In the United States, the NLEA formalised the legal status of product claims by specifying rules for nutrition-content, structure-function and health claims30, and
researchers there have investigated how consumers use such claims on packaging when appraising products.
Advocates argue that health claims allow the private sector to contribute to public nutrition education and increase consumers’ knowledge of the role of diet in health (Ippolito & Mathios, 1991). Health claims became part of the food landscape in the United States after the Kellogg’s Company® advertised that consumption of high fibre
foods, such as its All Bran cereal, was associated with reduced cancer risk (Ippolito & Mathios, 1991). This campaign was credited with enhancing consumers’ knowledge of the fibre-cancer relationship, encouraging greater average fibre consumption, and improving the nutritional composition of cereals on the market (Ippolito & Mathios, 1991).
These changes were only correlated with Kellogg’s® advertising, and the effects cannot
be separated from news stories and consumer education programmes that also occurred around the same time (Silverglade, 1996). In fact, FDA researchers have concluded that the educational benefits of health claims may be limited, as consumers tend to recall the nutrient but not the health benefit (Levy, Derby, & Roe, 1997). This effect is
particularly pronounced when the health benefit is limited to a subgroup rather than the whole population (Levy et al., 1997). Similarly, research conducted in Australia found that while many consumers could recall the nutrients featured in health claims, only a small proportion could state the claimed health benefits (Singer, Williams, Ridges, Murray, & McMahon, 2006).
Moreover, in Singer et al.’s (2006) study, a significant minority of consumers generalised a specific nutrition-content claim about added vitamin C and calcium to believe the juice was ‘high in vitamins’ and ‘high in minerals’, as well as other assorted attributions. Thus, while consumers sometimes fail to recall the consumption benefits touted in product claims, a tendency to generalise benefits beyond health claims has also
30 The three levels of claims used in the United States are similar to the categories suggested by FSANZ.
110
been observed (Andrews et al., 1998; Roe et al., 1999). When viewing advertisements with product claims, where nutrition information is not available, consumers were also found to make inferences about unmentioned nutrients (Andrews et al., 1998). Although nutrition information is available on most packaged products, this finding suggests that consumers may generalise claims if they choose not to read nutrition information. For example, Roe et al. (1999) reported that nutrition and health claims encouraged consumers to rate products highly on nutrients not mentioned in the claim (a ‘halo effect’) or overstate the health effects (the ‘magic bullet effect’).
Some nutritional experts are concerned that nutrition, structure-function and health claims are employed mainly as marketing tactics to encourage consumers to believe a product is better for them and increase the purchase likelihood. They suggest these claims discourage consumers from carefully assessing nutritional values (Mangan, 2006), and may result in less healthy choices where nutrition information and claims are at variance (Fasolo et al., 2007). As noted in §4.2.2, consumers tend to base their conclusions on verbal descriptors when evaluating a brand’s healthiness, and may fail to incorporate numeric facts that provide conflicting information (Viswanathan, 1996). Redmond (2009) argues that the United States labelling laws have led to distorted
communications and may cause a market failure, as marketers draw consumers’ attention to healthful elements while minimising less healthy attributes. The specific type of failure, he argues, is of information asymmetry as the seller knows more about the product than the buyer.
However, advocates of nutrition and health claims argue that consumers are not misled by product claims (Calfee & Pappalardo, 1991), because consumers search for other information to determine if the product is good quality. Furthermore, Ippolito and Mathios (1991; Mathios & Ippolito, 1999) argue that because manufacturers compete using claims that focus on a range of nutrients, consumers will be aware of the many dimensions on which to evaluate foods.
The empirical evidence as to whether nutrition and health claims bias consumers’ product evaluations is equivocal. For example, Garretson and Burton (2000) report that claims ranging from single and double nutrition-content claims to diet-disease health claims, had no discernable effect on consumers’ purchase intentions or attitudes towards products. Research conducted with consumers from several European countries also
111
found that product claims have little effect on product perceptions (van Trijp & van der Lans, 2007). Other authors report that while consumers rate products more highly when given only nutrition or health claims, their evaluations are based on overall product composition when nutrition information is also provided (Ford, Hastak, Mitra, & Ringold, 1996; Keller et al., 1997; Mazis & Raymond, 1997; Mitra, Hastak, Ford, & Ringold, 1999).
