The ethical labeling paradox How the positive framing of animal welfare labels inadvertently promotes value-inconsistent choices

Animal welfare labels on meat products are intended to help people who care about animal welfare to make value-consistent choices, by allowing them to identify and select products with higher animal welfare standards. Most animal welfare labels are framed positively, where a higher score implies higher animal welfare. We argue this positive frame may inadvertently promote value-inconsistent choices among people with animal welfare values and paradoxically normalize current high levels of meat consumption. We call this the ethical labeling paradox. Using online experiments set in a hypothetical country context (Geopoeia), this research examines when and how the ethical labeling paradox arises. We use the lens of cognitive dissonance theory and explore the role of social norms. In Study 1 (N = 1229), we found that a negatively framed animal welfare label, relative to a positively framed label, increased dissonance and led to less denial of animal suffering and a 10% reduction in meat selection. Moreover, we found that social norms, in addition to moral norms, help explain how the ethical labeling paradox unfolds. Study 2 (N = 1242) shows that the effect of label framing on social norms, and a marginal effect on food choice, only persisted when the label was supported (vs. opposed) by the government. This suggests that governmental support plays a key role in whether negative label framing can reduce the ethical labeling paradox. Taken together we conclude that rethinking labeling strategies is needed to support value-consistent food choices.