Purchasing food products at retail no longer involves simply finding the single commodity that is needed. Consumers are increasingly presented with multiple products that fall under numerous brands and labels. The brands and labels are the main form of communication that consumers receive from a product at the time of purchase (Nocella et al., 2010). Numerous cues can be found on the labels of meat items in the retail case and on menus in foodservice, which vary in being both intrinsic and extrinsic to the product. Consumers mainly evaluate a product based on the extrinsic cues available to them to assess quality, however, the cues they use vary based on the type of meat they are purchasing (McIlveen and Buchanan, 2001; Aboah and Lees, 2020). The most recent National Meat Case Study found only 4% of packages to be unbranded in the retail case, which changed from the 2010 study, which found 27% of packages to be unbranded (Kelly, 2016), further highlighting the increased branding and labeling of products currently used to attract consumers at the retail case.

The impact of production practices on the palatability of food products has been extensively studied (Napolitano et al., 2010; Kumpulainen et al., 2018; Bir et al., 2020; Wemette et al., 2021). Several terms, including “organic” and “locally sourced,” have a perceived “halo” effect on food palatability traits, despite the lack of additional quality, taste, or nutritional benefits (Abrams et al., 2010; Bacig and Young, 2019; Gassler et al., 2019). Previous work with meat products has evaluated the impact of some of these cues on consumer eating perceptions. Ron et al. (2019) demonstrated that consumers are influenced in their perception of beef steak palatability when production practice and labeling information is known about the product prior to sample evaluation. Similarly, Wilfong et al. (2016a; 2016b) found consumers to be influenced by brand, fat level, and primal source when they were informed of the products’ attributes prior to testing. However, consumers in these studies evaluated products that represented the various production and quality traits evaluated, leaving the authors to only speculate as to how the impact of inherent quality differences among treatments impacted their results.

Consumer interest in a product is stimulated by the ability of a product to tell a story through its various attributes (Fenger et al., 2015). Although the greatest element for determining consumers’ preference is still taste, brand packaging also has a strong effect on the consumers’ eating experience (Méndez et al., 2011). Consequently, a greater understanding of the impact of labeling and branding on telling the story to the consumer and their subsequent eating experience must be evaluated. Therefore, the objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of providing information via different labeling terms on consumers’ palatability ratings of ground beef of an identical source.

The Institutional Review Board of Kansas State University approved the procedures outlined in this study as project number 7440.7 (February 2, 2021).

Numerous intrinsic cues of a product are balanced with extrinsic cues related to labeling and branding strategies as consumers purchase food products at retail and foodservice (McIlveen and Buchanan, 2001). The main form of communication for meat products comes from cues found on the package and any additional marketing materials present at the time of purchase (Nocella et al., 2010). Increasing consumers’ knowledge of a product is ultimately affected by the advertising of a brand or trait that is meant to stimulate interest in a product (Skipper et al., 1999). To increase consumer interest, a product needs to tell a story through the attributes that appeal to the more natural or authentic side (Fenger et al., 2015). In the current study, the utilization of terms that aid in telling the story of the product were selected based on ground beef labels currently found at retail. Furthermore, the most recent National Meat Case Study from 2015 reported only 4% of products are unbranded at the retail case, indicating the vast number of branding strategies used by companies (Kelly, 2016). The rise in popularity of branded products at retail has accordingly promoted an increase of information for consumers to evaluate.

Within the current study, labeling ground beef as locally sourced increased the consumers’ ratings across the palatability traits evaluated. Undoubtedly, the global events of 2020 and 2021 have garnered much attention to locally sourced foodstuffs given challenges within the supply chain and consumers eating more meals from home (Ijaz et al., 2021). The current study was conducted in the fall of 2020 at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, in which shortages of staple food items were prevalent and many consumers turned to more local sources to find meat and produce items, undoubtedly impacting consumers’ perceptions of this term. Previous research, although not involving meat specifically, found consumers of locally sourced food to view it as healthier, more nutritious, environmentally friendly, and more likely to be from an organic or natural origin (Bacig and Young, 2019). Numerous authors point to their being a perceived quality-enhancing “halo” around products that are locally sourced and thus increasing consumer liking of those products (Khachatryan et al., 2018; Kumpulainen et al., 2018; Bacig and Young, 2019). However, what is defined as local varies greatly by the region and the consumer (Martinez et al., 2010). Local is defined in some USDA programs as being a product that is less than 644 km from the origination of production; however, there is no official USDA designation for local (Tropp, 2015). For our study, the samples were only identified as being locally sourced with no further information given, leaving it to the consumer for interpretation of the meaning of “local.” Furthermore, consumers in the current study identified “locally raised” as being similar in importance to several other animal production claims when asked to rank the importance of traits as they are purchasing ground beef at retail; however, locally sourced increased consumer ratings more so than other traits that were rated as higher in importance.

