Previous research indicates that consumers expect substantially higher eating quality in pork that was produced in organic and free-range systems. Sensory studies and comparisons of objective quality suggest that these expectations are not completely realistic: in most cases, the performance of organic and free-range pork is equal to, and in some times even lower than that of conventional pork. However, consumers' expectations may be so strong that they may override differences in experienced quality. An experiment was conducted with 185 consumers to separate these effects and estimate their relative size. Each participant tasted eight pork chop samples. These samples varied on two factors: actual meat type, and label information. The factors were completely crossed in a factorial design. The actual meat types were (a) conventional and (b) organic pork, both from pigs of a Duroc crossbreed. Under the conventional system, pigs had been reared indoors and fed conventional concentrate ad lib. Under the organic system, pigs had been reared indoors with access to an outdoor area at an organic farm, and fed organic concentrate and red clover silage ad lib. The four label information conditions were (a) organic pork, (b) free-range pork, (c) conventional pork, and (d) no information. Samples were prepared at a sensory lab following a standardised protocol. Serial positions of samples were counterbalanced across subjects. Before tasting each sample, consumers rated expected quality. After tasting each sample, consumers rated experienced quality on four dimensions (including taste, tenderness, juiciness, and overall acceptability) as well as willingness to pay. Highly significant differences were found between label information conditions, following the same pattern on all dependent variables: samples labelled organic or free-range received consistently higher ratings than samples labelled conventional or unlabelled ones, irrespective of actual meat type. Significant but substantially smaller differences were found between actual meat types regarding perceived taste, perceived juiciness, overall acceptability, and willingness to pay, with organic pork receiving consistently lower ratings than conventional pork, irrespective of label information. There were no differences between actual meat types regarding expected quality or perceived tenderness. No significant interactions were found either, indicating that the effects of actual meat type and label information were additive on all dimensions. Comparisons of effects sizes indicated that the effects of label information were on average 9 to 10 times higher than the effects of actual meat type. The results suggest that the experienced quality of organic pork is very much a matter of expectations. Interpreted in terms of assimilation and contrast theory, consumers appear to be able to detect the somewhat lower eating quality of organic pork, but the difference to conventional pork seems to be small enough to fall into their latitudes of acceptance. Consequently, consumers assimilate their experiences upwards until they align with their expectations. It is concluded that when differences in objective quality between organic and conventional meat are small enough, the effect of consumers' expectations will be strong enough to outweigh the remaining differences.