IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jcopol/v42y2019i4d10.1007_s10603-019-09426-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluating USA’s New Nutrition and Supplement Facts Label: Evidence from a Non-hypothetical Choice Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • D. Fang

    (University of Arkansas)

  • R. M. Nayga

    (University of Arkansas)

  • H. A. Snell

    (University of Arkansas)

  • G. H. West

    (University of Arkansas)

  • C. Bazzani

    (University of Verona)

Abstract

In May 2016, the FDA published new rules for Nutrition and Supplement Facts label formats and contents, which take effect in 2019. The revised labelling is designed to help consumers make better-informed product choices in support of a healthier diet. Changes in nutrition label requirements include the prominent display of “calories per serving” and “serving size” as well as updated nutritional requirements and information reflecting contemporary scientific knowledge about diet–disease relationships. No other known study however has directly examined whether these new upcoming changes will help consumers make healthier choices. To fill this void, we conducted a non-hypothetical choice experiment on “light” and “original” strawberry yogurt products at a major public University in the USA. Using a generalized mixed logit model with a scale parameter to account for taste heterogeneity among participants, we find that the new label changes food choice behavior. Specifically, we find that the new label reduces consumer’s preferences for both original and low-fat yogurts. This finding is evident among the more health-conscious subsample. It is possible that the new label generates an “alarm” effect given the revised features on calories, added sugar and serving size, especially among those who are more nutrition and health conscious and those who use labels for nutrient information.

