Consumer Comprehension of the Nutrition Facts Label: A Comparison of the Original and Updated Labels

Abstract

Purpose:

Compare consumers’ overall label comprehension of the original Nutrition Facts (NF) label with the updated label.

Design:

Online survey conducted in 2019. Participants randomly assigned to original label, updated-single column, or updated-dual column labeling condition and asked to complete a series of label comprehension questions.

Setting:

Online survey; participants recruited through Prolific.

Sample:

N = 992 U.S. adults. Sample similar to U.S. population in terms of sex (49.2% female), race (73.3% White/Caucasian), and household size (mean = 2.7 members). However, sample was younger (median age: 29.0), more educated (98.8% high school graduate or higher), and exhibited a lower rate of obesity (22.6% obese) than the U.S. population.

Measures:

Dependent variables: objective (% correct) NF label comprehension. Independent variables: label condition, nutrition knowledge, and socio-demographic variables.

Analysis:

Regression analysis assessed relationships between label condition and label comprehension. Significance level of 5% used for analyses.

Results:

Average score for objective comprehension was 81.4%. The updates did not significantly improve label comprehension. Participants in the updated NF label conditions had trouble answering questions related to total and added sugars.

Conclusions:

Results suggest consumers may struggle to correctly utilize information on the updated NF label, specifically total and added sugars. Consumers may benefit from educational opportunities on using the new label.

Keywords

nutrition facts label nutrition labels label comprehension nutrition knowledge

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Grebitus

Davis

. Change is good!? Analyzing the relationship between attention and nutrition facts panel modifications. Food Policy. 2017;73:119–130.

Food Labeling: Serving Sizes of Foods That Can Reasonably Be Consumed At One Eating Occasion; Dual-Column Labeling; Updating, Modifying, and Establishing Certain Reference Amounts Customarily Consumed; Serving Size for Breath Mints; and Technical Amendments. US Food and Drug Administration . Published 2016. Accessed November 2, 2020. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2016-05-27/pdf/2016-11865.pdf

Food Labeling. Revision of the Nutrition and Supplement Facts Labels. US Food and Drug Administration . Published 2016. Accessed November 2, 2020. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2016-05-27/pdf/2016-11867.pdf

US Department of Agriculture. 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. US Dep Heal Hum Serv. Published 2015. Accessed February 3, 2020. https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/guidelines/

Feunekes

GIJ

Gortemaker

Willems

Lion

van den Kommer

Front-of-pack nutrition labelling: testing effectiveness of different nutrition labelling formats front-of-pack in four European countries. Appetite. 2008;50(1):57–70.

Gomez

Werle

COC

Corneille

. The pitfall of nutrition facts label fluency: easier-to-process nutrition information enhances purchase intentions for unhealthy food products. Mark Lett. 2017;28(1):15–27.

Grunert

Wills

Fernández-Celemín

. Nutrition knowledge, and use and understanding of nutrition information on food labels among consumers in the UK. Appetite. 2010;55(2):177–189.

Hawthorne

Moreland

Griffin

Abrams

. An educational program enhances food label understanding of young adolescents. J Am Diet Assoc. 2006;106(6):913–916.

Byrd-Bredbenner

Alfieri

Kiefer

. The nutrition label knowledge and usage behaviours of women in the US. Nutr Bull. 2000;25(4):315–322.

10.

Byrd-Bredbenner

Kiefer

. The ability of elderly women to perform nutrition facts label tasks and judge nutrient content claims. J Nutr Elder. 2001;20(2):29–46.

11.

Lando

. Single-larger-portion-size and dual-column nutrition labeling may help consumers make more healthful food choices. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2013;113(2):241–250.

12.

Khandpur

Graham

Roberto

. Simplifying mental math: changing how added sugars are displayed on the nutrition facts label can improve consumer understanding. Appetite. 2017;114:38–46.

13.

Persoskie

Hennessy

Nelson

. US consumers’ understanding of nutrition labels in 2013: the importance of health literacy. Prev Chronic Dis. 2017;14:170066.

14.

Burton

Biswas

Netemeyer

. Effects of alternative nutrition label formats and nutrition reference information on consumer perceptions, comprehension, and product evaluations. J Public Policy Mark. 1994;13(1):36–47.

15.

Cowburn

Stockley

. Consumer understanding and use of nutrition labelling: a systematic review. Public Health Nutr. 2005;8(1):21–28.

16.

Daly

. The response of consumers to nutrition labeling. J Consum Aff. 1976;10(2):170–178.

17.

Levy

Fein

. Consumers’ ability to perform tasks using nutrition labels. J Nutr Educ. 1998;30(4):210–217.

18.

Liu

Hoefkens

Verbeke

. Chinese consumers’ understanding and use of a food nutrition label and their determinants. Food Qual Prefer. 2015;41:103–111.

19.

Vanderlee

White

Bordes

Hobin

Hammond

The efficacy of sugar labeling formats: implications for labeling policy. Obesity. 2015;23(12):2406–2413.

20.

Khandpur

Rimm

Moran

. The influence of the new US Nutrition Facts label on consumer perceptions and understanding of added sugars: a randomized controlled experiment. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2020;120(2):197–209.

21.

Palan

Schitter

. Prolific.ac—a subject pool for online experiments. J Behav Exp Financ. 2018;17:22–27.

22.

Peer

Brandimarte

Samat

Acquisti

Beyond the Turk: alternative platforms for crowdsourcing behavioral research. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2017;70:153–163.

23.

Schlomer

Bauman

Card

. Best practices for missing data management in counseling psychology. J Couns Psychol. 2010;57(1):1–10.

24.

Dickson-Spillmann

Siegrist

Keller

. Development and validation of a short, consumer-oriented nutrition knowledge questionnaire. Appetite. 2011;56(3):617–620.

25.

U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: United States. US Census Bureau. Published 2018. Accessed February 12, 2020. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/HSD310218#HSD310218

26.

Miller

LMS

Cassady

. The effects of nutrition knowledge on food label use. A review of the literature. Appetite. 2015;92:207–216.

27.

Hieke

Taylor

. A critical review of the literature on nutritional labeling. J Consum Aff. 2012;46(1):120–156.

28.

Burton

Garretson

Velliquette

. Implications of accurate usage of nutrition facts panel information for food product evaluations and purchase intentions. J Acad Mark Sci. 1999;27(4):470–480.

29.

Moorman

Diehl

Brinberg

Kidwell

. Subjective knowledge, search locations, and consumer choice. J Consum Res. 2004;31(3):673–680.

30.

Buhi

Goodson

Neilands

. Out of sight, not out of mind: strategies for handling missing data. Am J Health Behav. 2008;32(1):83–92.

31.

Food and Drug Administration. The New Nutrition Facts Label; what’s in it for you? Published 2020. Accessed November 16, 2020. https://www.fda.gov/food/nutrition-education-resources-materials/new-nutrition-facts-label