Chemical pesticides are a serious impediment to agricultural sustainability. A large-scale reduction in their use to secure food supplies requires more innovative and flexible production systems. Pesticide-free production standards bring together the strengths of all participants in the food value chain and could be the catalyst for this transition. Using a choice experiment approach and green tea as an example, this study investigated consumers’ preferences for organic and pesticide-free labels. According to the findings, organic and pesticide-free labels and brands are all major factors that affect consumers’ purchase decisions. Consumers are more willing to pay for organic labels than pesticide-free labels. There is a substitution effect between organic labels and pesticide-free labels. Complementary effects exist between organic labels and national brands, pesticide-free labels, and national brands. Consumer trust has an impact on consumers’ choice of organic labels and pesticide-free labels. The use of pesticide-free labels is an alternate approach for small- and medium-sized businesses in a specific market to lower the cost of organic certification.

(1) Background: Obesity has become a global epidemic that arouse much attention from governments, companies and scholar. Physical activity calorie equivalent (PACE) labels are introduced as a more effective nudge invention on less-calorie ordering. However, the effects of PACE labels are controversial in previous literature, thus, the research objective is to explore the effects of different PACE labels and furtherly to explore the underlying psychological mechanism; (2) Methods: Across four scenario-based experiments, involving potato chips, chocolate and cookies, this study manipulated the three calorie-information labeling (standard calorie label, long time PACE and short time PACE labels). Meanwhile, the mediating mechanism of the effects involving anticipatory guilt and the moderation effects between consumers’ future self-continuity and PACE labels are also measured; (3) Results: Results show that compared with the short time PACE and calorie labels, the longtime PACE labels have more negative influence on consumers’ purchase intention for unhealthy food. What’s more, the anticipatory guilt has negative effect of PACE labels as consumers are often prone to feeling guilty in the process of unhealthy food consumption. In addition, individuals with high future self-continuity have higher self-control and take more consideration of future outcomes, they are reluctant to choose unhealthy food than others; (4) Conclusions: Unhealthy food with a long time PACE label has more negative effect on consumers’ purchase intention rather than a short time PACE label. At the same time, companies that produce healthy foods should actively participate in the movement to label calories through the PACE labels.

(1) Background: To prevent excessive caloric intake, a food labeling strategy is widely adopted by governments. Physical activity calorie equivalent (PACE) labels prove to be effective in reducing calorie intake. However, previous literature has mainly discussed the effect of PACE labels on consumers’ purchase intention for high-calorie foods but has not analyzed whether consumers evaluate food brands negatively after inhibiting the consumers’ purchase intention for high-calorie foods. Therefore, the aims of this study are to explore the negative effects of PACE labels on consumers’ food brand evaluation and the underlying psychological mechanism. (2) Methods: This study manipulated the two calorie-information labeling (standard calorie label and PACE labels) in two studies, involving potato chips and chocolate products. It also adopted a prevention focus and anticipated enjoyment of food consumption variables to detect the moderation effects between consumers’ promotion focus and PACE labels. (3) Results: Results show that compared with calorie labels, PACE labels have a more negative influence on consumers’ food brand evaluation. Furthermore, consumers stimulated by PACE labels develop a stronger prevention focus, thereby reducing their anticipated enjoyment of food brands, and ultimately leading to lower brand evaluations. In addition, when consumers have a promotion focus before choosing food, PACE labels cannot reduce their anticipated enjoyment and food brand evaluation for food brands. (4) Conclusions: While focusing on the negative effect of PACE labels on consumers’ purchase intention for high-calorie foods, it should also be noted that PACE labels have a negative effect on food brand evaluation. Therefore, food enterprises should try their best to activate consumers’ promotion focus through various environmental cues, so as to avoid a double negative effect on consumers’ food purchases and brand evaluations.