IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/canjag/v71y2023i3-4p277-301.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Impact of ‘‘high in” front‐of‐package nutrition labeling on food choices: Evidence from a grocery shopping experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Yu Na Lee
  • Laura Stortz
  • Mike von Massow
  • Christopher Kimmerer

Abstract

This study investigates the ex‐ante effects of the front‐of‐package (FoP) nutrition labeling for food products high in saturated fat, sugar, and/or sodium, which is a new regulation recently announced by Health Canada to combat obesity. The Canadian food industry has until January 1, 2026, to comply with the new regulations. To examine the ex‐ante effects of this policy, an incentivized experiment is conducted in a lab that replicates a grocery store. The results at the product level indicate a significant decrease in the probability of choosing a product with a “high in” label compared to those without “high in” labels. Basket‐level results demonstrate that FoP labeling is significantly associated with a lower quantity share and dollar value share of products high in one of the mentioned nutrients selected in a grocery basket, as well as fewer grams of sugar and sodium in a grocery basket. Furthermore, the study reveals that individuals with higher educational attainment, a risk‐averse nature, and a lower level of self‐reported nutrition knowledge tend to react more to the labeling. The insights from eye‐tracking data further support these results, revealing that product choices are deterred by a fixation on “high in” labels. This study contributes to an improved understanding of the pathway in which labeling schemes influence food choices. Cette étude examine les effets ex ante de l'étiquetage nutritionnel sur le devant de l'emballage (DdE) pour les produits alimentaires riches en gras saturés, en sucre et/ou en sodium. Cet étiquetage est un nouveau règlement récemment annoncé par Santé Canada pour lutter contre l'obésité. L'industrie alimentaire canadienne a jusqu'au 1er janvier 2026 pour se conformer à la nouvelle réglementation. Pour examiner les effets ex ante de cette politique, une expérience avec incitatif est menée dans un laboratoire qui reproduit une épicerie. Les résultats au niveau du produit indiquent une diminution significative de la probabilité de choisir un produit avec une étiquette « riche en » par rapport à ceux sans étiquette « riche en ». Les résultats au niveau du panier démontrent que l'étiquetage DdE est associé de manière significative à une proportion en quantité et en valeur monétaire plus faibles des produits riches en l'un des nutriments mentionnés dans le panier d'épicerie, ainsi qu'à moins de grammes de sucre et de sodium dans le panier d'épicerie. En outre, l’étude révèle que les individus ayant un niveau d’éducation plus élevé, une nature averse au risque et un niveau de connaissances nutritionnelles autodéclaré inférieur ont tendance à réagir davantage à l’étiquetage. Les informations issues des données d'oculométrie confirment ces résultats, révélant que les étiquettes « riches en » réduisent le choix de ces produits. Cette étude contribue à une meilleure compréhension de la manière dont les systèmes d'étiquetage influencent les choix alimentaires.

