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: 2.25). 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.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: To assess the nature of the guidance on fiber, a nutrient for which many Canadians' intakes are suboptimal, provided by manufacturers' use of front-of-package references on food in Canadian supermarkets. DESIGN/SETTING: Survey of all prepackaged food sold in 3 large supermarkets in Toronto. VARIABLES MEASURED: Front-of-package references to fiber and other forms of nutrition-related marketing were recorded from all products. For a subsample of breads, Nutrition Facts table information was also collected. ANALYSIS: Descriptive statistics; t test. RESULTS: Front-of-package references to fiber were found on 6% of all foods, but large proportions of high fiber foods bore no front-of-package references to fiber. Many foods making a reference to fiber (17%) are "foods to limit," according to Canada's Food Guide. Front-of-package references to fiber were declared in at least 30 different ways, and 31% used unregulated language. Among breads, use of regulated language was associated with higher fiber content. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Consumers may be faced with challenges in seeking out healthful sources of fiber in the grocery store, given the complexity of existing front-of-package nutrition-related marketing and limited references to fiber in some categories. This work suggests that current nutrition-related marketing cannot function as a substitute for nutrition education.
    Journal of nutrition education and behavior. 05/2013;
  • [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; · 2.52 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Key recommendations in the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans and US Department of Agriculture's MyPlate are to reduce the intake of added sugars, particularly from sugar-sweetened beverages, and drink water instead of "sugary" beverages. However, little is known about consumer knowledge, perceptions, and behaviors regarding sugars in beverages. We hypothesized that consumers would have limited or inaccurate knowledge of the sugars in beverages and that their beverage consumption behaviors would not reflect their primary concerns related to sugars in beverages. An online survey was completed by 3361 adults 18 years and older residing throughout the United States. Water was consumed in the highest amounts followed by (in descending amounts) other beverages (includes coffee and tea), added sugar beverages, milk, diet drinks, and 100% fruit juice and blends. Participants primarily associated the term "sugary" with beverages containing added sugars; however, almost 40% identified 100% fruit juice as sugary. Some participants misidentified the types of sugars in beverages, particularly with respect to milk and 100% fruit juices. Generally, beverage choices were consistent with stated concerns about total, added, or natural sugars; however, less than 40% of participants identified added sugars as a primary concern when choosing beverages despite public health recommendations to reduce the intake of added sugars and sugar-sweetened beverages. Results suggest that there may be a considerable level of consumer misunderstanding or confusion about the types of sugars in beverages. More consumer research and education are needed with the goal of helping consumers make more informed and healthy beverage choices.
    Nutrition research 02/2014; 34(2):134-42. · 2.59 Impact Factor