Research Article| Volume 30, ISSUE 4, P210-217, July 1998

Download started.


Consumers’ Ability to Perform Tasks Using Nutrition Labels

  • Alan S. Levy
    Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, Washington, DC 20204
    Search for articles by this author
  • Sara B. Fein
    Address for correspondence: Sara B. Fein, Ph.D., Consumer Studies Branch, FDA, HFS 727, 200 C Street, SW. Washington, DC 20204;Tel: (202) 205-5349; Fax: (202) 260-0794.
    Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, Washington, DC 20204
    Search for articles by this author
      This paper is only available as a PDF. To read, Please Download here.


      Consumers’ ability to perform common nutrition label use tasks and specific task components, which revealed the effect of prior knowledge, were analyzed for relationships with demographic characteristics, label reading, and health status. Data were from a mall intercept experimental study. Most consumers (78%) accurately compared two products, 58% accurately evaluated nutrient level claims, 45% comprehensively balanced nutrients over a daily diet, and 20% accurately calculated the contribution of a single food to a daily diet, a task that required complex math. The subjects who performed significantly poorer were over 55 years of age, nonwhite, and less educated than those who performed best. Not reading food labels and having a diet-related health condition were also related to poorer performance. Task component analysis showed that all types of subjects shared the same response tendencies when making nutrition judgments. The findings suggest that dietary guidance for consumers will be more effective if it does not require quantitative tasks but relies instead on tasks that are easier for consumers.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access

      SNEB Member Login

      SNEB Members, full access to the journal is a member benefit. Login via the SNEB Website to access all journal content and features.


      Subscribe to Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Guthrie J.F.
        • Fox J.J.
        • Cleveland L.E.
        • Welsh S.
        Who uses nutrition labeling, and what effects does label use have on diet quality?.
        J Nutr Educ. 1995; 27: 163-172
        • Mueller W.
        Who reads the label?.
        Am Demographics. 1991; (Jan): 36-41
        • Food Drug Administration
        Regulations for the enforcement of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; nutrition labeling.
        Fed Reg. 1973; 38: 2125-2132
      1. Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990. Public Law 101-535, 104 Stat. 2353 (1990).

        • Food Drug Administration
        Food labeling; final rules.
        Fed Reg. 1993; 58: 2066-2941
        • Shank F.R.
        The Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990.
        Food and Drug Law J. 1992; 47: 247-252
        • Bettman J.R.
        • Payne J.W.
        • Staelin R.
        Cognitive considerations in designing effective labels for presenting risk information.
        J Public Policy and Marketing. 1986; 5: 1-28
        • Fanelli M.T.
        • Abernathy M.M.
        A nutritional questionnaire for older adults.
        The Gerontologist. 1990; 26: 192-197
        • Institute of Medicine
        Nutrition labeling: issues and directions for the 1990s.
        National Academy Press, Washington, DC1990
      2. Klinger LE. Nutrition labeling: cost vs. consumer interest. Presented to: Institute of Food Technologists, New York Section, September 18,1973.

        • Lenahan R.J.
        • Thomas J.A.
        • Taylor D.A.
        • et al.
        Consumer reaction to nutrition information on food product labels.
        Agricultural Economics. 1972; 2: 1-27
        • McCullum C.
        • Achterberg C.L.
        Food shopping and label use behavior among high school adolescents.
        Adolescence. 1997; 32: 181-196
        • Perez J.
        The product labeling controversy.
        Food Drug Cosmetic Law J. 1981; (July): 381-392
        • Rudd J.
        • Glanz K.
        How individuals use information for health action: consumer information processing.
        in: Glanz K. Lewis F.M. Rimer B.K. Health behavior and health education: theory, research and practice. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco1990: 115-132
        • Stokes R.C.
        • Haddock R.
        Interim report of the first two phases of the CRI/FDA nutrition labeling research program.
        Consumer Research Institute, Washington, DC1972
      3. Food and Drug Administration and International Food Information Council. The new food label: there's something in it for everybody. Washington, DC: IFIC Foundation, 1994.

        • Liebman B.
        What's in a label?.
        Nutrition Action Healthletter. 1994; (April): 5
        • Sugar
        • Association
        How high is your label IQ?.
        On Your Mark. 1997; (April): 6
      4. United States Department of Agriculture. The food label, the pyramid, and you. Washington, DC, 1994.

      5. National Food Processors Association/M/A/R/C. Food industry labeling study: an assessment of alternative label formats. Washington, DC: 1992.

      6. Derby BM. Nutrient and health claims on the food label: a consumer perspective. Presented at the Society for Nutrition Education Meetings, Washington, DC: July 19,1995.