Labeling ground beef as from an animal raised without added antibiotics tended to have a negative perception and decreased the percentage of samples rated as acceptable for both flavor and overall. Within the literature, authors report varying reasons for consumers choosing to purchase products that are labeled as being antibiotic free (Bir et al., 2020; Wemette et al., 2021). Bir et al. (2020) found consumers willing to pay more for a USDA or industry-verified antibiotic-free product when purchasing cheese. Similarly, Wemette et al. (2021) found consumers had a conviction that animal antibiotic usage posed a risk to their health when they were purchasing milk from cattle raised with the usage of antibiotics. The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) arm of the USDA, which governs labeling, only has the authority to ensure labeling is truthful and accurate and does not have any authority over animal production claims (USDA-FSIS, 2019). Therefore, attaching a raised without added antibiotics claim can be done with minimal documentation and carries little to no credence is some cases in which antibiotic usage is not permitted. Consumers in the present study were more concerned with animal welfare and antibiotic usage labeling than the other production claims evaluated in their initial assessment of the purchasing motivators. Yet, the traits they rated similar to or lower than the antibiotic usage trait had a larger perceived effect on the palatability traits evaluated when samples were assessed.

In the current study, labeling ground beef as grass-fed increased consumer palatability ratings for all traits except for overall liking. Previous studies evaluating grass-fed beef, when quality differences existed, have found many consumers to be varying in their opinion of the flavor and overall liking of grass-fed beef compared with conventionally raised beef (Najar-Villarreal et al., 2019; Ron et al., 2019). Ron et al. (2019) found increases in palatability ratings for grass-fed steaks in comparison with steaks from other production practices, including increases in overall liking due to the product being labeled as grass-fed. Najar-Villarreal et al. (2019) found differing results in a blinded study, with consumers having a greater dislike overall for grass-fed beef over conventional beef. Conversely, Ellison et al. (2017), when evaluating multiple production claims, found consumers to be less worried about grass-fed labeling compared with other production claims. FSIS governs the labeling of grass-fed products, which must be backed up by production records that maintain an animal must be fed only with grass or forage prior to slaughter (USDA-FSIS, 2019). Moreover, grass-fed beef products made up 44 million kg of beef sold at retail in 2020 out of the estimated annual total beef production of 12.4 billion kg, indicating the popularity of grass-fed products to US consumers (Beef Checkoff, 2021). Grass-fed beef tends to come with the perception of having health benefits that consumers are willing to pay a premium for (Umberger et al., 2009; Carabante et al., 2018). Within the current study, consumers also indicated an increased willingness to purchase grass-fed beef in comparison with the other treatments.

Often sorted into the same category as grass-fed by consumers are the labels of all natural and organic. In both cases, a clear definition for what a product must be for such labeling is well defined by the USDA-FSIS. For a product to be labeled as all natural, it cannot have any enhancements or processing beyond the natural state, except for grinding or separating of whole, intact products (USDA-FSIS, 2005). Conversely, to be labeled as USDA Organic, a product must be verified by a third-party auditor as following the organic practices and regulations set forth by USDA in accordance with the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (USDA, 2021). In the current study, a similar effect for both all-natural and organic labeling was observed, with both having a large impact on consumer ratings. One possible explanation for this was reported by Abrams et al. (2010), who found many consumers consider many of the USDA organic standards in their perception of “all natural” and thus considered the all-natural label to be misleading. Two separate studies involving wine found consumers willing to pay a premium for natural and organically labeled wine (Galati et al., 2019; Gassler et al., 2019). Furthermore, Van Loo et al. (2010) found many consumers to view organic as being safer and healthier than a conventionally raised product. Dominick et al. (2018) found similar views from consumers evaluating all-natural labeling and reported a perceived healthy “halo” around all-natural labeling. Although separate in identity, consumers commonly confuse the meaning and perceptions behind natural and organic labeling, which may explain, in the case of our study, why consumers perceived the natural and organic-labeled product as being similar to one another.

