Marketing plant‐based versus animal‐sourced foods in online grocery stores: A comparative content analysis of sustainability and other product claims in the United States
分析了美国七家主要在线杂货零售商对植物基和动物源食品的营销声明，发现植物基食品平均有47项声明，动物源食品有28项，且在线信息在不同零售商间差异大，植物基食品侧重可持续性，动物源食品侧重情感诉求。
Abstract The market share of e‐commerce grocery is swiftly rising, but online product listings may present different environmental sustainability and public health information. We analyzed product marketing content available on retailer websites and product images, comparing plant‐based (PBFs) and animal‐sourced foods (ASFs). Over sixteen thousand marketing and labeling content observations were gathered from seven leading U.S. e‐commerce grocery retailers for top‐selling ASFs and closely‐matched PBFs (N = 134; n = 68 PBFs, n = 66 ASFs), including sustainability, mandatory information, health, sourcing, and hedonic/emotional claims. PBFs averaged 47 total claims, ASFs 28. On‐web claims were substantially higher than on‐pack (PBFs 34 on‐web, 12 on‐pack; ASFs 19 and nine, respectively). On‐web information for the same products varied considerably across retailers, especially for sustainability and mandatory information. PBFs presented mostly sustainability claims on‐pack and health claims on‐web. ASFs led emotional claims and made almost no sustainability claims across settings. Across settings, mandatory information compliance was greater among PBFs whereas ASFs notably lacked disclosures for foods with major allergens. Online grocery lacks standardization—businesses should regard differences as opportunities for marketing sustainable foods.