        • Schwartz N.E.
        Communicating nutrition and dietetics issues: balancing diverse perspectives.
        J Am Diet Assoc. 1996; 96: 1137-1139
        • Contento I.
        • Balch G.I.
        • Bronner Y.L.
        • et al.
        Theoretical frameworks or models for nutrition education.
        J Nutr Educ. 1995; 27: 287-290
        • Bettman J.R.
        • Kakkar P.
        Effects of information presentation format on consumer information acquisition strategies.
        J Consumer Res. 1977; 3: 233-240
        • Levy A.S.
        • Matthews O.
        • Stephenson M.
        • et al.
        The impact of a nutrition information program on food purchases.
        J Public Policy and Marketing. 1985; 4: 1-13
        • Mazis M.B.
        • Staelin R.
        Using information processing principles in public policymaking.
        J Public Policy and Marketing. 1982; 1: 3-14
        • Muller T.E.
        Structural information factors which stimulate the use of nutrition information.
        J Marketing Res. 1985; 22: 143-157
        • Russo J.E.
        • Staelin R.
        • Nola C.A.
        • et al.
        Nutrition information in the supermarket.
        J Consumer Res. 1986; 13: 48-70
        • Scammon L.
        Information load and consumers.
        J Consumer Res. 1978; 4: 148-155
        • Bettman J.R.
        • Park C.W.
        Effects of prior knowledge and experience and phase of choice process on consumer decision processes: a protocol analysis.
        J Consumer Res. 1980; 7: 234-248
        • Brucks M.
        • Mitchell A.A.
        • Staelin R.
        The effects of nutritional information disclosure in advertising: an information processing approach.
        J Public Policy and Marketing. 1984; 3: 1-25
        • Jacoby J.
        • Chestnut R.W.
        • Silberman W.
        Consumer use and comprehension of nutrition information.
        J Consumer Res. 1977; 4: 119-128
        • Johnson E.J.
        • Russo J.E.
        Product familiarity and learning new information.
        J Consumer Res. 1984; 11: 542-550
        • Fiske S.T.
        • Taylor S.E.
        Social cognition.
        McGraw-Hill, New York1991
        • Schneider D.J.
        Social cognition.
        Ann Rev Psychol. 1991; 42: 527-561
      7. Baumgardner MH, Heimbach JT, Stokes RC. FDA 1978 consumer food labeling survey: demographic analysis of survey responses. Washington, DC: Food and Drug Administration, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Consumer Studies Branch, 1980.

        • Cole C.A.
        • Balasubramanian S.K.
        Age differences in consumers’ search for information: public policy implications.
        J Consumer Res. 1993; 20: 157-169
        • Cole C.A.
        • Gaeth G.J.
        Cognitive and age-related differences in the ability to use nutritional information in a complex environment.
        J Marketing Res. 1990; 27: 175-184
      8. Heimbach JT. Public understanding of food label information. Washington, DC: Food and Drug Administration, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Consumer Studies Branch, 1982.

        • Mohr K.G.
        • Wyse B.W.
        • Hansen R.G.
        Aiding consumer nutrition decisions: comparison of a graphical nutrient density labeling format with the current food labeling system.
        Home Economics Res J. 1980; 8: 162-172
        • Moorman C.
        The effects of stimulus and consumer characteristics on the utilization of nutrition information.
        J Consumer Res. 1990; 17: 362-374
        • Scott V.
        • Worsley A.F.
        Ticks, claims, tables and food groups: a comparison for nutrition labelling.
        Health Promotion Int. 1994; 9: 27-37
        • Spotts Jr., H.E.
        • Schewe C.D.
        Communicating with the elderly consumer: the growing health care challenge.
        J Health Care Marketing. 1989; 9: 36-44
        • Vandenberg R.J.
        Food label information: what consumers say they use and what they actually use.
        Adv Consumer Res. 1981; 8: 484-487
        • Levy A.S.
        • Fein S.B.
        • Schucker R.E.
        More effective nutrition label for mats are not necessarily more preferred.
        J Am Diet Assoc. 1992; 92: 1230-1234
        • Levy A.S.
        • Fein S.B.
        • Schucker R.E.
        Performance characteristics of seven nutrition label formats.
        J Public Policy and Marketing. 1996; 15: 1-15
        • Cowan C.D.
        Mall intercepts and clinical trials: the philosophy of inference from different types of research designs.
        Market Res. 1989; (March): 15-22
        • Derby B.M.
        • Fein S.B.
        Meeting the NLEA Education Challenge: a consumer research perspective.
        in: Shapiro R. The nutrition labeling handbook. Marcel Dekker Food Science and Technology Series, New York1995: 315-353
        • Black A.
        • Rayner M.
        Just read the label: understanding nutrition information in numeric, verbal, and graphic formats.
        The Coronary Prevention Group, HMSO, London1992
        • Glanz K.
        • Hewitt A.M.
        • Rudd J.
        Consumer behavior and nurition education: an integrative review.
        J Nutr Educ. 1992; 24: 267-277
        • Shannon B.
        Nutrition labelling: putting the consumer first.
        Br Food J. 1994; 96: 40-44
        • Daly P.A.
        The response of consumers to nutrition labeling.
        J Consumer Affairs. 1976; 10: 170-178
        • Klopp P.
        • MacDonald M.
        Nutrition labels: an exploratory study of consumer reasons for nonuse.
        J Consumer Affairs. 1981; 15: 301-316
        • Bryd-Bredbenner C.
        Designing a consumer friendly nutrition label.
        J Nutr Educ. 1994; 26: 180-190
        • Cronin F.
        • Achterberg C.
        SNE Comments on the FDA Proposed Nutrition Label Format Regulations.
        J Nutr Educ. 1992; 24: 280-284
        • Gillespie A.H.
        A survey of nutritionists’ opinions on objectives of a dietary guidance system.
        J Nutr Educ. 1987; 19: 220-224
        • Kennedy E.
        • Meyers L.
        • Layden W.
        The 1995 Dietary Guidelines for Americans: an overview.
        J Am Diet Assoc. 1996; 96: 234-237