Food and Nutrition Labeling Publications

Institute of Medicine of the National Academies

Institute of Medicine.  Front-of-Package Nutrition Rating Systems and Symbols.  Phase I Report.  National Academies, Washington, DC.  2010.  Congress directed the Centers for Disease Control and prevention to undertake a study with the IOM on FOP nutrition rating systems and nutrition-related symbols.  FDA also supported this study.  IOM conducted this study in two phases.  Phase 1 examined the strengths and weaknesses of the nutrition science informing these systems and concluded no current system is perfect but a FOP system may have potential to promote healthier food and beverage selections among consumers and stimulate product reformulations.   In 2011, Front-of-Package Nutrition Rating Systems and Symbols:  Promoting Healthier Choices Phase II Report was released. During Phase II, IOM reviewed the evidence and perspectives on existing FOP systems and concluded that a government-sponsored FOP system could help achieve population health benefits.

Journal of Food Science Research Articles

Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety

  • Abbott R.  Food and nutrition information:  A study of sources, uses, and understanding.  Br Food J.  1997.  Surveyed 400 self-selecting UK subjects to assess understanding of food and nutrition information.

Food Technology Magazine Articles

Other Publications

  • European Food Information Council, February 2013. “EUFIC’s Global Update on Nutrition Labelling.”  This report was compiled by the European Food Information Council and other international partner food information organizations.  The report provides a comprehensive overview on the status of nutrition labeling around the globe.

     

