New report: Antibiotic consumer communication – clear or confounding?

Are there simple ways to guide customers towards more antibiotic-smart choices when it comes to purchasing foods like meat, fish, eggs and dairy? Is it possible to speed up the transition towards the responsible use of antibiotics in food production through a consumer-driven demand for better products? A brand new Swedish consumer study from Axfoundation, Coop and the Stockholm School of Economics has looked into just this. The results show that the issue of antibiotics is too complex to convey to customers via a short text at the time of purchase. Efforts to increase customers knowledge ahead of a purchase, however, could have significantly more positive effects. 

The issue of antibiotics is too complex to convey at the time of purchase

Very few studies have previously been conducted on the effects that the different types of antibiotic information have on consumer choices. To investigate the matter more closely, Axfoundation, together with Coop and the Stockholm School of Economics, carried out several tests during 2021–2022 to see how Swedish consumers responded to different short informational texts about that a product has been produced with responsible antibiotic treatment. Such treatment means, for example, that antibiotics are only given to the animals that develop illnesses, and not to an entire group of animals. The conclusion is that the issue of antibiotics is too complex to convey to customers via a short text at the time of purchase. Efforts to increase customers knowledge ahead of a purchase, however, could have significantly more positive effects.

What does ‘antibiotic-free’ actually mean?

Currently, it is difficult for consumers in Sweden to find out exactly if and how animals used for the production of a certain food product have been subject to antibiotic treatment. There is not yet an official labeling practice in Sweden. Instead, everything from ‘antibiotic-free’ to ‘raised without antibiotics’ can be seen on food labels, on for example, meat and fish. Such labels signal that no antibiotics have been used at all in the process, which can be misleading because the best thing from a health and animal welfare perspective is that sick animals are treated with antibiotics but in quarantined until the antibiotics are out of the system and hence will not affect the milk or meat. The issue has recently become highly relevant in connection with Whole Foods being sued for incorrectly using the phrase ‘No Antibiotics, Ever’ in their marketing.

Consumers prefer that no animals receive antibiotics

The conducted tests showed that customers seem to perceive that the less antibiotics used in food production, the better, despite the fact that ‘no antibiotics’ is not the best option from an animal welfare perspective.

“One of the biggest challenges when it comes to informing about responsible antibiotic use is that, according to the tests, consumers prefer meat where it is stated that no animals received antibiotics at all. In animal husbandry this has significant negative consequences for animal welfare because sick animals of course must get treatment. The facts about antibiotics are undeniably complex to communicate to consumers at the point of purchase.” – Maria Lundesjö, Axfoundation

The “disgust mechanism” seems to control customers’ behavior

How is it then, that the option that Swedish consumers react most positively to when purchasing a product is when it is stated that ‘no animals have received antibiotics’? The result can be interpreted through the lens of the ‘disgust mechanism’, which means that humans are equipped with an evolution-based warning system that reacts with negative emotions when there is a risk that something in our vicinity could infect us – even if the risk is non-existent or minimal. The information that sick animals have received antibiotics therefore has the potential to initiate a reasoning in the recipient, which may mean that they question, for example, ‘could the meat product I eat come from a sick animal?’ or ‘am I ingesting antibiotics when I eat this?’ This can, during later stages of the receiver’s information processing journey, make the attitude towards the product more negative.

“It is difficult to say what goes through the mind of a recipient who reads a short text stating that only sick animals have been treated with antibiotics based on the consumer tests that have been carried out. We have also not tested what kind of response a simpler label “Antibiotic smart choice” would have, but it can be assumed here though that some type of disgust-related reaction would also be set in motion. Further studies would need to focus more on questions such as: what conceptions can such information activate?” – Magnus Söderlund, professor of business administration with a focus on marketing at the Stockholm School of Economics.

Difficult to communicate at the time of purchase – educational efforts are needed

In order to create genuinely positive consumer reactions to information that explains a process where only sick animals are given antibiotic treatment, more extensive information would probably be needed than what can fit on a package or what is possible to present as product information on an e-commerce site. Even if the survey shows that the antibiotic issue is complex and difficult to convey to customers at the moment of purchase, the tests also indicated that information efforts that can be made in advance to increase consumers’ knowledge could have significantly more positive effects.

“This study has given us in-depth knowledge of consumer communication linked to antibiotic use. We see that there are both difficulties and opportunities. For me, it is clear that going forward we need to work above all with long-term knowledge-enhancing information. We need to continue to educate consumers about how the food has been produced so they can make well-informed choices.” – Mattis Bergquist, head of sustainability at Coop and participant in the study