IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jcopol/v44y2021i2d10.1007_s10603-021-09481-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Investigation of the Contested Qualified Health Claims for Green Tea and Cancer

Author

Listed:
  • A. Berhaupt-Glickstein

    (Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey)

  • W. K. Hallman

    (Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey)

Abstract

There have been seven qualified health claims (QHCs) in the marketplace about the relationship between the consumption of green tea and the reduced risk of breast and/or prostate cancers that were written by three stakeholders (the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Fleminger, Inc. (tea company), and the Federal Court). This paper evaluates assertions about the effects of these claims on consumers, which were contested in a federal lawsuit. Using a 2 × 7 experimental design, 1,335 Americans 55 years and older were randomized to view one QHC about green tea and cancer, or an identical QHC about a novel diet-disease relationship; yukichi fruit juice and gastrocoridalis. The results show that differing stakeholder descriptions of the same evidence significantly affected consumer perceptions. For example, QHCs written by Fleminger, Inc. were rated as providing greater evidence for the green tea-cancer claim. An FDA summary statement implied mandatory (vs. voluntary) labelling and greater effectiveness, and qualitative descriptions suggested that greater evidence existed for the claims (vs. quantitative descriptions). Greater evidence was also inferred for familiar claims (green tea and cancer).

Suggested Citation

  • A. Berhaupt-Glickstein & W. K. Hallman, 2021. "An Investigation of the Contested Qualified Health Claims for Green Tea and Cancer," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 44(2), pages 259-277, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:jcopol:v:44:y:2021:i:2:d:10.1007_s10603-021-09481-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s10603-021-09481-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10603-021-09481-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10603-021-09481-5?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. Nathan F. Dieckmann & Ellen Peters & Robin Gregory & Martin Tusler, 2012. "Making sense of uncertainty: advantages and disadvantages of providing an evaluative structure," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(7), pages 717-735, August.
    2. Govindasamy, Ramu & Italia, John, 1999. "Evaluating Consumer Usage of Nutritional Labeling: The Influence of Socio-Economic Characteristics," P Series 36734, Rutgers University, Department of Agricultural, Food and Resource Economics.
    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. Nathan F. Dieckmann & Ellen Peters & Robin Gregory, 2015. "At Home on the Range? Lay Interpretations of Numerical Uncertainty Ranges," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1281-1295, July.
    2. Robin Gregory & Ralph L. Keeney, 2017. "A Practical Approach to Address Uncertainty in Stakeholder Deliberations," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(3), pages 487-501, March.
    3. Karl Halvor Teigen & Erik Løhre & Sigrid Møyner Hohle, 2018. "The boundary effect: Perceived post hoc accuracy of prediction intervals," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 13(4), pages 309-321, July.
    4. Nathan F. Dieckmann & Robin Gregory & Ellen Peters & Robert Hartman, 2017. "Seeing What You Want to See: How Imprecise Uncertainty Ranges Enhance Motivated Reasoning," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(3), pages 471-486, March.
    5. Nimoh, Fred & Opoku-Agyeman, Gifty & Frimpong, Alexander Annor, 2021. "Consumers’ Awareness, Perception And Interest In Labelling Of Processed Foods In Ghana: A Case Of ‘Sobolo’," APSTRACT: Applied Studies in Agribusiness and Commerce, AGRIMBA, vol. 15(3-4), 15.
    6. Vivianne H.M. Visschers, 2017. "Judgments under uncertainty: evaluations of univocal, ambiguous and conflicting probability information," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(2), pages 237-255, February.
    7. repec:dau:papers:123456789/7647 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Robin Gregory & Nathan Dieckmann & Ellen Peters & Lee Failing & Graham Long & Martin Tusler, 2012. "Deliberative Disjunction: Expert and Public Understanding of Outcome Uncertainty," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(12), pages 2071-2083, December.
    9. Takashi Ishida & Atsushi Maruyama & Shinichi Kurihara, 2022. "Risk Communication under Conflicting Information: The Role of Confidence in Subjective Risk Assessment," Journal of Food Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 11(1), pages 1-1, January.
    10. repec:cup:judgdm:v:13:y:2018:i:4:p:309-321 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Prathiraja, P.H.K. & Ariyawardana, A., 2003. "Impact of Nutritional Labeling on Consumer Buying Behavior," Sri Lankan Journal of Agricultural Economics, Sri Lanka Agricultural Economics Association (SAEA), vol. 5, pages 1-13.

    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:44:y:2021:i:2:d:10.1007_s10603-021-09481-5. 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.