Evaluating USA’s New Nutrition and Supplement Facts Label: Evidence from a Non-hypothetical Choice Experiment

Abstract In May 2016, the FDA published new rules for Nutrition and Supplement Facts label formats and contents, which take effect in 2019. The revised labelling is designed to help consumers make better-informed product choices in support of a healthier diet. Changes in nutrition label requirements include the prominent display of “calories per serving” and “serving size” as well as updated nutritional requirements and information reflecting contemporary scientific knowledge about diet–disease relationships. No other known study however has directly examined whether these new upcoming changes will help consumers make healthier choices. To fill this void, we conducted a non-hypothetical choice experiment on “light” and “original” strawberry yogurt products at a major public University in the USA. Using a generalized mixed logit model with a scale parameter to account for taste heterogeneity among participants, we find that the new label changes food choice behavior. Specifically, we find that the new label reduces consumer’s preferences for both original and low-fat yogurts. This finding is evident among the more health-conscious subsample. It is possible that the new label generates an “alarm” effect given the revised features on calories, added sugar and serving size, especially among those who are more nutrition and health conscious and those who use labels for nutrient information.

[1]  David S. Brookshire,et al.  Valuing Environmental Commodities: Some Recent Experiments , 1981 .

[2]  R. Nayga Determinants of Consumers' Use of Nutritional Information on Food Packages , 1996, Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics.

[3]  C. Achterberg,et al.  Knowledge and Misconceptions About the Food Label Among Women With Non-Insulin-Dependent Diabetes Mellitus , 1997, The Diabetes educator.

[4]  S. Fein,et al.  Consumers’ Ability to Perform Tasks Using Nutrition Labels , 1998 .

[5]  R. Nayga,et al.  Consumers' Use of Nutritional Labels While Food Shopping and At Home , 1998 .

[6]  Scot Burton,et al.  Implications of accurate usage of nutrition facts panel information for food product evaluations and purchase intentions , 1999 .

[7]  John A. List,et al.  What Experimental Protocol Influence Disparities Between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values? , 2001 .

[8]  T. Schroeder,et al.  Are Choice Experiments Incentive Compatible? A Test with Quality Differentiated Beef Steaks , 2004 .

[9]  James J. Murphy,et al.  A Meta-analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation , 2005 .

[10]  Kenneth Train,et al.  Discrete Choice Models in Preference Space and Willingness-to Pay Space , 2005 .

[11]  G. Harrison Hypothetical Bias Over Uncertain Outcomes , 2005 .

[12]  Andreas C. Drichoutis,et al.  Nutrition knowledge and consumer use of nutritional food labels , 2005 .

[13]  A. Fearne,et al.  Nutritional Knowledge, Nutritional Labels, and Health Claims on Food Products in the UK , 2012 .

[14]  M. Loureiro,et al.  Do Consumers Value Nutritional Labels , 2006 .

[15]  R. Scarpa,et al.  Benefit Estimates for Landscape Improvements: Sequential Bayesian Design and Respondents’ Rationality in a Choice Experiment , 2005, Land Economics.

[16]  George M. Chryssochoidis,et al.  A theoretical and empirical investigation of nutritional label use , 2008, The European Journal of Health Economics.

[17]  Klaus G. Grunert,et al.  A review of European research on consumer response to nutrition information on food labels , 2007, Journal of Public Health.

[18]  M. Bliemer,et al.  Approximation of bayesian efficiency in experimental choice designs , 2008 .

[19]  Kenneth Train,et al.  Utility in Willingness to Pay Space: A Tool to Address Confounding Random Scale Effects in Destination Choice to the Alps , 2008 .

[20]  Neil Malhotra,et al.  Completion Time and Response Order Effects in Web Surveys , 2008 .

[21]  S. Chowdhury,et al.  Are Consumers in Developing Countries Willing to Pay More for Micronutrient‐Dense Biofortified Foods? Evidence from a Field Experiment in Uganda , 2011 .

[22]  A. Drichoutis,et al.  Can Nutritional Label Use Influence Body Weight Outcomes? , 2009 .

[23]  M. Loureiro,et al.  Consumers’ valuation of nutritional information: A choice experiment study , 2009 .

[24]  Iain Fraser,et al.  Model selection for the mixed logit with Bayesian estimation , 2009 .

[25]  Iain Fraser,et al.  Traffic Lights and Food Choice: A Choice Experiment Examining the Relationship Between Nutritional Food Labels and Price , 2010 .

[26]  Peter Bonsall,et al.  Factors affecting the amount of effort expended in responding to questions in behavioural choice experiments , 2009 .

