SpringerLink
Log in

Marketers’ use of alternative front-of-package nutrition symbols: An examination of effects on product evaluations

  • Original Empirical Research
  • Published:
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

How front-of-package (FOP) nutrition icon systems affect product evaluations for more and less healthful objective nutrition profiles is a critical question facing food marketers, consumers, and the public health community. We propose a conceptually-based hierarchical continuum to guide predictions regarding the effectiveness of several FOP systems currently used in the marketplace. In Studies 1a and 1b, we compare the effects of a broad set of FOP icons on nutrition evaluations linked to health, accuracy of evaluations, and purchase intentions for a single product. Based on these findings, Studies 2 and 3 test the effects of two conceptually-different FOP icon systems in a retail laboratory in which consumers make comparative evaluations of multiple products at the retail shelf. While there are favorable effects of each system beyond control conditions with no FOP icons, results show that icons with an evaluative component that aid consumers’ interpretations generally provide greater benefits (particularly in product comparison contexts). We offer implications for consumer packaged goods marketers, retailers, and the public policy and consumer health communities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (France)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For convenience, we offer a listing of acronyms and abbreviations used in this manuscript in Web Appendix A1.

  2. To support these proposed conceptual differences in diagnosticity suggested in Figure 1, we performed an online pilot study that we present as part of our Study 1a methodology.

  3. While literature often advocates use of the quantitative measure in analyses via moderated regression, in complex designs (including 6 conditions for a single factor and 18 conditions overall), this becomes untenable (e.g., the coding of a manipulated factor necessitates 5 dummy variables for a single factor and then interaction terms must be created with each of the dummy variables).

  4. Conceptually, perceived healthfulness potentially mediates the interaction of the FOP and objective nutrition profile (ONP) effect on purchase intention (e.g., Burton et al. 2015). Given the 6 × 3 experimental design, the use of regression procedures to examine this mediation effect is untenable (Hayes 2013). But as shown in Table 2, the (1) significant interaction of the FOP and ONP for healthfulness and nutrient evaluations (the “a” path in a mediation analysis), and (2) the significant positive correlations (p < .01) between healthfulness and purchase intent (the “b” path), suggest a significant a*b path that would support moderated mediation (Hayes 2013). We explicitly test this mediation in Study 3, which uses an experimental design more amenable to testing moderated mediation using regression.

  5. Unlike the objective nutrition profile, the FOP*NC interaction reaches a .05 level of significance for only one nutrient. This pattern suggests that effects of NC across FOP information (which is designed to simplify nutrition information) are more similar than the moderating effect of NC for the objective profile information disclosed in the NFP.

  6. While the moderating role of FOP did not reach a level of significance for the overall product healthfulness, there was a significant difference (all p < .05) between the objective profiles for the NFP only control, the FUF, the green FUF, and the traffic light (Fs range from 3.32 [for the FOP control] to 4.75 [all green FUF]). Contrasts showed that the Good profile exceeded the Poor objective profile. The full nutrition control and the IOM stars did not reach significance.

  7. Given these findings, we also performed a simple mediation test for the evaluative icon (Hayes 2013). Results of this test indicated that the indirect effect for stars icon ➔ healthfulness ➔ purchase intentions was significant (IE = .33, CI [.09, .75]), and that the positive direct effect of the stars icon on intentions to purchase the focal healthful product also remains significant (p < .03) with the mediator included in the model (i.e., partial mediation).

  8. We also had participants choose the one most preferred item from the set of nine packages on the retail shelf (i.e., “Which one granola bar would you be most likely to purchase?”). A nutritious Good product was chosen more often when the stars and FUF (44%) or stars alone (40%) were available on the packages, relative to the no icon control (17%; all z = 2.15 and 1.86, respectively; all p < .05). There was no significant difference between these two choice percentages (44% vs. 40%; p > .70), again suggesting that providing the more quantitative FUF icon together with the evaluative icon offers no incremental benefit. Inclusion of the FUF icon, alone, appeared to slightly increase selection of the objectively more nutritious product (33%) when compared to the no icon control, but it did not reach significance (z = 1.32, p = .09).

  9. Based on reviewers’ suggestions, we conducted an initial exploratory study addressing the role of explicit goals in a 2 (goal: taste vs. health) × 2 (FOP format: reductive FUF icon vs. evaluative stars icon) × 3 (objective nutrition level: poor, moderate, good) mixed design for a frozen food product. As expected, while the “good” objective level decreased taste perceptions, and the goal and taste perceptions affected purchase intention, the specific FOP format did not interact with the goal. Further, for purchase intentions, the unhealthy-tasty intuition (Raghunathan et al. 2006), did not interact with the FOP format or objective nutrition level, and perceived credibility of the FOP format did not affect intent.

