Improving consumer understanding of pesticide toxicity labels: experimental evidence

Abstract

Abstract Consumers often inadvertently misperceive the health hazards associated with over-the-counter pesticides under the current textual labeling policy, potentially leading to improper use. We conducted an incentivized framed field experiment with eye tracking to evaluate the effectiveness of the current pesticide labels that convey risk using signal words (Caution, Warning, Danger) compared to two visually focused label alternatives: traffic light colors and skull intensity symbols. A total of 166 participants were randomly assigned to one of three label formats and asked to rank toxicity levels and make purchasing decisions within multiple price lists. Results show that signal words fail to adequately communicate toxicity levels. Specifically, participants’ correct assessment of toxicity level dramatically improves from 54% under the existing signal word label to 95% under the traffic light and 83% under the skull intensity symbol labels. We also find that participants are more likely to choose the less toxic alternatives under the new labels, suggesting the current labeling system may affect choice and have unintended adverse effects on human health.