carbon footprint label had no direct impact on purchase intent, researchers suggest a mediation effect, where the labels influence purchase intention through perceived environmental sustainability. Additionally, they suggest that this mediation effect is stronger for the beef burger than the plant-based burger. Note that the researchers only measured purchase intent rather than actual purchases.
However, other experimental studies (mostly focused on menu items) found that environmental labels are ineffective, and may even be harmful in terms of animal welfare:
A 2025 RCT that aimed to test the effects of ecolabels on the environmental impact of hot meal items purchased at worksite cafeterias found no significant effect of the intervention on the environmental impact of meals sold.
In contrast, a study of Swedish and Danish ferry passengers found that while introducing carbon labels did not affect overall shares of plant- or meat-based meals, it did achieve a reduction in CO2 through shifts in the direction of lower-emitting meat and fish meals. This likely worsened outcomes for animals, due to the small animal replacement problem. (See “Under what conditions is this intervention more or less effective” below.)
Similarly, one Swedish study found that the traffic light carbon label increases the willingness to purchase lower-emissions protein products such as chicken and meat substitutes, especially among consumers who are already highly sustainable purchasers. As with the previous study, there is a risk that this would worsen outcomes for animals because of the small animal replacement problem.
Warning labels
We also found a few studies suggesting that using warning labels on meat meals can be effective at increasing intentions to reduce meat consumption:
An online RCT study (involving a U.K. nationally representative sample) found that all warning labels on meat meals in their experiment (i.e., health label, climate label, and pandemic label) reduced the proportion of meat meals selected significantly compared to the control group, with reductions ranging from -7.4% to -10%. Note that the study didn’t include an animal welfare warning label. A follow-up study by the same researchers found similar results (a 9.2% or 9.8% reduction in meat meal selection) when labels focused on effects of climate labels alone. Additionally, note that because they didn’t distinguish between types of meats, there might be a risk of small animal replacement which can worsen the outcomes for animals.
Another study showed that graphic health warning labels can indirectly influence people’s intentions to reduce their meat consumption by producing feelings of disgust, although that effect is insignificant. However, these graphic labels can also provoke backlash by making people feel manipulated, which can reduce their intention to decrease meat consumption.
Welfare labels
A 2024 German study found that animal welfare labels increased the share of households’ meat purchases with the highest animal welfare standards by 2.19 percentage points for the average German household; at the same time, the willingness to pay for these standards increased by 0.31 EUR/500g. Younger participants showed the strongest response to the animal welfare labels.
Several studies suggest that consumers support animal welfare labels and are willing to pay more for products with animal welfare labels:
A study suggested that U.S. residents favor mandatory labels disclosing the use of gestation crates (stalls) for pigs and cages for laying hens and would be willing to pay about 20% higher pork and egg prices to gain access to this specific production information.
A more recent experiment found that there is a willingness to pay for an animal welfare label that is not affected on average by an additional tax.
A survey in Australia found that providing consumers with additional information about the welfare conditions behind on-package animal welfare labels substantially increased their willingness to buy products associated with higher than conventional animal welfare standards.
According to a survey of UK consumers, 91% of respondents supported animal welfare labels on animal products, with 63% considering themselves ‘very supportive’.
A survey of Canadian consumers found that their egg purchasing decisions are driven by animal welfare concerns, even to the extent of accepting higher prices for perceived higher welfare. However, the study also revealed that consumers are frequently misled by egg packaging and labels, resulting in inaccurate beliefs about hen welfare conditions and, consequently, more expensive, misinformed purchases. Note that this is a self-report survey and therefore actual purchases were not measured.
Similarly, a Faunalytics study found that while U.S. adults are concerned about animal welfare, and rely on product packaging for relevant information, they generally do not have a strong understanding of what animal welfare labels mean and are susceptible to misleading welfare claims. To counter this, Faunalytics recommends educating consumers about animal welfare certifications, creating a single go-to welfare certification (similar to “USDA Organic”), and working to ban deceptive welfare claims.
A study in four European countries (Finland, the Netherlands, Spain, and Italy) that questioned 2.433 consumers to explore the barriers to the effectiveness of labels found that while there are variations in opinions across countries and consumer groups, some issues still persist. These issues include (i) low consumer trust in the labels, (ii) market saturation due to the excessive number of labels, (iii) consumer confusion regarding label meanings, (iv) difficulties balancing animal welfare labels with product price, (v) a lack of consistency between animal welfare standards and consumers’ personal beliefs about animal welfare, and (vi) limitations in the animal-based sectors’ capacity to innovate animal welfare labeling practices.
According to a U.K. consumer study, price-sensitive consumers – who are over half of consumers – demonstrate virtually no willingness to pay extra for products with animal welfare labeling.
Cost effectiveness
We found no cost-effectiveness estimates on product labeling.
Strength of evidence
Most cited studies are recent and peer-reviewed, including several randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which strengthens the methodological robustness of some findings.
However, the overall number of experimental studies is relatively small, limiting the generalizability and certainty of conclusions.
Several studies rely on self-reported or retrospective data, which are subject to recall bias and social desirability bias.
Some studies don’t differentiate between different types of meat which makes it difficult to rule out a risk of small animal replacement.
A significant portion of the research measures purchase intent rather than actual purchasing behavior, which may not translate directly to real-world impact.
There is variation in labeling terminology tested across studies (e.g., “vegan” vs “plant-based” vs “healthy”), which complicates synthesis and comparison of results.
The long-term effects of labeling interventions remain underexplored; most studies assess short-term or one-time responses.