References

  • Alba, J., Hutchinson, J. W., & Lynch, J. (1991). Memory and decision making. In T. Robertson & H. Kassarjian (Eds.), Handbook of Consumer Behavior (pp. 1–49). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, J. C., Netemeyer, R. G., & Burton, S. (2009). The nutrition elite: Do only the highest levels of caloric knowledge, obesity knowledge, and motivation matter in processing nutrition ad claims and disclosures? Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 28(1), 41–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, J. C., Burton, S., & Kees, J. (2011). Is simpler always better? Consumer evaluations of front-of-package nutrition symbols. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 30, 175–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, J. C., Lin, C. J., Levy, A. S., & Lo, S. (2014). Consumer research needs from the food and drug administration on front-of-package nutritional labeling. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 33(1), 10–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berry, C., Burton, S., & Howlett, E. (2017). It's only natural: the mediating impact of consumers' inferential beliefs on the relationships between product claims, perceived product healthfulness, and purchase intentions. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45(5), 698–719.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bialkova, S., Grunert, K. G., Juhl, H. J., Wasowicz-Kirylo, G., Stysko-Kunkowska, M., & van Trijp, H. C. M. (2014). Attention mediates the effect of nutrition label information on consumers’ choice. Evidence from a choice experiment involving eye-tracking. Appetite, 76(1), 66–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bittman, M. (2014). Parasites, killing their host: the food industry’s solution to obesity. New York Times, available at https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/18/opinion/mark-bittmanthe-food-industrys-solution-to-obesity.html

  • Burton, S., Garretson, J. A., & Velliquette, A. M. (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), 470–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burton, S., Creyer, E. H., Kees, J., & Huggins, K. (2006). Attacking the obesity epidemic: the potential health benefits of providing nutrition information in restaurants. American Journal of Public Health, 96(9), 1669–1675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burton, S., Cook, L. A., Howlett, E., & Newman, C. L. (2015). Broken halos and shattered horns: overcoming the biasing effects of prior expectations through objective information disclosure. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(2), 240–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CDC (2017). Overweight and Obesity. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, September [http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/obesity/index.htm].

  • Chandon, P., & Wansink, B. (2007). Is obesity caused by calorie underestimation? a psychophysical model of meal size estimation. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(1), 84–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ducrot, P., Julia, C., Méjean, C., Kesse-Guyot, E., Touvier, M., Fezeu, L. K., & Péneau, S. (2016). Impact of different front-of-pack nutrition labels on consumer purchasing intentions: a randomized controlled trial. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 50(5), 627–636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dzhogleva, H., & Inman, J. J. (2015). Healthy choice: the effect of simplified pos nutritional information on consumer choice behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 52, 817–835.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Orlando: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Union Food Information Council (2015) “Global update on nutrition labelling. [available at: http://www.eufic.org/upl/1/default/doc/GlobalUpdateExecSumJan2015.pdf].

  • Facts-Up-Front (2014). What is facts up front?” (accessed December 15, 2016), [available at http://www.factsupfront.org/].

  • FDA (2011). Letter of enforcement discretion to gma/fmi re ‘facts up front,’” Taylor, M. R. (Deputy Commissioner for Foods), U.S. Food and Drug Administration, (December 13), (accessed December 30, 2016), [available at http://www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/LabelingNutrition/ucm302720.htm].

  • Federal Register (2010). Front-of-pack and shelf tag nutrition symbols; establishment of docket: request for comments and information. 75 (82) (April 29), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, U.S. Food & Drug Administration, 22602–22606.

  • Feunekes, G. I. J., Gortemaker, I. A., Willems, A. A., Lion, R., & Kommer, M. (2008). Front-of-pack nutrition labelling: testing effectiveness of different nutrition labelling formats front-of-pack in four european countries. Appetite, 50(1), 57–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finkelstein, E. A., Khavjou, O. A., Thompson, H., Trogdon, J. G., Pan, L., Sherry, B., & Dietz, W. (2012). Obesity and severe obesity forecasts through 2030. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 42(6), 563–570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, J. K., & Paolacci, G. (2017). Crowdsourcing consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 44(1), 196–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, D., Heidrick, C., & Hodgin, K. (2015). Nutrition label viewing during a food-selection task: front-of-package labels vs nutrition facts labels. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 115(10), 1636–1646.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grocery Manufacturers of America (GMA) (2011). Food and beverage industry launches nutrition keys front-of-pack nutrition labeling initiative to inform consumers and combat obesity. Press Release. http://www.gmaonline.org/news-events/newsroom/food-and-beverage-industry-launches-nutrition-keys-front-of-pack-nutrition- (accessed November 17, 2016).

  • Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis, New York. New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iacobucci, D., Posavac, S. S., Kardes, F. R., Schneider, M. J., & Popovich, D. L. (2015). Toward a more nuanced understanding of the statistical properties of a median split. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 652–665.

  • Institute of Medicine (IOM) (2011). Examination of front-of-package nutrition rating systems and symbols. (October 18), (accessed March 11, 2014), [available at http://www.iom.edu/Activities/Nutrition/NutritionSymbols.aspx].

  • Kees, J., Royne, M. B., & Cho, Y. (2014). Regulating front-of-package nutrition information disclosures: a test of industry self-regulation vs. other popular options. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 48(Spring), 147–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kees, J., Burton, S., & Andrews, J. C. (2015). Government efforts to aid consumers’ well-being: understanding federal health warnings and disclosures. in the Cambridge Handbook of Consumer Psychology (Eds.), Michael Norton, Derek Rucker, and Cait Lamberton, 530-562.

