Policy Research for Front of Package Nutrition Labeling: Environmental Scan and Literature Review. Table 5-7. Shelf-Labeling Effects on Use of Labels and Likely Food Purchase Behavior

02/28/2011

Table 5-7. Shelf-Labeling Effects on Use of Labels and Likely Food Purchase Behavior

StudyLabelsStudy DesignSample PopulationResultsQuality Score
Hunt et al., 1990 U.S.Brand-specific shelf labels (original multi-colored shelf labels were replaced in 1986 with labels of uniform color presenting messages: "low-fat," "low-sodium," "low-fat," low sodium," and "fat ratio OK")Awareness of shelf labels for the Four Heart community program (consisting of shelf labels and supporting collateral) and their effect on likely purchase behavior was studied by conducting consumer interviews in yearly intervals over 4 years (1984 – 1988)1,807 individuals 18+ years of age recruited in store who had made purchases.Likely purchase : Over the 4-year period, the percentage who reported being encouraged to purchase identified foods increased from 36 to 54%.1.0
Schucker et al., 1992 U.S.Brand-specific nutrition shelf tags identifying brands that have low levels of sodium, fat, and cholesterolEvaluation of a 2-year (1984 – 1986) nutrition education program in Baltimore supermarket chain which 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 Part 2: Purchase behavior for 25 newly added food categoriesAll 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.Reported likely use of labels : Age and income weakly correlated with purchase behavior; reported label reading highest among those who were concerned about nutrition (52%) and those whose family members were on special diets (62%).2.0
Lang et al., 2000 U.S.M-Fit Supermarket Shelf-Labeling Program that uses color-coded shelf labels to identify foods as green "Best Choice" and yellow "Acceptable Choice"; foods identified by labels were low in total fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, sodium, and fiberCross-sectional study of consumers exiting 18 supermarkets in the Detroit area; 20 surveys from each store. M-Fit Supermarket program was also supported by promotional materials in the store including banners, posters, etc.361 participants (238 female, 241 African-Americans, mean age 51.6 +18.5 years).Likely use : Reported use "often or always" by 17% of participants, "a little or sometimes" by 39%.1.0
Affinnova, 2007 (NuVal, 2010) U.S.NuVal (Overall score 1 to 100)Messaging and communication of NuVal brand. (No additional information on study design presented.)454 female respondents, ages 35 to 64 years; all respondents expressed interest in healthy lifestyle.Likely purchase : 75% of respondents who were surveyed believed that if they noticed a product they intended to purchase had a low rating that they thought should be higher, they would welcome higher-scoring alternatives suggested by information on a shelf label.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 1611 consumers, ages 18 to 59, 78% female?Likely Use : Consumers with health focus much more likely to be influenced by NuVal than those with a price focus.2.0