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: Change 'authoritarian' football culture to produce future stars, says research

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

Male-biased tweeting

17 hours ago

Today women take an active part in public life. Without a doubt, they also converse with other women. In fact, they even talk to each other about other things besides men. As banal as it sounds, this is far ...

Developing nations ride a motorcycle boom

18 hours ago

Asia's rapidly developing economies should prepare for a full-throttle increase in motorcycle numbers as average incomes increase, a new study from The Australian National University has found.

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.

More news stories

Male-biased tweeting

Today women take an active part in public life. Without a doubt, they also converse with other women. In fact, they even talk to each other about other things besides men. As banal as it sounds, this is far ...

Not just the poor live hand-to-mouth

When the economy hits the skids, government stimulus checks to the poor sometimes follow. Stimulus programs—such as those in 2001, 2008 and 2009—are designed to boost the economy quickly by getting cash ...

Archaeologists, tribe clash over Native remains

Archaeologists and Native Americans are clashing over Indian remains and artifacts that were excavated during a construction project in the San Francisco Bay Area, but then reburied at an undisclosed location.

FDA proposes first regulations for e-cigarettes

The federal government wants to prohibit sales of electronic cigarettes to minors and require approval for new products and health warning labels under regulations being proposed by the Food and Drug Administration.

Brazil enacts Internet 'Bill of Rights'

Brazil's president signed into law on Wednesday a "Bill of Rights" for the digital age that aims to protect online privacy and promote the Internet as a public utility by barring telecommunications companies ...

Vermont moves toward labeling of GMO foods

Vermont lawmakers have passed the country's first state bill to require the labeling of genetically modified foods as such, setting up a war between the behemoth U.S. food industry and an American public that overwhelmingly ...