Suggested Citation

  • D. Fang & R. M. Nayga & H. A. Snell & G. H. West & C. Bazzani, 2019. "Evaluating USA’s New Nutrition and Supplement Facts Label: Evidence from a Non-hypothetical Choice Experiment," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 42(4), pages 545-562, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:jcopol:v:42:y:2019:i:4:d:10.1007_s10603-019-09426-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s10603-019-09426-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10603-019-09426-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10603-019-09426-z?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Claudia Bazzani & Vincenzina Caputo & Rodolfo M. Nayga JR. & Maurizio Canavari, 2017. "Testing Commitment Cost Theory In Choice Experiments," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 55(1), pages 383-396, January.
    2. Danny Campbell & Morten Raun Mørkbak & Søren Bøye Olsen, 2017. "Response time in online stated choice experiments: the non-triviality of identifying fast and slow respondents," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(1), pages 17-35, January.
    3. Nayga, Rodolfo M., 1996. "Determinants of Consumers' Use of Nutritional Information on Food Packages," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 28(2), pages 303-312, December.
    4. Matthews, Yvonne & Scarpa, Riccardo & Marsh, Dan, 2017. "Using virtual environments to improve the realism of choice experiments: A case study about coastal erosion management," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 193-208.
    5. Denzil G. Fiebig & Michael P. Keane & Jordan Louviere & Nada Wasi, 2010. "The Generalized Multinomial Logit Model: Accounting for Scale and Coefficient Heterogeneity," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(3), pages 393-421, 05-06.
    6. Van Wezemael, Lynn & Caputo, Vincenzina & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Chryssochoidis, George & Verbeke, Wim, 2014. "European consumer preferences for beef with nutrition and health claims: A multi-country investigation using discrete choice experiments," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 167-176.
    7. Grebitus, Carola & Davis, George C., 2017. "Change is good!? Analyzing the relationship between attention and nutrition facts panel modifications," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 119-130.
    8. Sarrias, Mauricio & Daziano, Ricardo, 2017. "Multinomial Logit Models with Continuous and Discrete Individual Heterogeneity in R: The gmnl Package," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 79(i02).
    9. Maria L. Loureiro & Azucena Gracia & Rodolfo M. Nayga, 2006. "Do consumers value nutritional labels?," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 33(2), pages 249-268, June.
    10. James Murphy & P. Allen & Thomas Stevens & Darryl Weatherhead, 2005. "A Meta-analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 30(3), pages 313-325, March.
    11. Andreas C. Drichoutis & Rodolfo M. Nayga, Jr. & Panagiotis Lazaridis, 2009. "Can Nutritional Label Use Influence Body Weight Outcomes?," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(4), pages 500-525, November.
    12. Esther Bekker-Grob & Bas Donkers & Marcel Jonker & Elly Stolk, 2015. "Sample Size Requirements for Discrete-Choice Experiments in Healthcare: a Practical Guide," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 8(5), pages 373-384, October.
    13. John List & Craig Gallet, 2001. "What Experimental Protocol Influence Disparities Between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 20(3), pages 241-254, November.
    14. William D. Schulze & Ralph C. d'Arge & David S. Brookshire, 1981. "Valuing Environmental Commodities: Some Recent Experiments," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 57(2), pages 151-172.
    15. Jerrod M Penn & Wuyang Hu, 2018. "Understanding Hypothetical Bias: An Enhanced Meta-Analysis," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 100(4), pages 1186-1206.
    16. Campbell, Danny & Mørkbak, Morten Raun & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2018. "The link between response time and preference, variance and processing heterogeneity in stated choice experiments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 18-34.
    17. Muhammad Bello & Awudu Abdulai, 2016. "Impact of Ex-Ante Hypothetical Bias Mitigation Methods on Attribute Non-Attendance in Choice Experiments," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 98(5), pages 1486-1506.
    18. 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.
    19. Jayson L. Lusk & Ted C. Schroeder, 2004. "Are Choice Experiments Incentive Compatible? A Test with Quality Differentiated Beef Steaks," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(2), pages 467-482.
    20. Riccardo Scarpa & Danny Campbell & W. George Hutchinson, 2007. "Benefit Estimates for Landscape Improvements: Sequential Bayesian Design and Respondents’ Rationality in a Choice Experiment," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 83(4), pages 617-634.
    21. 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.
    22. Campbell, Danny & Hensher, David A. & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2014. "Bounding WTP distributions to reflect the ‘actual’ consideration set," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 11(C), pages 4-15.
    23. Scarpa, R. & Thiene, M. & Train, K., 2008. "Appendix to Utility in WTP space: a tool to address confounding random scale effects in destination choice to the Alps," American Journal of Agricultural Economics APPENDICES, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(4), pages 1-9, January.
    24. Balcombe, Kelvin & Chalak, Ali & Fraser, Iain, 2009. "Model selection for the mixed logit with Bayesian estimation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 226-237, March.
    25. Sophie Hieke & Charles R. Taylor, 2012. "A Critical Review of the Literature on Nutritional Labeling," Journal of Consumer Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(1), pages 120-156, March.
    26. Riccardo Scarpa & Mara Thiene & Kenneth Train, 2008. "Utility in Willingness to Pay Space: A Tool to Address Confounding Random Scale Effects in Destination Choice to the Alps," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(4), pages 994-1010.
    27. Andreas Drichoutis & Panagiotis Lazaridis & Rodolfo Nayga & Maria Kapsokefalou & George Chryssochoidis, 2008. "A theoretical and empirical investigation of nutritional label use," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 9(3), pages 293-304, August.
    28. Tiziana de-Magistris & Azucena Gracia & Rodolfo M. Nayga, 2013. "On the Use of Honesty Priming Tasks to Mitigate Hypothetical Bias in Choice Experiments," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 95(5), pages 1136-1154.
    29. Matthews, Yvonne & Scarpa, Riccardo & Marsh, Dan, 2017. "Stability of Willingness-to-Pay for Coastal Management: A Choice Experiment Across Three Time Periods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 64-73.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. McLeod, Alexandria N. & Yang, Wei & Fang, Di & Nayga, Rodolfo M. Jr., 2022. "Aligning Values to Labels: A Best-Worst Analysis of Food Labels," 2022 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Anaheim, California 322163, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    2. Neuhofer, Zachary & McFadden, Brandon R. & Rihn, Alicia & Wei, Xuan & Khachatryan, Hayk & House, Lisa, 2020. "Can the updated nutrition facts label decrease sugar-sweetened beverage consumption?," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 37(C).
    3. Edenbrandt, Anna Kristina & Lagerkvist, Carl-Johan, 2021. "Is food labelling effective in reducing climate impact by encouraging the substitution of protein sources?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    4. Di Fang & Rodolfo M. Nayga & Grant H. West & Claudia Bazzani & Wei Yang & Benjamin C. Lok & Charles E. Levy & Heather A. Snell, 2021. "On the Use of Virtual Reality in Mitigating Hypothetical Bias in Choice Experiments," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(1), pages 142-161, January.