Nutrition Labeling & Profiling

  • Godwin SL, et al.  Evaluating the nutrition label:  Its use in and impact on purchasing decisions by consumers.  J Food Distribution Res.  2006;37(1):77-79.  The calorie content of food did not appear to have a major impact on the decision making process.
  • Drichoutis AC, et al.  Consumers’ use of nutritional labels:  A review of research studies and issues.  Academy Marketing Sci Reviews.  2006;10(9).
  • De Pelsmacker P, et al.  Consumer preferences for the marketing of ethically labeled coffee.  Int Marketing Rev.  2005;22:512-530.
  • Silayoi P & Speece M.  Packaging and purchase decisions.  Br Food J.  2004;106(8):607-628.  Focus group participants indicated they use label information but would prefer if this information was presented in a more simplified version.
  • Conner D & Christy R.  The organic label:  How to reconcile its meaning with consumer preferences.  J Food Distribution Res.  2004;35:40-43.
  • Kessler DJ, et al.  Developing the “nutrition facts” food label.  Harvard Health Policy Review.  2003;4:13-24.
  • Lin CTJ & Lee JY.  Dietary fat intake and search for fat information on food labels:  New evidence.  Consumer Interests Annual.  2003;49:1-3.
  • Vishwanathan M & Hastak M.  The role of summary information in facilitating consumers’ comprehension of nutrition information.  J Public Policy & Marketing.  2002;21(2):305-318.
  • Higginson CS, et al.  The nutrition label—which information is looked at.  Nutr & Food Sci.  2002;32(2-3):92-99.
  • Baltas G.  The effects of nutrition information on consumer choice.  J Advertising Res.  2001;March/April:57-63.  Examines behavioral outcomes and illustrates an analytical approach to nutrition information effects.
  • McLean-Meyiness PE.  An analysis of nutritional label use in the Southern United States.  J Food Distribution Res.  2001;32(1):110-114.
  • Underwood RL, et al.  Packaging communication:  Attentional effects of product imagery.  J Product Brand Management.  2001;10:1-19.  
  • Haldeman L, et al.  Development of a color-coded bilingual food label for low-literacy Latino caretakers.  J Nutr Educ.  2000;32:152-160.  Developed a bilingual, user-friendly food label for low-literacy audiences and found it can be a useful nutrition education tool. 
  • Li F, et al.  The facilitating influence of consumer knowledge on the effectiveness of daily value reference information.  J Acad Marketing Sci.  2000;28(3):425-436.  Found the usefulness of providing %DVs on a nutritional label depends strongly on knowledge of daily values.
  • Sadler M.  UK industry guidelines on nutrition labeling to benefit the consumer.  Nutrition & Food Science.  1999;99:24-28.
  • Wandel M.  Food labeling from a consumer perspective.  Br Food J.  1999;99:212-219.
  • Levy AS & Ferin SB.  Consumers’ ability to perform tasks using nutrition labels.  J Nutr Educ.  1998;30:210-217.  Found dietary guidance on food labels might be more effective if it does not require quantitative tasks.
  • Nancarrow C, et al.  Gaining competitive advantage from packaging and labeling in marketing communications.  Br Food J.  1998;100:110-118.
  • Siu W & Tsoi TM.  Nutrition label usage of Chinese consumers.  Br Food J.  1998;100(1):25-29.  Found frequent label users are more label-oriented, nutrition-prone, advertising lovers, in the age group of 35 to 50 and read both English and Chinese while non-label users were home-oriented and only read Chinese. 
  • Szykman LR, et al.  A proposed model of the use of package claims and nutrition labels.  J Public Policy Marketing.  1997;15(2):228-241.  Diet-disease knowledge is related positively to the use of package nutrition information in the forms of both package claims and panel information. 
  • Scott V & Worsley AF.  Consumer views on nutrition labels in New Zealand.  Australian J Nutr & Dietetics.  1997;54:6-13.
  • Shine A, et al.  Consumer use of nutrition labeling.  Br Food J.  1997;99:290-296.  Discussed how nutrition information should be incorporated into a food product’s marketing strategy.
  • Lytle LA, et al.  Children’s interpretation of nutrition messages.  J Nutr Educ.  1997;29:128-136.  Found nutrition messages need to be developmentally appropriate and give specific behavioral messages in order to positively inform the eating choices of children. 
  • Shine A, et al.  Consumer attitudes to nutrition labeling.  Br Food J.  1997;99(8):283-289.  Discussed how nutrition labeling can be helpful to consumers and how the food industry can facilitate consumer understanding to stimulate making healthier choices.
  • Wandal M.  Food labeling from a consumer perspective.  Br Food J.  1997;99(6):212-219.  Found the majority of consumers read food labels and the frequency of reading these labels was associated with a higher degree of uncertainty about the food supply.
