Policy Research for Front of Package Nutrition Labeling: Environmental Scan and Literature Review. Table 5-11. Shelf-Labeling Effects on Producers and Retailers: Sales and Other Benefits


Table 5-11. Shelf-Labeling Effects on Producers and Retailers: Sales and Other Benefits

StudyLabelsStudy DesignSample PopulationResultsQuality Score
Schucker et al., 1992 U.S.Brand-specific nutrition shelf tags identifying brands that have low levels of sodium, fat, and cholesterol.Evaluation of a 2-year (1984 – 1986) nutrition education program in Baltimore supermarket chain that included point-of-purchase brand-specific shelf labels and an explanatory booklet available in the supermarket check-out aisle. Effects evaluated in two parts: Part 1: Purchase behavior for 16 original food categories, and Part 2: Purchase behavior for 25 newly added food categories.All Baltimore-area Giant stores (n = 20, only 19 used for second evaluation); Previous to Baltimore, the program was carried out in Washington, DC, Giant stores treated as a control for this study (n = 20). Convenience sample of 100 shoppers per store through in-store interviews to collect information about shoppers who used labels.Impact on sales : Part 1: Market shares of shelf-tagged products increased 12% on average in 8 of 16 product categories (p < 0.01). Part 2: Market shares of 10 of 25 categories had significant increases in market share of labeled products (only 4 categories with significant losses and 8 categories with stable market share) (p < 0.05).2.0
Affinnova, 2007 (NuVal, 2010) U.S.NuVal (Overall score 1 to 100)Messaging and communication of NuVal brand. (No additional information presented regarding study design).454 female respondents, aged 35 to 64 years; all respondents expressed interest in healthy lifestyle.Benefits to retailers : 65% completely or somewhat agree that they are more likely to shop at store with NuVal system.1.0
Affinnova, 2009 (NuVal, 2010) U.S.NuVal (Overall score 1 to 100)Consumers reviewed 8 different products within six categories; 1st comparison showed product images and prices and 2nd showed same product images and prices and NuVal scores.Panel of 1,611 consumers, aged 18 to 59 years, 78% female.Benefits to retailers/producers : NuVal affects the choice of retailer. 32% all consumers studied and 43% health conscious consumers prefer to shop at store that uses NuVal. Private-label products are more sensitive to NuVal than national products (share lifts in preference or intent to buy for private label products with NuVal had scores 3 – 5 points higher than national brand equivalent).2.0
Freedman & Connors, 2010 U.S."Fuel Your Life" shelf tag11-week quasi-experimental study to evaluate the Eat Smart point-of-purchase nutrition education program. Program material included the "Fuel Your Life" shelf tags, promotional poster in store window, and brochures describing the program. Seven food categories tagged; tagged foods had arbitrary nutritional criteria.Studied one on-campus convenience store at a university in the U.S.Impact on sales : No significant difference in sales between baseline and intervention.1.0
Hannaford's 12-month sales trends (Guiding Stars Licensing Company, 2010) U.S.Guiding StarsAnalysis of Hannaford Supermarkets' sales from Sept. 2006 to Sept. 2007.NAWithin the first year of the program, sales of starred frozen dinners (+56%) out sold frozen dinners without stars (+5%), lean ground beef (+18%) relative to fattier ground beef (-5%), starred yogurts (+8%) compared with nonstarred yogurts (-5%), and skim milk (1%) relative to whole milk (-4%).1.0
IRI, 2010 (NuVal, 2010) U.S.NuVal (Overall score of 100)Analysis of store purchase data (2008 – 2009) to assess the impact of the NuVal scores on shoppers' buying behavior.2 retailer chains (A and B) and 3 product categories.Impact on sales : For retailer A: for all product categories studied, volume sales grew more in products with scores 50 to 100 compared with lower scoring products. Among products with NuVal scores 50 – 100, volume sales increased from 2008 to 2009 by 29.2% for yogurt, 20% for bread/rolls, and 5.2% for cold cereal. The sales of the 3 product categories increased as a whole during the study period (10.4% yogurt, 6.2% bread/rolls, 2.2% cold cereal). For retailer B, sales volume also increased for higher rated NuVal products in all categories except cold cereal (decrease of 1.63%, although a cereal had been discontinued but if this was excluded from the dataset then healthier product sales volume increased by 3.1%). Retailer A had larger sales volume increases for higher rated NuVal products compared with retailers who did not implement the NuVal system (yogurt: 29% increase retailer A vs. 6.8% increases other retailers; bread/rolls: 20% increase vs. 13.8% other retailers; cold cereal: 5.2% increase vs. 13% decrease other retailers). Retailer B also surpassed competitors in healthier sales.1.0
Sutherland et al., 2010 U.S.Guiding Stars (3-tiered star icon shelf label)Analysis of grocery store purchase data (2006 – 2008) at 1- and 2-year follow-up periods. Explored whether sales of portion of foods with shelf label increased and used ready-to-eat cereals data to explore effect on consumers' dietary intake.168 supermarkets in the Northeastern U.S., which first implemented the Guiding Stars program.Impact on sales : Purchase of starred items increased from 24.5% to 24.98% and 25.89% at the 1- and 2-year follow-up periods, respectively; the 2-year increase was 1.39%. Sales of 1-star products increased significantly (p > 0.0001) from 9.54% to 10.37%, and sales of 2-star (+0.22%; p < 0.05) and 3-star (+0.34%; p < 0.01) products also significantly increased over the 2-year period. Regarding ready-to-eat cereal, for the second year studied (2008) products with stars increased by 1.67% (p > 0.001) and products without stars declined 2.21% (p > 0.001). It should be noted that between 2007 and 2008 the number of boxes of cereal purchased increased by 6.08%.3.0