Of the claims evaluated by consumers, premium quality is the only cue to not have a specification defined by FSIS (USDA-FSIS, 2020). In recent years, “premium quality” has been employed on package labels to attract consumer attention. Labels indicating a perceived quality level influence the consumer at the time of purchasing when multiple products of similar type are present (Meyerding et al., 2018). Therefore, attaching a statement such as “premium quality” is meant to attract a consumer looking for an item that has a higher quality cue attached. However, in the current study, consumers indicated they were less likely to purchase the premium quality product. Attaching the premium quality label to products allows for a large degree of interpretation by the consumer, and consumers who are not looking for an added level of quality might not receive a product marketed as such as well as those who are seeking an added level of quality. Thus, unlike many of the other labeling terms evaluated, our data indicate premium quality labeling may not be as impactful on consumers’ perceptions of eating quality.

FNF was 1 of 2 cues used that were intrinsic in nature to the product. In order to be labeled as fresh, a product must not have been exposed to temperatures below −2°C and is not altered beyond the fresh state (USDA-FSIS, 2005). Labeling ground beef as FNF had an impact on the overall liking, purchasing intent, and overall acceptability but otherwise was a term considered intermediate in impact. Limited research exists as to US-based consumers’ perception of frozen ground beef product, despite their being offerings of frozen ground beef patties commonly at retail. However, Chinese consumers who evaluated frozen versus fresh pork indicated they would discount frozen product for not being as fresh (Wang et al., 2018). In the US, the popularity of FNF branding has been largely used in foodservice chains but not as extensively in retail.

Studying the impact of branding and labeling on meat products and its subsequent effect on palatability has proven to be challenging and limited in quantity. Previous research evaluating the branding of beef products’ effects on palatability has been conducted on both steaks and ground beef (Wilfong et al., 2016a, 2016b; Ron et al., 2019). However, these studies were conducted in manners in which actual product differences existed, with the exception of Ron et al. (2019). Ron et al. (2019) did falsely inform consumers of the production practices utilized and found increases in consumer ratings of products of differing production claims despite there being no differences in product quality. Comparatively, within the current study, we also found increases in consumer ratings despite their being no differences in the ground beef being consumed. Overall liking and purchasing intent ratings were impacted the most due to labeling, indicating that the impact of labeling influences the overall perception of a product to a larger degree than the individual palatability traits. But in other studies, when evaluating chicken, Samant and Seo (2016) found consumers who had a higher label understanding had an increased perception of the tenderness, juiciness, and flavor of chicken breasts than those who had a low understanding of and trust in the labeling claims. Alternatively, Wilfong et al. (2016b) found an increase in ratings due to informing consumers of the production practice information (Certified Angus Beef) associated with the product being consumed. In that study, a “brand lift” was observed when attaching an additional brand and label to the products being evaluated (Wilfong et al., 2016b). However, the actual product quality differences in their study were present, and quantifying the amount of the increased ratings that were attributed directly to the brand disclosure itself is difficult. Our study did not disclose any brand names but did include terms that aided in telling the story of a product and consequently increasing the marketability of a product. A concern for all branding and marketing terms and the impact they have on consumer perception lies within the accuracy and truthfulness of the claims. Many of the evaluated claims in the current work are regulated by USDA, whereas others are not. Consumers are often reliant upon truthfulness of claims in their assessment of product quality. It is thus paramount that marketing claims are accurate and not misleading to consumers in order to ensure consumer trust and regulatory compliance.

Ultimately, labeling ground beef with various cues aids in telling the story of the product and creating product differentiation in the marketplace. Our study demonstrated that informing consumers of branding information creates a “brand lift,” despite there being no differences in product quality. Claims related to “local” and “grass-fed” were among the terms that had the greatest positive impact on palatability ratings. These results can help retailers and foodservice understand the impact that marketing terms have on beef palatability and can provide insight as to which terms will have the greatest impact on their consumers. Overall, adding production claims that the consumer is familiar with and values can lead to improved palatability perceptions.