Experimental research has demonstrated that consumers can still correctly read and interpret nutrition information in the presence of a health claim, and are capable of using nutrition information panels to evaluate the veracity of front panel claims (Burton, Andrews, & Netemeyer, 2000; Ford et al., 1996; Keller et al., 1997). In fact,
Teratanavat (2005) concluded that health claims encouraged respondents to evaluate the NFP more carefully; the difference in participants’ attitudes towards the healthy and unhealthy versions31 of the product was greater in the presence of a health claim, while
there was no significant difference in attitudes across nutrition profiles when no health claim appeared on pack.
However, Roe et al. (1999) found that consumers viewed products as healthier when health or nutrition-content claims were added. Their findings suggest that consumers may not always compare front-of-pack claims to nutrition facts. Exploratory research conducted with Australian consumers revealed that while consumers were often sceptical about nutrient function claims, particularly younger adults, many admitted they still chose to buy such products in the hope that the claimed benefit would eventuate (Bhaskaran & Hardley, 2002).
Roe et al. (1999) reported that when claims are present, some consumers limit label search behaviour to viewing the front of the package. Thus, even if consumers can use nutrition information in the presence of claims (Ford et al., 1996), this does not logically preclude them from being influenced by claims when in store. Younger consumers may be more likely to use claims to inform their decision making; McCullum and Achterberg (1997) reported that adolescent consumers preferred to use claims on the front of pack rather than full nutrition profile information.
31 Teratanavat’s (2005) ‘unhealthy’ experimental product labels contained an inaccuracy that may have confounded the results: the nutrition facts panel reported the product contained 26g of Total Carbohydrates, yet listed 150g of Sugars.
112
Thus, while consumers express scepticism about claims (Keller et al., 1997), it seems that under some conditions product claims may affect product evaluations and purchase decisions. For example, research shows that consumers’ motivation to read the full nutritional profile moderates the effect of product claims on their product evaluations and purchase intentions (Kemp, Burton, Creyer, & Suter, 2007). Several years of sales data from the United States shows consumers have responded positively to nutrient content claims; for example, chocolate confectionery products bearing health claims sell in larger volumes (Lempert, 2006), and products fortified with calcium have experienced very high sales growth (Lempert, 2007). The General Mills company stated that the addition of a health claim linking fibre consumption and reduced risk of heart disease to Cheerios® cereal increased sales by five percent in one year (Marquart, Weimer, &
Jacob, 2001).
Experimental studies have shown the potential for ostensibly ‘better for you’ products to lead to weight gain is real (Miller, Castellanos, Shide, Peters, & Rolls, 1998; Shide & Rolls, 1995; Wansink & Chandon, 2006). One study found that participants consumed more calories in a meal after first being given a starter labelled ‘low fat’ than when the starter was labelled ‘high fat’ (the energy content of the two starters was the same) (Shide & Rolls, 1995). Likewise, Wansink and Chandon (2006) found that overweight consumers were likely to ingest more calories when given a ‘low fat’ product to eat, and concluded that low fat nutrition claims encourage people to eat more because these inflate consumers’ perceptions of an appropriate serving size and assuage consumption guilt. Products bearing nutrition-content claims such as ‘low fat’ may still have high energy contents. An audit of Australian products with reduced fat claims found many were energy dense and could contribute to unhealthy weight gain (La Fontaine, Crowe, Swinburn, & Gibbons, 2004).
In the course of developing P293, FSANZ undertook or commissioned several studies to determine how nutrition-content claims shape consumers’ choices. Participants in a qualitative research study reported that claims do not influence their purchase behaviour (FSANZ, 2005b). In a more recent experimental study, respondents were asked to evaluate fictitious product packages either with or without nutrition-content claims. Adding nutrition claims did not lead to a significant increase in purchase intentions or product evaluations (FSANZ, 2008c).
113
However, another FSANZ study found conflicting results. This study explored possible effects of health claims, and found that consumers do look for and rely on claims. The research also yielded another surprising piece of information: many consumers reported they were already aware of and relied on high level health claims, despite this being impossible (FSANZ, 2005b; 2006c). Although FSANZ attributed this finding to confusion over the question or possible exposure to illegal claims (see for example Williams et al., 2006), psychological research also suggests a plausible alternative explanation. It is normal for people to recall prior knowledge and associations to draw inferences while reading (called “top down” processing), and thereby infer conclusions that are not explicitly contained in the text being read (Leahey & Harris, 2001; Matlin, 2003). Therefore, consumers may recall reports of scientific findings in the media or claims made in advertisements (Williams, Tapsell, Jones, & McConville, 2007), leading them to assume that a product may help them achieve specific health benefits.