Under what conditions is this intervention more or less effective?
Veg*n labels
The choice of language (e.g., “plant-based” vs. “vegan”) influences effectiveness, although study results are inconsistent:
“Plant-based” appears more effective than “vegan.” An online study targeting U.K. students found in their experiments that the label “plant-based” outperformed the label “vegan” by 9 percentage points. Another online survey targeting populations in the U.S. and Germany found that the ‘plant-based’ label was slightly more appealing to participants than the ‘vegetarian’ and ‘vegan’ labels. Similarly, a 2025 Serbian online survey found no difference in effect between “plant-based” and “vegan” labels on the preference for plant-based products, but a laboratory experiment in which participants tasted plant-based foods with different labels found a slight preference for products labeled “plant-based.”
In contrast, results of a field experiment in a U.S. university, tracking over 150,000 real-world consumer decisions, found that menu items were 23-24% more likely to sell when they were labeled as vegetarian/vegan than when they were labeled as plant-based. While this is a large sample size, the study was limited to one restaurant on one U.S. university campus, and therefore may not be generalizable.
“Healthy and sustainable” appears more effective than “vegan” and “plant-based.” An RCT study found that the food option without meat and dairy was less likely to be chosen when it was labeled “vegan” (selected by 20% of participants) or “plant-based” (selected by 27% of participants), and more likely to be chosen when it was labeled “healthy” (selected by 42%), or “healthy and sustainable” (selected by 43%). This labeling effect was stronger among self-proclaimed red-meat eaters.
Neutral labeling appears more effective than explicit labeling. In a Danish study, participants were 2.6 times more likely to select the vegan dish under neutral labeling (e.g., an asterisk with information elsewhere on the menu card that the meal is suitable for vegetarians) than under explicit labeling (i.e., vegetarian, meat-free, vegan, or plant-based).
Abstract labels (e.g., “meat-free” or “dairy-free”) appear more appealing than concrete (e.g., “plant-based” or “lentil-based”) labels. A 2025 study of British consumers tested how different front-of-pack descriptors influenced appeal and associated taste, health, and sustainability expectations, finding that foods described with high levels of abstraction were the most appealing and perceived as tastiest. (Perceptions of health and sustainability differed little depending on the descriptor.) Note that this study did not investigate “vegan” or “vegetarian” labels.
A study examining the influence of vegan labeling on product perception and consumption intentions found that labeling “unexpected vegan products” (i.e., products that are not expected to be vegan by default) affects perceived healthiness and sustainability (positively), and expected taste (negatively). This effect was absent for “expected vegan products” i.e., when consumers already assumed the products were vegan. Examples of expected vegan products are glazed products and several alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages, and examples of unexpected vegan products are products made of dough or containing chocolate.
Climate labels
Where possible, lengthier informational labels may be more effective than simple identification labels. A Danish study of real purchasing behavior at three educational context canteens investigated the effects of an intervention combining an increased number of plant-based options with informational messages about the environmental benefits of reducing meat consumption. The study found an increase of 38% in plant-based meal sales alongside a decrease of 19% in meat-based sales after introducing the intervention. However, it is difficult to untangle the effects of the labels and messaging from those of increasing plant-based options.
A cross-country survey of 6,500 consumers in several Western European countries, the U.S., and China found the consumers’ interest in sustainable certifications for food vary with country, gender and age. For example, U.S. men showed a greater interest in sustainability certifications for cheese, cured meats, and produce than participants in the other five countries. Similarly, Chinese consumers—across all genders and age groups—consistently reported higher interest in certifications for these products as well as for pork and beef.
Environmental labels risk worsening outcomes for farmed animals as a result of the small animal replacement problem. A study of Swedish and Danish ferry passengers found that introducing carbon labels did not affect overall shares of plant- or meat-based meals; however, it did achieve a reduction in CO2 through shifts in the direction of lower-emitting meat and fish meals.
A Belgian study found that conflicting labels (Eco- and Nutri-scores) reduced consumers’ perceived environmental impact of food products. This highlights the risk of reduced efficacy where other (potentially conflicting) labels are present.
Animal welfare labels
A 2023 study of British consumers found that just over half of consumers fall into a “price-sensitive class,” who are not willing to pay extra for an animal welfare label. The same survey found that even among those willing to pay extra, dedicated animal welfare labels elicited a smaller premium than those for a national farming scheme, suggesting that for those willing to pay more for meat, local support and ethnocentric priorities (i.e., the belief that one’s own country or culture is superior to others, particularly regarding products and services) may take precedence over animal welfare concerns.
Our priorities for improving this evidence review
To improve future iterations of this review, we plan to:
Incorporate additional high-quality experimental studies, especially randomized controlled trials that track real purchasing behavior rather than intentions or self-reports.
Expand coverage to include more non-Western and low-/middle-income countries, improving the global relevance of the summary.
Search for cost-effectiveness analyses or related implementation data (e.g. costs of certification, scalability barriers).
Seek out longitudinal studies that examine the durability of labeling effects over time.
Include research on unintended consequences, such as whether labeling leads to moral licensing or increased complacency among consumers.
Include research on other types of labels such as organic labels and cruelty-free labels.
Review evidence on industry responses to labeling schemes, including reformulation, lobbying, or co-opting of certification systems.
Last updated Dec 19, 2025
We would like to thank Samuel Mazzarella for his editing and feedback, and Claire Demontreuil for her helpful feedback as peer-reviewer for the veg*n labels sections.
Leave a comment
