Marketers present a wide assortment of information on food product packaging. In fact, package labels are one of the most effective ways for marketers to communicate both brand and product benefits to consumers (Swahn et al. 2012). Information presented on packaged food products typically consists of descriptions of product contents (e.g., angus beef, chik'n, allwhite meat), product claims (e.g., great tasting), and front-of-package (FOP) processing (e.g., all natural, GMO free) and nutrition claims. The presentation of information on the front of product packages provides an efficient way for manufacturers to communicate and reinforce the product's market positioning (Lim et al. 2020; Mookerjee, Cornil, and Hoegg 2021). This research focuses on a novel type of processing claim, that is, a claim that informs consumers that the food product was produced using cell culture biotechnology. Advancements in cellular agriculture have made it possible to produce foods of animal origin by growing a small sample of living animal cells in a controlled environment. The use of biotechnology to produce novel foods is not only an issue that is practically relevant to both marketers and policy makers, it also provides an opportunity to make important contributions to the marketing literature. First, this research adds to the extant FOP labeling and health halo/horn effect literatures. While extensive research has examined how food labels (e.g., low calorie) influence consumers' ratings of unrelated product characteristics, the primary focus of much of this research has been on health halo effects (Fernan, Schuldt, and Niederdeppe 2018). With several notable exceptions (Burton et al. 2015), researchers have largely ignored health horn effects, the counterpart of halo effects, which occur when consumers overestimate the overall negativity of a product based on a single negative claim or attribute (e.g., contains artificial colors). Given that this research examines the potential negative influence of biotech-food processing claims, it adds to our understanding of health horn effects. Second, both implicit and explicit biotech-food bias are examined. Past research has generally focused on explicit attitudes rather than on implicit attitudes towards food products. Explicit attitudes are typically easier to measure than implicit attitudes because implicit attitudes are evaluations that are automatically retrieved (Fazio 2007; Gawronski and Bodenhausen 2006) whereas explicit attitudes are constructed through cognitive elaboration processes researchers with insight into the strength of the association between implicit and explicit bias against unfamiliar food products. Third, the research paradigm used to assess the influence of FOP information on consumers' product evaluations and purchase intentions typically focuses on the direct, indirect, and moderated effects of a single front-of-package claim or content label. For notable exceptions see (Newman, Howlett, and Burton 2016; Rybak et al. 2021). For example, Keller et al. (1997) assessed how the main and interactive effects of a product content claim, product healthfulness, and motivation to process nutrition information influenced nutrition and product attitudes, credibility, and purchase intentions. More recently, Cook and her colleagues (Cook, Burton, and Howlett 2013) examined the main and interactive effects of product content information (i.e., lean-to-fat ratios) and Nutrition Facts panel information on consumers' perceptions of disease risk, product healthfulness, and evaluations of nutrient content. The present research considers the direct, indirect, and interactive effects of two different types of FOP information, a product content label and a processing claim. This approach not only better reflects actual market conditions, it also makes a methodological contribution to the literature by testing a parallel mediation model that assesses the relative strength of a processing claim versus a product content label (Rybak et al. 2021). Finally, this research examines acceptance of biotech foods when a consumer's ontological security, defined as "a sense of continuity and order in events" (Giddens 1991), is threatened. Research shows that consumers use food to distract themselves from, compensate for, or cope with negative affect such as stress, anxiety, frustration, sadness, boredom, depression, and fatigue (Wallis and Hetherington 2004). Other research found that positive emotions can affect preference for familiar foods, indulgent foods, and avoidance of healthy foods (Winterich and Haws 2011). Some threat-based works also link mortality salience threat with reduced preference for indulgent foods when food is an important source of self-esteem (Ferraro, Shiv, and Bettman 2005; Mandel and Smeesters 2008). However, to our knowledge, prior research has not examined the influence of ontological threat on consumer acceptance of novel, bio-tech foods. The results of five studies provide insight into factors that influence consumers' acceptance of novel food products. The main, moderating, and mediating effects of product processing claims (i.e., cell-based meat, cultured meat), product claims (i.e., safe), individual differences (i.e., food technology neophobia), and choice context (i.e., biotech food-knowledge, threats to ontological security) are tested. Results show that consumers have a more positive response to food produced using cell culture technology when the processing claim identifies the product as clean rather than as cell-cultured such that products with the clean claim are perceived to be a) more healthful and b) better tasting. Consumers also report c) more positive attitudes towards the producer, d) a greater willingness to pay for the product, and e) higher purchase intentions. As predicted, participants who were high in food technology neophobia evaluated the product more negatively than participants with low. Results further indicate that labeling the product as "Clean" rather than "Cell-cultured" increases product evaluations when food technology neophobia is high rather than low. Notably, there is no main effect of safety claim and education intervention on product evaluations. However, the interaction between a safety claim and consumer knowledge influenced perceived healthfulness, purchase intention, attitude towards product, and taste perception. Safety claim has a positive effect on product related perceptions and purchase intention only when consumers are educated about the product. Results also suggest that safety claim without educational intervention backfires. Finally, when experiencing ontological threat, consumers are more reluctant to adopt novel biotech foods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]