Consumers misunderstand 'cruelty-free' labeled products, researchers find

Mar 28, 2012

Based on a recent study, University of Missouri and Oregon researchers believe a legal definition for what constitutes "cruelty-free" labeled products should be determined and manufacturers should be required to abide by the legal use of the label. Many consumers intentionally buy products manufactured in ways that do not exploit child labor or cause minimal harm to animals or the environment. Many businesses, such as shampoo, cosmetic, fragrance and pharmaceutical companies, use the term cruelty-free to attract buyers, giving consumers the impression that no animal testing was used while manufacturing and testing the products. However, that is not always the case.

"Because there is no legal standard for what is and isn't cruelty-free, consumers are vulnerable to deceptive advertising," said Joonghwa Lee, a at the University of Missouri School of Journalism. "A company may claim their product is cruelty-free, but there still may be some done somewhere along the . This could lead to consumers being tricked into buying that they do not support."

During the study, Lee and lead author Kim Sheehan, a professor in the University of Oregon School of Journalism and Communication, conducted an asking participants about their knowledge of cruelty-free labeled products. The participants were then given information from a New York Times article describing the ambiguous nature of cruelty-free labeled products.

"Participants in our study who recognized the term cruelty-free indicated that they would be more likely to buy products that were cruelty-free and they had much more toward brands that advertised themselves as cruelty-free," Lee said. "However, once the participants learned the wide range of definitions that exist for cruelty-free products, they found using the cruelty-free designation to be less socially responsible and less safe than they did before learning that information."

Sheehan and Lee say their findings are concerning in regard to consumer protection. They say that because they have shown that consumers are willing to spend money on products that are cruelty-free, even if they don't understand that those products aren't always completely free of animal testing, the door is opened for product unethical business and advertising practices. Sheehan and Lee believe there should be a legal definition for what constitutes a cruelty-free product to help protect consumers.

"Our study shows that consumers rely on their own personal moral values to make decisions," Sheehan said. "If the product information consumers receive is misleading, then they are not able to make important decisions in ways that they would consider morally correct. Creating a legal standard to define terms like cruelty-free will aid consumers in making the best decisions for themselves and their families."

Explore further: Personalized advertising attracts more attention, makes the contents of ads easier to remember

More information: This study was presented at the American Academy of Advertising 2012 Annual Conference.

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Buying 'legal highs' from the Internet is a risky business

May 20, 2011

Many drugs sold as 'legal highs' on the internet do not contain the ingredients they claim. Some instead contain controlled substances and are illegal to sell over the internet. These are findings of Dr. Mark Baron, who bought ...

Recommended for you

Why are UK teenagers skipping school?

Dec 18, 2014

Analysis of the results of a large-scale survey reveals the extent of truancy in English secondary schools and sheds light on the mental health of the country's teens.

Fewer lectures, more group work

Dec 18, 2014

Professor Cees van der Vleuten from Maastricht University is a Visiting Professor at Wits University who believes that learning should be student centred.

User comments : 1

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

that_guy
not rated yet Mar 28, 2012
"This cruelty free banana tastes so much better than the regular banana"

Oh...you just cut the banana in half and labeled on half "cruelty free?"

There are only three things that I moderately trust on the packaging. The name, the nutrition, and the ingredients. And even those things are not always reliable.

Unless the government holds a company legally liable to the truth (like listing correct nutritional values) then a company will say anything it wants, with no regard to what it should mean.

IF you are so concerned with this aspect or that aspect of your product, you should research the product yourself, instead of sheeping your way along, believing every big red word on the box.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.