Furthermore, marketers are aware that consumers have a tendency to make attributions beyond manufacturers’ claims (Preston, 2002). Additionally, consumers do not always draw distinctions between different levels of claims (Williams, 2005). Despite
ambiguous research findings, FSANZ (2007c) concluded there is no reliable evidence that nutrition claims mislead consumers or encourage unhealthy consumption
behaviours.
Overall, the effects these types of information have on consumers’ knowledge, beliefs and behaviour are unclear, and the interaction between health claims and current or simplified versions of nutrition information has not yet been tested. While health claims are put forward as a way to “remove ambiguity and uncertainty in the marketplace” (FSANZ, 2005c, p. 2), they have the potential to create confusion as consumers receive more information and opt for more efficient ways of processing this. Thus, health claims may assist consumers to make more informed food choices, but empirical clarification of the role this information could play, how consumers interpret it, and its interaction with other information, will extend knowledge of how consumers process conflicting
114
4.4
Conclusions
Western societies place a high value on the right of individual freedom of choice, and this is particularly so for food, which is a key reason why information disclosure policies are preferred by policy makers. It is very important that people eat well as diet affects health, but the optimal nutrition and health information disclosure policies remain unknown. Furthermore, consumers can only receive direct benefit from information disclosure if they understand it and alter their decision making accordingly (Mazis et al., 1981); high obesity and chronic disease rates cast some doubt on the efficacy of current labelling provisions.
The effect of nutrition information formatting and product claims has been the subject of many consumer surveys, as well as lab and field experiments, particularly in the United States. The collective findings often present conflicting results, although some themes have begun to emerge. It is quite clear, for example, that while many consumers want their families to eat nutritious foods and remain healthy, there are other factors that militate against using available information to achieve this goal. Consumers have reported that they only have limited time available to peruse options and read nutrition labels, and a significant proportion of the population has difficulty understanding and working with numeric information.
The fact that opportunity, motivation and ability affect consumers’ use and
understanding of information has prompted both researchers and regulators to design and test alternative communication formats. Reference formats such as Percent Daily Value (or Percent Daily Intake) have been shown to be effective in some studies but not others. The difference seems to result from ability; consumers with greater nutrition knowledge and education perform well at label reading tasks using PDV information.
Summary labels were developed to reduce knowledge and ability burdens, and it seems these do help less able consumers. However, research on the communication
effectiveness of summary formats is ambiguous, and many consumers do not like simple formats. However, manufacturers and supermarket chains have quite recently begun to embrace the use of prominent, simplified decision cues – in the form of ‘healthy choice’ logos. Evidence from the field of label ergonomics suggests that graphic, colourful, and easily recognised labels are seen and used by consumers.
115
It seems that consumers can be partitioned according to the volume of information they would prefer in nutrition labels: ‘the simpler the better’ versus ‘give us all the
information’. However, the studies reported above also show that consumers’ preferences frequently fail to align with their ability to use alternative formats: “…formats which perform well are not necessarily popular, and formats which are popular do not necessarily perform well” (Levy et al., 1991, p. 120).
Consumers tend to base product evaluations on verbal descriptions rather than numeric information, which has raised concerns among nutritionists and health advocates about the potential for product claims to bias food selection decisions. While consumers can use nutrition information to establish the validity of product claims, evidence points to claims being used as quick heuristics. As claims are often prominent, typically using easy to read fonts and accompanied by graphics, it is important that nutrition labels are visually strong enough to compete with nutrient and health claims.
Overall, the effect of nutrient and health related claims on consumers’ behaviour is unclear (Williams et al., 2003). Since the majority of studies have measured perceptions and evaluations rather than impact on behaviour, questions remain about whether
reported findings generalise to in-store settings and purchase decisions (Geiger, 1998). Few studies have been conducted in field settings, and it is reasonable to expect that consumers’ use of nutrition labelling could decline in realistic settings.
Policy makers also need information on the amount and type of information that consumers can realistically use in-store (Scott & Worsley, 1994). In developing
regulations around information disclosure, policy makers need to reconcile the disparity between consumers’ desire for more information and their ability to process it. As Bettman et al. (1986) noted, label designers need to ensure that sufficient information is present for informed choices, while not providing so much information that consumers selectively process and make sub-optimal choices. A balance must be struck, as overly simplified labels may also result in misleading impressions. Thus, researchers need to test formats that minimise information load to determine if these simple formats enable adequate decisions.
116