  • Levy AS, et al.  Performance characteristics of seven nutrition label formats.  J Public Policy Marketing.  1996;15(1):1-15.  Evaluated seven nutrition label formats and found the formats that displayed nutrition amounts in percentages received higher scores than those listed in metric units. 
  • Meuldijk S, et al.  Helpfulness of nutritional value labels in choosing low-fat products.  J Nutr Educ.  1996;28(6):348-352.
  • Moorman C.  A quasi experiment to assess the consumer and informational determinants of nutrition information processing activities:  The case of the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act.  J Public Policy Marketing.  1996;15(1):28-44.  Surveyed more than 1000 consumers and found consumers have acquired and comprehended more nutrition information following the introduction of the new labels. 
  • Guthrie J, et al.  Who uses nutrition labeling and what effects does label use have on diet quality?  J Nutr Educ.  1995;27:153-172.  Found label use was associated with the consumption of diets that were higher in vitamin C and lower in cholesterol. 
  • Shannon B.  Nutrition labeling:  Putting the consumer first.  Br Food J.  1994;96:40-44.
  • Michel PM, et al.  Food label reading habits of WIC clients.  J Nutr Educ.  1994;26:146-148.  Found WIC clients occasionally read food labels but their understanding of nutrition information was generally poor.
  • Viswanathan M.  The influence of summary information on the usage of nutrition information.  J Public Policy Marketing.  1994;13(1):48-60.  Found verbal presentation of nutrition information would lead to a greater degree of usage nutrition information than numerical presentations.
  • Scott V & Worsley AF.  Tick, claims, tables, and food groups:  A comparison for nutrition labeling.  Health Promot Int.  1994;9:27-37.
  • Shannon B.  Nutrition labeling:  Putting the consumer first.  Br Food J.  1993;96(4)40-45.  Discussed key findings from a nutrition labeling forum held in 1993, attend by representatives from eight of UK’s leading consumer and education bodies.
  • Wheelock V & Ham E.  A system for assessing the nutrition score of foods.  Br Food J.  1993;95:45-48.
  • Schuckers RE, et al.  Nutrition shelf-labeling and consumer purchase behavior.  J Nutr Educ.  1992;24:75-81.  Found concerns about nutrition and health status of family members were highly correlated with a nutrition information program use than education, income, and age.
  • Bender MM & Derby BM.  Prevalence of reading nutrition information and ingredient information on food labels among adult Americans.  1982-1988.  J Nutr Educ.  1992;24:292-297.  Reported that consumers who use ingredient lists and nutrition labels are more likely to be young (25-34), white, female, better educated, and to follow a self-initiated or doctor-prescribed low-sodium and low-cholesterol diet.
  • Geiger CJ, et al.  Nutrition labels in bar graph format deemed most useful for consumer purchase decisions using adaptive conjoint analysis.  J Am Diet Assoc.  1991;91:800-807. 
  • Geiger C, et al.  Review of nutrition labeling formats.  J Am Diet Assoc.  1991;91:808-812.
  • Earl R, et al.  Nutrition labeling:  Issues and directions for the 1990s.  J Am Diet Assoc.  1990;90:1599-1601. 
  • Krinke UB.  Nutrition information topic and format preferences of older adults.  J Nutr Educ.  1990;22(6):292-297.  Found older adults are interested in nutrition information to help them identify nutrients of most interest.
  • Park CW, et al.  The effects of situational factors on in-store grocery shopping behavior:  The role of store environment and time available for shopping.  J Consumer Res.  1989;15:422-433.
  • Levy A, et al.  The impact of a nutrition information program on food purchases.  J Public Policy Marketing.  1985;4:1-13.  Conducted a quasi-experimental repeated measures design using a matched set of 20 test and comparison supermarkets in the Washington, DC and Baltimore, MD metropolitan areas evaluated a nutrition information program and found shelf-marked produces increased on the average of 4 to 8 percent more over the two year evaluation period.
  • Hoyer WD.  An examination of consumer decision making for a common repeat purchase product.  J Consumer Res.  1984;11:822-829. 
  • Heimbach JT & Stokes RC.  Nutrition labeling and public health:  Survey of American Institute of Nutrition members, food industry, and consumers.  Am J Clin Nutr.  1982;36:700-708.  Surveyed health professionals and found they were most interested in nutrition information about calories, sodium, fat, protein, iron, calcium, and carbohydrates. 

