Executive Summary
Consumers of packaged goods products in the U.S. recently have faced an onslaught of front-of-package (FOP) nutrition symbols and icons, including the controversial “Smart Choices” single summary indicator. Other front-of-package icons are proposed for the near future, including a simple FOP symbol from Walmart and the “Nutrition Keys” from the Grocery Manufacturers Association and the Food Marketing Institute. In general, the intent of the FOP symbols and icons is to help consumers make better choices in constructing a balanced diet due to their simplicity and suggested ease of use. Consumer testing by the Keystone Group indicates that the simplicity of summarizing the diverse nutrition information in the Nutrition Facts Panel into a single indicator to classify products is a highly desirable attribute. However, work by the Food Standards Agency in the U.K. also suggests that more complex FOP icons, such as Multiple Traffic Lights with percentages and levels based on the Guideline Daily Amounts, may help with the evaluation of several nutrients for a given food. It is within this context that the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) recently issued several requests for further research to answer important questions of exactly how consumers will interpret and use different front-of-package symbols, especially in the presence and absence of the Nutrition Facts Panel.
In a between-subjects experiment with 520 adult consumers recruited from a professional, nationwide, online panel, we compare effects of the Smart Choices (SC) summary icon, the more complex Traffic Light - Guideline Daily Amounts icon (TL-GDA), and a no FOP icon control for a nutritionally-moderate food that qualifies for the SC icon. Drawing from principles of heuristic processing and halo effects, we predict and find that the SC icon can lead to positive (and potentially misleading) nutrient evaluations and product healthfulness when compared to the TL-GDA icon or no FOP icon control. Yet, it is important to note that both the product attitude and purchase intentions of the products displaying either nutrition icon are significantly higher than the no FOP nutrition control, suggesting a potentially favorable role for any FOP information for relatively healthful products. However, when the Nutrition Facts Panel is not available, we find significant increases in a nutrition use accuracy test when exposed to the TL-GDA icon compared to the SC summary icon or the no FOP control. We also find that nutrition consciousness is more likely to moderate effects related to the Nutrition Facts Panel than the FOP nutrition icon information. Implications are offered for public health officials, nutrition researchers, and food manufacturers, as the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) considers front-of package nutrition alternatives for use in the United States.
Biography
J. Craig Andrews is Professor and Charles H. Kellstadt Chair in Marketing, Marquette University. His research focuses primarily on advertising and public health issues. Andrews currently serves on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Risk Communication Advisory Board, has recently served on the Behavior Change Expert Panel for the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign, was Editor of the Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, and Consumer Research Specialist in the Division of Advertising Practices with the Federal Trade Commission in Washington, DC. Professor Andrews is a member of four editorial boards: Journal of Advertising, Journal of Marketing Communications, Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, and Journal of Public Policy & Marketing. His work has appeared in the Journal of Marketing, Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Advertising, Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, Journal of International Business Studies, Journal of Retailing, European Journal of Marketing and the American Journal of Public Health, among others.
Scot Burton is a professor and Wal-Mart Chair in Marketing in the Department of Marketing, Sam M. Walton College of Business, at the University of Arkansas-Fayetteville. His research interests include public policy and consumer health and welfare concerns, promotion and pricing issues, and survey research measurement issues. Much of his recent research has addressed nutrition labeling and other types of disclosures on consumer product packaging. In addition to the Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, his research has been published in more than twenty-five different journals in marketing, psychology, and health, including the Journal of Marketing, Journal of Marketing Research, Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Applied Psychology, American Journal of Public Health, Journal of Retailing, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Public Opinion Quarterly, Journal of Management, Journal of Consumer Affairs, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, and other journals.
Jeremy Kees is an Assistant Professor of Marketing at Villanova University. His research interests include intertemporal choice, consumer risk, and advertising/promotions effectiveness. His recent public policy related research examines cigarette warning labels, consumer processing of nutrition information, food supplement claims, and direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising. His research has been published in various journals including Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, American Journal of Public Health, Journal of Advertising, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Psychology and Marketing, Journal of Consumer Affairs, and Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising. Professor Kees has presented his research at numerous academic conferences around the world.
Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, Volume 30, Number 2, Fall 2011
View Table of Contents