Four studies investigate the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act's (NLEA's) impact on how consumers use nutrition information. Field and laboratory studies compare, but do not detect any changes in, consumers' search for nutrition information or their recall of this information in the pre- and post-NLEA periods. However, the search activities of a select group (highly motivated and less knowledgeable consumers) benefited more from the NLEA than did other groups. Additional results from the field and lab studies indicate that the NLEA changed attention to negative nutrition attributes (such as fat and sodium, of which less is better) more than it changed attention to positive attributes such as calcium and vitamins. Analyses of scanner databases confirm this trend (with the exception of calories). Focus group results also reflect these findings. The authors discuss implications for public policy, management, academic research, and consumer welfare.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndrewsCraig, BurtonScot, and NetemeyerRichard (2000), “Are Some Comparative Nutrition Claims Misleading? The Role of Nutrition Knowledge, Ad Claim Type, and Disclosure Conditions,”Journal of Advertising, 39 (3), 29–42.
2.
AndrewsCraig, BurtonScot, and NetemeyerRichard, NetemeyerRichard, and BurtonScot (1998), “Consumer Generalization of Nutrient Content Claims in Advertising,”Journal of Marketing, 62 (October), 62–75.
3.
BrucksMerrie (1988), “Search Monitor: An Approach for Computer Controlled Experiments Involving Consumer Information Search,”Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (June), 117–21.
4.
BurtonScot, GarretsonJudith, and VelliquetteAnne (1999), “Implications of Accurate Usage of Nutrition Facts Panel Information for Food Product Evaluations and Purchase Intentions,”Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27 (4), 470–80.
5.
CohenJacob, and CohenPatricia (1983), Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences.Hills-dale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
6.
ColeCatherine, and BalasubramanianSiva K. (1993), “Age Differences in Consumers' Search for Information: Public Policy Implications,”Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (June), 157–69.
7.
DicksonPeter, and SawyerAlan (1990), “The Price Knowledge and Search of Supermarket Shoppers,”Journal of Marketing, 54 (July), 42–53.
8.
Food and Drug Administration (1994), Using the New Food Label to Choose Healthier Foods. DHHS No. (FDA) 94. Washington, DC: Food and Drug Administration.
9.
FordGary, HastakManoj, MitraAnusree, and RingoldDebra (1996), “Can Consumers Interpret Nutrition Information in the Presence of a Health Claim?”Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 15 (1), 16–27.
10.
GarretsonJudith A., and BurtonScot (2000), “Effects of Nutrition Facts Panel Values, Nutrition Claims, and Health Claims on Consumer Attitudes, Perceptions of Disease-Related Risks, and Trust,”Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 19 (Fall), 213–28.
11.
GrewalDhruv, and MarmorsteinHoward (1994), “Market Price Variation, Perceived Price Variation, and Consumers' Price Search Decisions for Durable Goods,”Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (December), 453–60.
12.
IppolitoPauline, and MathiosAlan (1994), “Information, Policy, and the Sources of Fat and Cholesterol in the U.S. Diet,”Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 13 (2), 200–17.
13.
LevyAlan, FeinSara, and SchuckerRaymond (1996), “Performance Characteristics of Seven Nutrition Label Formats,”Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 15 (Spring), 1–15.
14.
MathiosAlan (1998), “The Importance of Nutrition Labeling and Health Claim Regulation on Product Choice: An Analysis of the Cooking Oils Market,”Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 27 (October), 159–68.
15.
MoormanChristine (1996), “A Quasi-Experiment to Assess the Consumer and Informational Determinants of Nutrition Information Processing Activities: The Case of the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act,”Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 15 (Spring), 28–44.
16.
MoormanChristine (1998), “Market-Level Effects of Information: Competitive Responses and Consumer Dynamics,”Journal of Marketing Research, 35 (February), 82–98.
17.
NeterJohn, and WassermanWilliam (1974), Applied Linear Statistical Models.Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin.
18.
Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (1990), Pub. L. 101–535, (November 8), 104 Stat. 2355.
19.
PutrevuSanjay, and RatchfordBrian (1997), “A Model of Search Behavior with an Application to Grocery Shopping,”Journal of Retailing, 73 (4), 463–86.
20.
RoeBrian, LevyAlan, and DerbyBrenda (1999), “The Impact of Health Claims on Consumer Search and Product Evaluation Outcomes: Results from FDA Experimental Data,”Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 18 (Spring), 89–105.
21.
RothschildMichael (1999), “Carrots, Sticks, and Promises: A Conceptual Framework for the Management of Public Health and Social Issue Behaviors,”Journal of Marketing, 63 (October), 24–37.
22.
RussoEdward, StaelinRichard, NolanCatherine, RussellGary, and MetcalfBarbara (1986), “Nutrition Information in the Supermarket,”Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (June), 48–70.
23.
ScarbroughEdward (1995), “Perspectives on Nutrition Labeling and Education Act,” in Nutrition Labeling Handbook, ShapiroRalph, ed. New York: Marcel Dekker, 29–52.
24.
ShapiroRalph (1995), “A Comprehensive Review of the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act Regulations,” in Nutrition Labeling Handbook, ShapiroRalph, ed. New York: Marcel Dekker, 125–226.
25.
SilvergladeBruce (1996), “The Nutrition Labeling and Education Act: Progress to Date and Challenges for the Future,”Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 15 (1), 148–56.
26.
SzykmanLisa, BloomPaul, and LevyAlan (1997), “A Proposed Model of the Use of Package Claims and Nutrition Labels,”Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 16 (Fall), 228–42.
27.
TverskyAmos, and KahnemanDaniel (1981), “The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice,”Science, 211 (January), 453–58.
28.
UrbanyJoel E., DicksonPeter R., and KalapurakalRosemary (1996), “Price Search in the Retail Grocery Market,”Journal of Marketing, 60 (April), 91–105.