Suggested Citation

  • Yu Na Lee & Laura Stortz & Mike von Massow & Christopher Kimmerer, 2023. "Impact of ‘‘high in” front‐of‐package nutrition labeling on food choices: Evidence from a grocery shopping experiment," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 71(3-4), pages 277-301, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:canjag:v:71:y:2023:i:3-4:p:277-301
    DOI: 10.1111/cjag.12339
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/cjag.12339
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/cjag.12339?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Thomas Dohmen & Armin Falk & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde & Jürgen Schupp & Gert G. Wagner, 2011. "Individual Risk Attitudes: Measurement, Determinants, And Behavioral Consequences," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 9(3), pages 522-550, June.
    2. Jayson L. Lusk & Keith H. Coble, 2005. "Risk Perceptions, Risk Preference, and Acceptance of Risky Food," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(2), pages 393-405.
    3. Anderson, Lisa R. & Mellor, Jennifer M., 2008. "Predicting health behaviors with an experimental measure of risk preference," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(5), pages 1260-1274, September.
    4. Kiesel, Kristin & Villas-Boas, Sofia B., 2013. "Can information costs affect consumer choice? Nutritional labels in a supermarket experiment," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 153-163.
    5. Chen Zhu & Rigoberto A. Lopez & Xiaoou Liu, 2016. "Information Cost and Consumer Choices of Healthy Foods," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 98(1), pages 41-53.
    6. Xie, Yi & Grebitus, Carola & Davis, George C., 2015. "Can the new label make a difference? Comparing consumer attention towards the current versus proposed Nutrition Facts panel," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205683, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    7. Paolo Crosetto & Anne Lacroix & Laurent Muller & Bernard Ruffieux, 2020. "Nutritional and economic impact of five alternative front-of-pack nutritional labels: experimental evidence [Prospective association between a dietary quality index based on a nutrient profiling sy," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 47(2), pages 785-818.
    8. Edward C. Norton, 2022. "The inverse hyperbolic sine transformation and retransformed marginal effects," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 22(3), pages 702-712, September.
    9. Sebastián Araya & Andrés Elberg & Carlos Noton & Daniel Schwartz, 2022. "Identifying Food Labeling Effects on Consumer Behavior," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 41(5), pages 982-1003, September.
    10. Becker, Mark W. & Bello, Nora M. & Sundar, Raghav P. & Peltier, Chad & Bix, Laura, 2015. "Front of pack labels enhance attention to nutrition information in novel and commercial brands," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 76-86.
    11. Balcombe, Kelvin & Fraser, Iain & Falco, Salvatore Di, 2010. "Traffic lights and food choice: A choice experiment examining the relationship between nutritional food labels and price," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 211-220, June.
    12. Carola Grebitus & George C. Davis, 2019. "Does the new nutrition facts panel help compensate for low numeracy skills? An eye‐tracking analysis," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 50(3), pages 249-258, May.
    13. Papke, Leslie E & Wooldridge, Jeffrey M, 1996. "Econometric Methods for Fractional Response Variables with an Application to 401(K) Plan Participation Rates," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(6), pages 619-632, Nov.-Dec..
    14. Wilde, Parke E. & Pomeranz, Jennifer & Lizewski, Lauren & Zhang, Fang Fang, 2019. "Labels for cereals, crackers, and breads cause consumer confusion about whole grain content and healthfulness of products," 2019 Annual Meeting, July 21-23, Atlanta, Georgia 290950, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    15. Andreas C. Drichoutis & Panagiotis Lazaridis & Rodolfo M. Nayga, 2005. "Nutrition knowledge and consumer use of nutritional food labels," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 32(1), pages 93-118, March.
    16. Marc F. Bellemare & Casey J. Wichman, 2020. "Elasticities and the Inverse Hyperbolic Sine Transformation," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 82(1), pages 50-61, February.
    17. Mario F. Teisl & Nancy E. Bockstael & Alan Levy, 2001. "Measuring the Welfare Effects of Nutrition Information," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(1), pages 133-149.
    18. Fichera, Eleonora & von Hinke, Stephanie, 2020. "The response to nutritional labels: Evidence from a quasi-experiment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jo, Jisung & Lusk, Jayson L. & Muller, Laurent & Ruffieux, Bernard, 2016. "Value of parsimonious nutritional information in a framed field experiment," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 124-133.
    2. Fossen, Frank M. & Glocker, Daniela, 2017. "Stated and revealed heterogeneous risk preferences in educational choice," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 1-25.
    3. S. Marette & L. Nabec & F. Durieux, 2019. "Improving Nutritional Quality of Consumers’ Food Purchases With Traffic-Lights Labels: An Experimental Analysis," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 42(3), pages 377-395, September.
    4. Tamás Csermely & Alexander Rabas, 2016. "How to reveal people’s preferences: Comparing time consistency and predictive power of multiple price list risk elicitation methods," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 53(2), pages 107-136, December.
    5. Holzmeister, Felix & Stefan, Matthias, 2019. "The Risk Elicitation Puzzle Revisited: Across-Methods (In)consistency?," OSF Preprints pj9u2, Center for Open Science.
    6. Bartczak, Anna & Chilton, Susan & Meyerhoff, Jürgen, 2015. "Wildfires in Poland: The impact of risk preferences and loss aversion on environmental choices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 300-309.
    7. Felix Holzmeister & Matthias Stefan, 2019. "The risk elicitation puzzle revisited: Across-methods (in)consistency?," Working Papers 2019-19, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    8. Zhu, Chen & Huang, Rui, 2014. "Heterogeneity in Consumer Responses to Front-of-Package Nutrition Labels: Evidence from a Natural Experiment?," Working Papers 27, University of Connecticut, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Charles J. Zwick Center for Food and Resource Policy.
    9. Chen, Xuqi & Gao, Yujuan & Gao, Zhifeng, 2022. "Impacts of color-coded nutrition facts panel and consumer responses," 2022 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Anaheim, California 322206, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    10. Petrolia, Daniel R., 2016. "Risk preferences, risk perceptions, and risky food," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 37-48.
    11. Kaywana Raeburn & Jim Engle-Warnick & Sonia Laszlo, 2016. "Determinants of Food Consumption Choices: Experimental Evidence from St. Kitts," CIRANO Working Papers 2016s-43, CIRANO.
    12. Verschoor, Arjan & D’Exelle, Ben & Perez-Viana, Borja, 2016. "Lab and life: Does risky choice behaviour observed in experiments reflect that in the real world?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 134-148.
    13. Defago, Daniel & Geng, José F. & Molina, Oswaldo & Santa María, Diego, 2017. "Digestible information: The impact of Multiple Traffic Light nutritional labeling in a developing country," MPRA Paper 79678, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Patrick Bell & Rozlyn Engel & Darren Hudson & Julian Jamison & William Skimmyhorn, 2018. "Risk preferences in future military leaders," Journal of Behavioral Economics for Policy, Society for the Advancement of Behavioral Economics (SABE), vol. 2(2), pages 11-24, September.
    15. Felix Holzmeister & Matthias Stefan, 2021. "The risk elicitation puzzle revisited: Across-methods (in)consistency?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(2), pages 593-616, June.
    16. Goldzahl, Léontine, 2017. "Contributions of risk preference, time orientation and perceptions to breast cancer screening regularity," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 147-157.
    17. Allais, Olivier & Etilé, Fabrice & Lecocq, Sébastien, 2015. "Mandatory labels, taxes and market forces: An empirical evaluation of fat policies," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 27-44.
    18. Sophie Massin & Antoine Nebout & Bruno Ventelou, 2018. "Predicting medical practices using various risk attitude measures," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(6), pages 843-860, July.
    19. Jean Spinks & Son Nghiem & Joshua Byrnes, 2021. "Risky business, healthy lives: how risk perception, risk preferences and information influence consumer’s risky health choices," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(5), pages 811-831, July.
    20. Alejandro Arrieta & Ariadna García‐Prado & Paula González & José Luis Pinto‐Prades, 2017. "Risk attitudes in medical decisions for others: An experimental approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(S3), pages 97-113, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:canjag:v:71:y:2023:i:3-4:p:277-301. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/caefmea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.