Policy Research for Front of Package Nutrition Labeling: Environmental Scan and Literature Review. Table 5-4. Shelf-Labeling Effects on Consumer Response to Liking/Preferences


Table 5-4. Shelf-Labeling Effects on Consumer Response to Liking/Preferences

StudyLabelsStudy DesignSample PopulationResultsQuality Score
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.Preference : Consumers were asked if the NuVal system was available at the grocery store, where would they prefer to find it. 37% said on the products themselves and 55% said both on the price tags located on the front-of-store shelves and on the products themselves.1.0
Berning et al., 2007 U.S.Shelf labels with detailed information vs. shelf labels with summary informationChoice experiment where each survey respondent was shown 16 sets (4 per set) of shelf labels. The fourth set was the same in all the choice sets (a label with high prominence price/unit price and no nutrition information). The full factorial design was 2 x 2 x 3 x 2. Shelf labels had varying displays of price (low vs. high prominence), per-unit price (low vs. high prominence), and nutrition formats (written nutrition information: no information, low prominence, high prominence or summary [star-rating] nutrition information none and present).410 shoppers (mean age 42.4 + 16.6 years, 62% female) intercepted in stores: part of a California supermarket chain.Preference : Used different models to determine that less nutrition-conscious consumers prefer the summary labels and require less time to process them, while nutrition-conscious consumers and consumers who do most of their households' shopping prefer the detailed labels.3.0
Affinnova, 2009 (NuVal, 2010) U.S.NuVal (Overall score of 1 to 100)Consumers reviewed eight different products within six categories; first comparison showed product images and prices and second showed same product images and prices and NuVal scores.Panel of 1,611 consumers, aged 18 to 59 years, 78% female.Liking : 82% of consumers had positive view of NuVal. 32% indicated the system is "easy."2.0
Katz et al., 2009 U.S.ONQI system (NuVal)Internet surveys to assess validation of NuValGroup 1: 454 female respondents, aged 35 to 64 years (e.g., same study as the Affinnova, 2007, study). Group 2: 350 male and female respondents aged 18 to 64 years.Liking :Group 1: 93% said system would be helpful in making purchase decisions.Group 2: 85% of respondents agreed the NuVal system is unique and 87% believable. Compared the numeric ONQI system (scale 1 to 100) to a system that reports nutritional quality using one, two, and three stars. 75% of the respondents preferred the ONQI system.2.0