  • Kees, J., Berry, C., Burton, S., & Sheehan, K. (2017a). An analysis of data quality: Professional panels, student subject pools, and Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Journal of Advertising, 46(1), 141–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kees, J., Berry, C., Burton, S., & Sheehan, K. (2017b). Reply to Amazon's Mechanical Turk: a comment. Journal of Advertising, 46(1), 159–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, S. B., Landry, M., Olson, J., Velliquette, A. M., Burton, S., & Andrews, J. C. (1997). The effects of nutrition package claims, nutrition facts panels, and motivation to process nutrition information on consumer product evaluations. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 16(Fall), 256–269.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kozup, J., Creyer, E. H., & Burton, S. (2003). Making healthful food choices: the influence of health claims and nutrition information on consumer’s evaluations of packaged food products and restaurant menu items. Journal of Marketing, 67, 19–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitra, A., Hastak, M., Ford, G. T., & Ringold, D. J. (1999). Can the educationally disadvantaged interpret the FDA-mandated nutrition facts panel in the presence of an implied health claim? Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 18(Spring), 106–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen (2015), “We Are What We Eat: Healthy Eating Trends Around the World,” (accessed July 7, 2017), [available at www.nielsen.com/content/dam/nielsenglobal/eu/nielseninsights/pdfs/Nielsen%20Global%20Health%20and%20Wellness%20Report%20%20January%202015.pdf].

  • Newman, M. A. (2000). Health as Expanding Consciousness. Sudbury: Jones and Bartlett.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman, C. L., Howlett, E., & Burton, S. (2014). Shopper response to front-of-package nutrition labeling programs: potential consumer and retail store benefits. Journal of Retailing, 90(1), 13–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, C. L., Howlett, E., & Burton, S. (2016). The effects of objective and evaluative front-of-package cues on food evaluation and choice: the moderating influence of comparative and non-comparative processing contexts. Journal of Consumer Research, 42, 749–766.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA) (1990), Public Law No. 101-535, 104 Stat. 2353 (codified in part at 21 U.S.C. 343).

  • NuVal (2014). ONQI: The science behind the scores. (accessed June 11, 2016), [available at http://www.nuval.com/science].

  • Ogden, C. L., Carroll, M. D., Kit, B. K., & Flegal, K. M. (2014). Prevalence of childhood and adult obesity in the united States, 2011-2012. Journal of the American Medical Association, 311(8), 806–814.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pettigrew, S., Talati, Z., Miller, C., Dixon, H., Kelly, B., & Ball, K. (2017). The types and aspects of front-of-pack food labelling schemes preferred by adults and children. Appetite, 109(February), 115–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Communication and Persuasion (pp. 1–24). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raghunathan, R., Naylor, R. W., & Hoyer, W. D. (2006). The unhealthy = tasty intuition and its effects on taste inferences, enjoyment, and choice of food products. Journal of Marketing, 70(4), 170–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scammon, D. (1977). Information load and consumers. Journal of Consumer Research, 4(3), 148–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sebolt, A. (2008). Standardized nutrition: food business groups seek uniform symbols on packaging. Food Business News, June 10. [Available at http://www.foodbusinessnews.net/ feature_stories_ print.asp?ArticleID=94121].

  • Stanish, J.R. (2010). The obesity epidemic in America and the responsibility of big food manufacturers. Inquiries Journal, 2 (11). (Available at www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/320/ the-obesity-epidemic-in-america-and-the-responsibility-of-big-food-manufacturers.

  • Tellis, G. J. (2017). Interesting and impactful research: on phenomena, theory, and writing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45(1), 1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Horen, F., & Pieters, R. (2012). When high-similarity copycats lose and moderate-similarity copycats gain: the impact of comparative evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research, 49(1), 83–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Viswanathan, M., Hastak, M., & Gau, R. (2009). Understanding and facilitating the usage of nutritional labels by low-literate consumers. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 28(2), 135–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkie, W. L., & Moore, E. S. (2012). Expanding our understanding of marketing in society. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(1), 53–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Mississippi, University, MS, 38677, USA

    Christopher L. Newman

  2. University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, 72701, USA

    Scot Burton

  3. Marquette University, 1225 W. Wisconsin Ave, Milwaukee, WI, 53233, USA

    J. Craig Andrews

  4. University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA

    Richard G. Netemeyer

  5. Villanova University, 800 Lancaster Ave, Villanova, PA, 19085, USA

    Jeremy Kees

Authors
  1. Christopher L. Newman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Scot Burton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J. Craig Andrews
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Richard G. Netemeyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jeremy Kees
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Scot Burton.

Additional information

Kelly Haws served as Area Editor for this article.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 2520 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Newman, C.L., Burton, S., Andrews, J. et al. Marketers’ use of alternative front-of-package nutrition symbols: An examination of effects on product evaluations. J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. 46, 453–476 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-017-0568-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-017-0568-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation