Testing consumer perception of nutrient content claims using conjoint analysis.

Nutritional Sciences Program and Center for Public Health Nutrition, School of Public Health, University of Washington, Box 353410, Seattle, WA 98195-3410, USA.
Public Health Nutrition (Impact Factor: 2.48). 05/2010; 13(5):688-94. DOI: 10.1017/S1368980009993119
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) proposes to establish standardized and mandatory criteria upon which front-of-pack (FOP) nutrition labelling must be based. The present study aimed to estimate the relative contribution of declared amounts of different nutrients to the perception of the overall 'healthfulness' of foods by the consumer.
Protein, fibre, vitamin A, vitamin C, calcium and iron were nutrients to encourage. Total fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, total and added sugar, and sodium were the nutrients to limit. Two content claims per nutrient used the FDA-approved language. An online consumer panel (n 320) exposed to multiple messages (n 48) rated the healthfulness of each hypothetical food product. Utility functions were constructed using conjoint analysis, based on multiple logistic regression and maximum likelihood estimation.
Consumer perception of healthfulness was most strongly driven by the declared presence of protein, fibre, calcium and vitamin C and by the declared total absence of saturated fat and sodium. For this adult panel, total and added sugar had lower utilities and contributed less to the perception of healthfulness. There were major differences between women and men.
Conjoint analysis can lead to a better understanding of how consumers process information about the full nutrition profile of a product, and is a powerful tool for the testing of nutrient content claims. Such studies can help the FDA develop science-based criteria for nutrient profiling that underlies FOP and shelf labelling.

  • Source
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The use of health claims on foods with a poor nutritional composition could pose a risk of misleading some groups of consumers in their food choices. This study aimed to explore the influence of the use of claims on consumers’ preferences for yoghurts with a different nutritional composition and the influence of more and less familiar claims on food choices. The study was conducted on 371 consumers using conjoint methodology and further cluster analysis. Fruit yoghurt was used as a base product. We investigated the impact of the following product attributes on consumers’ preferences: presence/absence of a probiotic and fat metabolism claim; sugar content; and fat content. The results suggest that, while consumers generally consider the nutritional composition of yoghurt to be more important than the tested claims, some groups of consumers are more sensitive to the use of health-related statements. We observed the consumers’ generally positive preference for a familiar probiotic claim, and their negative preference for a non-familiar fat metabolism claim. Overall, these results indicate that some groups of consumers are more sensitive to the use of health-related communications and are therefore more exposed to the risk of being misled if the composition of the yoghurt they buy is in fact less favourable. It would be beneficial if nutrient profiles were introduced to limit the use of claims on foods.
    Food Quality and Preference 07/2015; 43. DOI:10.1016/j.foodqual.2015.02.006 · 2.73 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Many stakeholders support introducing an interpretive front-of-pack (FOP) nutrition label, but disagree over the form it should take. In late 2012, an expert working group established by New Zealand government recommended the adoption of an untested summary rating system: a Star label. This study used a best-worst scaling choice experiment to estimate how labels featuring the new Star rating, the Multiple Traffic Light (MTL), Daily Intake Guide (DIG), and a no-FOP control affected consumers' choice behaviours and product perceptions. Nutrient-content and health claims were included in the design. We also assessed whether respondents who used more or less information during the choice tasks differed in their selection patterns. Overall, while respondents made broadly similar choices with respect to the MTL and Star labels, the MTL format had a significantly greater impact on depressing preference as a food's nutritional profile became less healthy. Health claims increased rankings of less nutritious options, though this effect was less pronounced when the products featured an MTL. Further, respondents were best able to differentiate products' healthiness with MTL labels. The proposed summary Stars system had less effect on choice patterns than an MTL label and our findings highlight the need for policy makers to ensure decisions to introduce FOP labels are underpinned by robust research evidence. These results suggest the proposed summary Stars system will have less effect on shifting food choice patterns than interpretive FOP nutrition label featuring traffic light ratings.
    Appetite 07/2014; 82. DOI:10.1016/j.appet.2014.07.006 · 2.52 Impact Factor