Policy Research for Front of Package Nutrition Labeling: Environmental Scan and Literature Review. Table 5-9. Shelf Labeling Effects on Purchases and Consumption


Table 5-9. Shelf Labeling Effects on Purchases and Consumption

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 cholesterolEvaluation of a 2-year (1984 to 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 Part 2: Purchase behavior for 25 newly added food categoriesAll Baltimore-area Giant stores (n = 20, only 19 used for second evaluation). Prior 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
Steenhuis et al., 2004 The NetherlandsShelf label indicating low-fat products (label consisted of logo, name of item, and indication that the product was a good low-fat choice)3-group randomized, pretest-posttest, experimental control group design. Total fat intake and behavioral determinants of eating less fat measured. Conditions included: no intervention control, educational program without labeling, and an extended with labeling program.2,203 consumers of 13 supermarkets (mean age 46 years, 80% female) in the Netherlands. Each supermarket assigned to one of the 3 conditions and participants recruited via store-intercept.Reported consumption : No significant differences on total fat intake and behavioral determinants of eating less fat among the 3 conditions. Using individuals as unit for analysis, educational program without labeling had a significant effect on intention to eat less fat compared with the control (p < 0.01). If used supermarkets as units, did not remain significant (p = .53).3.5
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 12-month sales trends (Guiding Stars Licensing Company, 2010) U.S.Guiding Stars (3-tiered star icon shelf label)Analysis of Hannaford Supermarkets' sales from Sept. 2006 – Sept. 2007NAWithin the first year of the program, sales of starred frozen dinners (increased by 56%) outsold frozen dinners without stars (increased only 5%), lean ground beef (increased 18%) versus fattier ground beef (decreased 5%), starred yogurts (increased 8%) versus nonstarred yogurts (decreased 5%), and skim milk (increased 1%) relative to whole milk (decreased 4%).1.0
IRI, 2010 (NuVal, 2010) U.S.NuVal (Overall score of 1 to 100)Analysis of store purchase data (2008 – 2009) to assess the impact of the NuVal scores on shopper's buying behavior.2 retailer chains and 3 product categories.Impact on Sales : For all product categories studied for retailer A: Volume sales grew more in products with better fitting nutrition. Among products with NuVal scores 50 – 100; volume sales % change 2008 vs. 2009 increased 29.2% yogurt, 20% bread/rolls, 5.2% cold cereal. It should be noted that the 3 product categories sales 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 1.63%, although closer inspection revealed that a cereal was discontinued and if excluded from the dataset healthier product sales volume increased 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 or not 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; 2-year difference = 1.39% increase. 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%.Consumption effects : If take into consideration the shift of starred products versus no-star products purchased from 2007 – 2008, then changes in purchases result in significant decrease in added sugars (net decrease > 60,000 g) and increase in fiber (net increase > 19,474 g).3.0