    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. Di Fang & Rodolfo M. Nayga & Grant H. West & Claudia Bazzani & Wei Yang & Benjamin C. Lok & Charles E. Levy & Heather A. Snell, 2021. "On the Use of Virtual Reality in Mitigating Hypothetical Bias in Choice Experiments," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(1), pages 142-161, January.
    2. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    3. Kemper, Nathan & Nayga, Rodolfo M. Jr. & Popp, Jennie & Bazzani, Claudia, 2016. "The Effects of Honesty Oath and Consequentiality in Choice Experiments," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235381, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    4. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren B. Olsen, 2017. "Can a Repeated Opt-Out Reminder remove hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments? An application to consumer valuation of novel food products," IFRO Working Paper 2017/05, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    5. Liebe, Ulf & Glenk, Klaus & von Meyer-Höfer, Marie & Spiller, Achim, 2019. "A web survey application of real choice experiments," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 33(C).
    6. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Mjelde, James W., 2020. "Product availability in discrete choice experiments with private goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    7. de-Magistris, Tiziana & Pascucci, Stefano, 2014. "The effect of the solemn oath script in hypothetical choice experiment survey: A pilot study," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 252-255.
    8. West, Grant H. & Snell, Heather & Kovacs, Kent & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2020. "Estimation of the preferences for the intertemporal services from groundwater," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304220, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    9. Lehmann, Nico & Sloot, Daniel & Ardone, Armin & Fichtner, Wolf, 2021. "The limited potential of regional electricity marketing – Results from two discrete choice experiments in Germany," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    10. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Conceptualisation of external validity, sources and explanations of bias and effectiveness of mitigation methods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    11. Caputo, Vincenzina & Scarpa, Riccardo & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Ortega, David L., 2018. "Are preferences for food quality attributes really normally distributed? An analysis using flexible mixing distributions," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 10-27.
    12. Vincenzina Caputo, 2020. "Does information on food safety affect consumers' acceptance of new food technologies? The case of irradiated beef in South Korea under a new labelling system and across different information regimes," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 64(4), pages 1003-1033, October.
    13. Bazzani, Claudia & Nayga, Rodolfo M. Jr. & Caputo, Vincenzina & Canavari, Maurizio & Danforth, Diana M., 2016. "On the Use of the BDM Mechanism in Non-Hypothetical Choice Experiments," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235904, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    14. Ballco, Petjon & Gracia, Azucena, 2020. "Do market prices correspond with consumer demands? Combining market valuation and consumer utility for extra virgin olive oil quality attributes in a traditional producing country," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    15. Menapace, Luisa & Raffaelli, Roberta, 2020. "Unraveling hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 416-430.
    16. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga Jr., Rodolfo M., 2017. "When does real become consequential in non-hypothetical choice experiments?," 2018 Annual Meeting, February 2-6, 2018, Jacksonville, Florida 266327, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    17. Ana I. Sanjuán‐López & Helena Resano‐Ezcaray, 2020. "Labels for a Local Food Speciality Product: The Case of Saffron," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(3), pages 778-797, September.
    18. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Macro-scale analysis of literature and integrative synthesis of empirical evidence from applied economics, experimental psychology and neuroimag," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    19. Penn, Jerrod & Hu, Wuyang, 2017. "The Presence of Hypothetical Bias within Spatial Decay and Charismatic Species: An Application of Monarch and Viceroy Butterflies," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258204, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    20. Balogh, Péter & Békési, Dániel & Gorton, Matthew & Popp, József & Lengyel, Péter, 2016. "Consumer willingness to pay for traditional food products," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 176-184.

    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:kap:jcopol:v:42:y:2019:i:4:d:10.1007_s10603-019-09426-z. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.