impact of labeling on consumers

22
Connecticut Office of Legislative Research Marie Bragg, M.S. December 13, 2011

Upload: georgio-betagh

Post on 31-Dec-2015

27 views

Category:

Documents


2 download

DESCRIPTION

Impact of Labeling on Consumers. Connecticut Office of Legislative Research Marie Bragg, M.S. December 13, 2011. Why do we care about labels?. Nutrition-related claims may: confuse consumers make it difficult to assess nutrition be misleading - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

TRANSCRIPT

Connecticut Office of Legislative ResearchMarie Bragg, M.S.

December 13, 2011

Nutrition Claims Structure/Function Claims

Health Claims

Describe beneficial levels of a nutrient

Compare nutrient levels

Describe the food as ‘healthy’

Describe a nutrient’s effect on a bodily structure or function

Describe ‘a relationship between a substance and a disease or health-related condition’

Ex: good source of fiber

Lower Fat than Regular

Ex: bones, digestion Ex: diets low in sodium may reduce the risk of high blood pressure

Nutrition-related claims may: ◦ confuse consumers◦ make it difficult to assess nutrition◦ be misleading

Claims implicitly convey benefits that are not directly stated, including:◦ overall nutrition ◦ health-related outcomes from consumption

Nestle & Ludwig (2010)Wansink (2003)

Silverglade & Heller(2009)Drewnowski et al. (2010)

Institute of Medicine (2010)

What do you think this label means about the cereal?

‘It is probably healthier than other brands of children’s cereals’

‘It is probably lower in calories than other brands of children’s cereal’

Harris, Thompson, Schwartz, & Brownell (2010)

How do you think the whole grains in this cereal will affect your child?

Grow strong bones

Help maintain healthy weight

Harris, Thompson, Schwartz, & Brownell (2010)

Majority misinterpreted the meaning of claims!

Inferred cereals with claims were:◦ more nutritious overall ◦ might provide health-related benefits

These beliefs predicted greater willingness to buy the cereals

Harris, Thompson, Schwartz, & Brownell (2010)

ate 50% more calories

versus

Wansink & Chandon (2006)

Objective serving-size information:

◦ prevents normal-weight people from overeating foods labeled as low fat

◦ does not influence consumption of overweight individuals

Wansink & Chandon (2006)

Lower in calories Appropriate to eat more often Acceptable to skip exercise

Both groups were told the cookies were 160 calories per serving!

Schuldt et al. (2010)

“Front-of-Package Nutrition Rating Systems and Symbols: Promoting Healthier Choices”

Congress and the FDA should:

◦ Require all health claims be reviewed by the FDA prior to marketing to ensure scientific validity

◦ Prohibit trans fat claims, unless the food is also low in saturated fat and cholesterol

Center for Science in the Public Interest

Congress and the FDA should:

◦ Require claims for “Natural” foods meet standards

◦ Require claims such as “made with whole wheat,” be permitted only if the product discloses the amount of whole wheat (as percentage of total grain)

Center for Science in the Public Interest

Be informed: Read research reports

Write policymakers and ask for change

Draw attention to problematic labels

Claims can lead to increased calorie intake

Claims can mislead/confuse consumers

Consumers unaware of influence

Clear objective labels are needed