Shelf-Labels

Front of Package Labeling

  • Van Kleef E & Dagevos H.  The growing role of front-of-pack nutrition profile labeling:  A consumer perspective on key issues and controversies.  Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr.  Reviews consumer literature on front of package labeling.
  • Roller S & McDowell DL.  “FOP” Food Labeling:  The Energy Star model raises First Amendment concerns.  Washington Legal Foundation Critical Legal Issues Working Paper Series.  2012;180.  Examines how any front-of-package labeling program needs to allow for sufficient freedom to convey truthful information and not be overly restrictive on how this information is communicated to the consumer.
  • Moser A, et al.  Simplified nutrient labeling:  Consumers’ perceptions in Germany and Belgium.  J Verg Lebensm.  2010;5:169-180.  Discusses interest in front of package labeling among European consumers. 

 

  • Denny A.  Stop, think, go? –are signposting labeling schemes the way forward?  Br Nutr Foundation Nutr Bull.  2006;31:84-87.
  • Kinnunen TI.  The heart symbol:  A new food labeling system in Finland.  Nutr Bull.  2000;25:335-339.
Structure/Function Claims
  • Aschemann-Witzel J & Hamm U.  Do consumers prefer foods with nutrition and health claims?  Results of a purchase simulation.  J Marketing Comm.  2010;16:47-58.   
  • Asp N-G & Bryngelsson S.  Health claims in the labeling and marketing of food products:  The Swedish food sector’s code of practice in a European perspective.  Scand J Nutr.  2007;51:107-126.
  • Bryngelsson S & Asp N-G.  Health claims according to Article 13 of the EU regulation:  Suggested priorities with reference to the Swedish code on health claims and emphasis on relevance.  Scan J Food Nutr. 2007;51:127-136.
  • Kozup J, et al.  Making healthful food choices:  The influence of health claims and nutrition information on consumers’ evaluations of packaged food products and restaurant menu items.  J Marketing.  2003;67:19-34.
  • Roe B, et al.  The impact of health claims on consumer search and product evaluation outcomes:  Results from FDA experimental data.  J Pub Policy Marketing.  1999;18:89-105.
  • Mitra Anu, et al.  Can the educationally disadvantaged interpret the FDA-mandated nutrition facts panel in the presence of an implied health claim.  J Public Policy Marketing.  1999;18(1):106-117.  Conducted a field experiment and found regardless of educational attainment consumers seem capable of evaluating the nutrition facts panel even with a contradictory implied health claim. 
  • Andrews JC, et al.  Consumer generalization of nutrient content claims in advertising.  J Marketing.  1998;62:62-75.
  • Ford GT, et al.  Can consumers interpret nutrition information in the presence of a health claims?  A laboratory investigation.  J Pub Policy Marketing.  1996;15:16-27.
  • Ippolito PM & Mathios A.  Information, advertising and health choices:  A study of the cereal market.  RAND J Econ.  1990;21:459-480.
Point-of-Purchase
  • Block LG & Peracchio LA.  The calcium quandary:  How consumers use nutrition labels.  J Public Policy Marketing.  2006;25(2):188-196.  Found providing pregnant and lactating women with easy to use information in combination with the Nutrition Facts panel increases their calcium consumption to within the suggested daily recommended range. 
  • Jae H & DelVecchio D.  Decision making by low-literacy consumers in the presence of point-of-purchase information.  J Consumer Affairs.  2004;38:342-353. 

Menu Labeling & Out-of-Home Nutritional Information

  • Coulson NS.  An application of the stages of change model to consumer use of food labels.  Br Food J.  2000;102(9):661-668.  Found significant associations with stage of change and decisional balance.
  • Byrd-Bredbenner C.  Consumer understanding of US and EU nutrition labels.  Br Food J.  2000;102(8):615-629.  Evaluated and compared the abilities of women (n=50) between the ages of 25 and 45 residing in the UK to locate and manipulate information on nutrition labels prepared in accordance with US regulations and those prepared in accordance with the EU Directive and UK Food Labelling Regulations 1996. 
  • Burton S, et al.  Implications of accurate usage of nutrition facts panel information for food product evaluations and purchase intentions.  J Acad Marketing Sci.  1999;27(4):470-480.  Found nutrition knowledge and attitude towards the nutrition facts label were related to accuracy in using the information. 
  • Abbott R.  Food and nutrition information:  A study of sources, uses, and understanding.  Br Food J.  1997.  Surveyed 400 self-selecting UK subjects to assess understanding of
  • Balfour D, et al.  Food choices in response to computer-generated nutrition information provided about meal selection in workplace restaurants.  J Hum Nutr Diet.  1996;9:231-237.
  • Albright CL, et al.  Restaurant menu labeling:  Impact of nutrition information on entrée sales and patron attitudes.  Health Educ Behav.  1990;17:157.
  • Pennington JAT, et al.  In-store nutrition information programs.  J Nutr Educ.  1988;20(1):5-10.  Described in-store information programs occurring within one chain with 83 stores.
  • Mayer J, et al.  A multi-component intervention for modifying food selections in a worksite cafeteria.  J Nutr Educ.  1987;19:277-280.
  • Venkatesan M, et al.  An empirical study of alternate formats for nutritional information disclosure in advertising.  J Public Policy & Marketing.  1986.  Examined three formats for providing nutritional information in food advertisements in television and print media and found the choice of format was affected by the type of medium.
  • Cinciripini P.  Changing food selection in a public cafeteria:  An applied behavior analysis.  Behav Modif.  1984;8:520-539.
  • Milich R, et al.  Effects of visual presentation of calorie values on food buying by normal or obese persons.  Percept Mot Skills.  1976;42:155-162.
School Point-of-Purchase Information & Interventions