Can Consumers Interpret Nutrition Information in the Presence of a Health Claim? A Laboratory Investigation (original) (raw)
Related papers
Journal of Consumer Affairs, 2019
Considerable evidence shows that consumers are skeptical of advertising, that is, have a tendency to doubt the truth of advertising claims. The main focus of our paper is to explore, in the context of food products, whether this typically high level of skepticism is also exhibited for product labels. In addition, we look at consumer skepticism associated with health claims in food ads and labels as well as with the Nutrition Facts Panel on food packages. Finally, we examine some individual difference factors that might influence consumer skepticism. We report the results of a large-scale survey designed to explore these issues, and we discuss the implications of our findings for public policy and future research. Chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease, obesity, diabetes, cancer, and stroke are among the leading causes of poor health, disability, and death in the United States, and account for most health care expenditures (Bauer et al. 2014). Most of these diseases are heavily influenced by a person's diet; therefore, helping consumers make better food choices has been an important objective of public policy efforts (Institute of Medicine (IOM) 2012). With this goal in mind, the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990 (NLEA) required food packages to carry a standardized Nutrition Facts Panel (NFP) that provides consumers with nutrition information about the product at the point of purchase (Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 1993). In addition, permissible health and nutrition claims featured on food packages and in food advertising are important sources of consumer information. In 1994, the Federal Trade
Food Quality and Preference, 2016
The majority of studies examining the effect of nutrition information on food packets (such as the Nutrition Information Panel (NIP), front-of-pack labels (FoPLs) and health claims) have examined each in isolation, even though they often occur together. This study investigated the relationship between FoPLs and health claims since (i) they both appear on the front of packs and typically receive more attention from consumers than the NIP, (ii) they can convey contradictory messages (i.e., health claims provide information on nutrients that are beneficial to health while FoPLs provide information on nutrients associated with increased health risks) and (iii) there is currently scant research on how consumers trade off between these two sources of information. Ten focus groups (n= 85) explored adults' and children's reactions when presented with both a FoPL (the Daily Intake Guide, Multiple Traffic Lights, or the Health Star Rating) and a health claim (nutrient content, general-level-, or high-level). A particular focus was participants' processing of discrepant information. Participants reported that health claims were more likely to be considered during product evaluations if they were perceived to be trustworthy, relevant and informative. Trust and ease of interpretation were most important for FoPLs, which were more likely than health claims to meet criteria and be considered in during product evaluation (especially the Health Star Rating and Multiple Traffic Lights). Results indicate that consumers generally find FoPLs easier to interpret than health claims. RUNNING HEAD: Front-of-pack labels and health claims The combined effect of front-of-pack nutrition labels and health claims on consumers' evaluation of food products
Nutrition reviews, 2017
The presence of health claims on food packaging can positively bias consumers' evaluations of foods. This review examined whether cognitive biases endure when other sources of nutrition information [the nutrition facts panel (NFP) and front-of-pack labels] appear on-pack with health claims. The following databases were searched: Web of Science, Ovid, Google Scholar, ScienceDirect, Scopus, ProQuest, and Wiley Online Library. The search terms ("health claim*" OR "nutri* claim") AND ("food label*" OR "front of pack") were used to identify studies. Twenty-four studies that examined health claims and front-of-pack labels or the NFP were included. The NFP can reduce bias, but only if consumers view it and interpret it correctly, which often does not occur. Front-of-pack labels show greater promise in reducing bias created by health claims. These findings are relevant to policymakers who are considering the effectiveness of mandating an NFP and/o...
Consumer Attitude towards Understanding and Use of Health Claims in Packaged Foods
In an attempt to illuminate the attitude of the consumer towards understanding of nutrition labeling and use of health claims and the factors that influence for the selection of healthier foods in general, a literature review of peer reviewed research was carried out. To identify the potentially relevant articles, electronic data base was used and following are the literature retrieved.
A proposed model of the use of package claims and nutrition labels
Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 1997
The authors propose a conceptual model of the use of nutrition labels and on-package claims. Knowledge, perceived diet effectiveness, health status, and skepticism toward claims are all hypothesized to be significant in explaining the use of package claims and ...
Consumer perceptions of nutrition and health claims
Appetite, 2007
The number of food products containing extra or reduced levels of specific ingredients (e.g. extra calcium) that bring particular health benefits (e.g. stronger bones) is still increasing. Nutrition-and health-related (NH) claims promoting these ingredient levels and their health benefit differ in terms of the (legal) strength with which the claim is brought forward and the specific wording of the claim, both of which may differ between countries.
Food health claims – What consumers understand
Food Policy, 2012
Issues pertaining to consumer understanding of food health claims are complex and difficult to disentangle because there is a surprising lack of multidisciplinary research aimed at evaluating how consumers are influenced by factors impacting on the evaluation process. In the EU, current legislation is designed to protect consumers from misleading and false claims but there is much debate about the concept of the 'average consumer' referred to in the legislation. This review provides an overview of the current legislative framework, discusses the concept of the 'average consumer' and brings together findings on consumer understanding from an international perspective. It examines factors related to the personal characteristics of individuals such as socio-demographic status, knowledge, and attitudes, and factors pertaining to food and food supplement products such as the wording of claims and the communication of the strength and consistency of the scientific evidence. As well as providing insights for future research, the conclusions highlight the importance of enhancing the communication of scientific evidence to improve consumer understanding of food health claims.
How Do Front and Back Package Labels Influence Beliefs About Health Claims
One dilemma with health claims is that too much information can confuse consumers and too little information can mislead them. Instead of using only one side of the package, a laboratory study examines the effectiveness of various front-sided health claims when used in combination with a full health claim on the back of a package. The results indicate that the presence of a shorter health claim on the front label generates a greater number of specific attribute-related thoughts, more inferences, and creates a more believable and positive image of the product in the consumers’ mind than does a longer health claim on the front label. This article concludes with a discussion of how labeling information needs to be presented to more effectively enable consumers to use claim information.