[27]  W. Verbeke,et al.  Health-related beliefs and consumer knowledge as determinants of fish consumption. , 2010, Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association.

[28]  Denzil G. Fiebig,et al.  The Generalized Multinomial Logit Model: Accounting for Scale and Coefficient Heterogeneity , 2010, Mark. Sci..

[29]  S. Yen,et al.  Knowledge of dietary fats among US consumers. , 2010, Journal of the American Dietetic Association.

[30]  Svetlana Bialkova,et al.  What determines consumer attention to nutrition labels , 2010 .

[31]  R. Wolf,et al.  Food label use and its relation to dietary intake among US adults. , 2011, Journal of the American Dietetic Association.

[32]  Dan J. Graham,et al.  Location, location, location: eye-tracking evidence that consumers preferentially view prominently positioned nutrition information. , 2011, Journal of the American Dietetic Association.

[33]  M. Siegrist,et al.  The role of health-related, motivational and sociodemographic aspects in predicting food label use: a comprehensive study , 2011, Public Health Nutrition.

[34]  Sophie Hieke,et al.  A Critical Review of the Literature on Nutritional Labeling , 2012 .

[35]  A. Gracia,et al.  On the Use of Honesty Priming Tasks to Mitigate Hypothetical Bias in Choice Experiments , 2013 .

[36]  David A. Hensher,et al.  Bounding WTP distributions to reflect the 'actual'consideration set , 2014 .

[37]  Wim Verbeke,et al.  European consumer preferences for beef with nutrition and health claims: A multi-country investigation using discrete choice experiments , 2014 .

[38]  D. Hammond,et al.  The efficacy of sugar labeling formats: Implications for labeling policy , 2015, Obesity.

[39]  Bas Donkers,et al.  Sample Size Requirements for Discrete-Choice Experiments in Healthcare: a Practical Guide , 2015, The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research.

[40]  M. Cogswell,et al.  Reported Use and Perceived Understanding of Sodium Information on US Nutrition Labels , 2015, Preventing chronic disease.

[41]  L. Miller,et al.  Disparities in Obesity-Related Outdoor Advertising by Neighborhood Income and Race , 2015, Journal of Urban Health.

[42]  Katherine M Flegal,et al.  Trends in Obesity Prevalence Among Children and Adolescents in the United States, 1988-1994 Through 2013-2014. , 2016, JAMA.

[43]  Dan J. Graham,et al.  Evaluating the Impact of U.S. Food and Drug Administration–Proposed Nutrition Facts Label Changes on Young Adults’ Visual Attention and Purchase Intentions , 2016, Health education & behavior : the official publication of the Society for Public Health Education.

[44]  W. Willett,et al.  The Revised Nutrition Facts Label: A Step Forward and More Room for Improvement. , 2016, JAMA.

[45]  A. Abdulai Impact of Ex‐Ante Hypothetical Bias Mitigation Methods on Attribute Non‐Attendance in Choice Experiments , 2016 .

[46]  A. Oh,et al.  Nutrition Label Numeracy: Disparities and Association with Health Behaviors. , 2016, American journal of health behavior.

[47]  T. Mijanovich,et al.  The Current Limits of Calorie Labeling and the Potential for Population Health Impact , 2017 .

[48]  Danny Campbell,et al.  Response time in online stated choice experiments: the non-triviality of identifying fast and slow respondents , 2017 .

[49]  S. Mayne,et al.  The US Food and Drug Administration’s role in improving nutrition: Labeling and other authorities , 2017 .

[50]  D. Marsh,et al.  Stability of Willingness-to-Pay for Coastal Management: A Choice Experiment Across Three Time Periods , 2017 .

[51]  R. Nayga,et al.  Testing Commitment Cost Theory in Choice Experiments , 2017 .

[52]  G. Davis,et al.  Change is good!? Analyzing the relationship between attention and nutrition facts panel modifications , 2017 .

[53]  Guijing Wang,et al.  Nutrition Label Use and Sodium Intake in the U.S , 2017, American journal of preventive medicine.

[54]  Ricardo A. Daziano,et al.  Multinomial Logit Models with Continuous and Discrete Individual Heterogeneity in R: The gmnl Package , 2017 .

[55]  Riccardo Scarpa,et al.  Using virtual environments to improve the realism of choice experiments: A case study about coastal erosion management , 2017 .

[56]  Danny Campbell,et al.  The link between response time and preference, variance and processing heterogeneity in stated choice experiments , 2018 .

[57]  Wuyang Hu,et al.  Understanding Hypothetical Bias: An Enhanced Meta‐Analysis , 2018, American Journal of Agricultural Economics.