Suchergebnisse

AbstractWe asked individuals about their willingness to pay (WTP) either: (1) for a mandate requiring restaurants to post calorie information on their menus; or (2) to avoid such a mandate. On average, more people were in in favor of the mandate and were willing to pay four times more than those who were against it, thereby leading to a Kaldor–Hicks improvement from this policy. To ensure robustness, we tested the impact of providing three types of information during individuals' WTP determinations: (1) visual examples of the proposed calorie labels; (2) data on their effectiveness at the individual level; and (3) data on their wider social and economic benefits. For those in favor, providing a simple visual of the label had no impact on WTP. Data on the individual effectiveness of the labels increased the WTP, while evidence on broader obesity reduction and economic benefits reduced it. For opponents, WTP did not change with provision of additional information except when provided with information on social and economic benefits. Under this condition, the opponents increased their WTP 12-fold to avoid a mandate of this policy. Finally, we measured individual well-being under this policy and found directionally similar results, confirming a net improvement in aggregate welfare. Our results suggest that messaging that focuses on private benefits (providing calorie information so that individuals can effectively choose to reduce excessive caloric consumption) rather than wider public benefits (reduction in overall health-related costs and obesity) is more likely to be effective.

AbstractIn 2018, the U.S. adopted a nationwide law requiring that chain restaurants post calorie counts on their menus and menu boards. This has led to considerable interest in the extent to which providing calorie information leads consumers to choose healthier diets.To estimate the impact of calorie labeling, we conducted a randomized controlled field experiment in two full‐service restaurants, in which the control group received menus without calorie counts and the treatment group received the same menus but with calorie counts. We estimate that the calorie labels resulted in a 3.0 percent reduction in calories ordered, with the reduction occurring in appetizers and entrées but not drinks or desserts. Exposure to the information also increased consumers' support for requiring calorie labels by 9.6 percent. These results are informative about the impact of the new nationwide menu label requirement, and more generally contribute to the literature on the impact of information disclosure on consumer behavior.

Objectives Calorie labeling has been suggested as an antiobesity measure; however, evidence on its effects is scarce and formatting guidance not well defined. The aim of this study was to test the effects of prominent calorie labeling on sales of the labeled items. Methods Prominent calorie labels were posted in front of two popular items for a period of 1 mo. Sales were recorded for 2 mo consecutively, before and during labeling. Results Muffins sales (the higher-calorie item) fell by 30%, whereas sales of scones rose by 4%, a significant difference (χ2 = 10.258; P = 0.0014). Conclusions Calorie labeling is effective when noticed. Wider adoption of calorie labeling for all food businesses and strengthening legislation with formatting guidelines should be the next step in public health policy.

Objectives: Calorie labeling has been suggested as an antiobesity measure; however, evidence on its effects is scarce and formatting guidance not well defined. The aim of this study was to test the effects of prominent calorie labeling on sales of the labeled items. Methods: Prominent calorie labels were posted in front of two popular items for a period of 1 mo. Sales were recorded for 2 mo consecutively, before and during labeling. Results: Muffins sales (the higher-calorie item) fell by 30%, whereas sales of scones rose by 4%, a significant difference (χ2 = 10.258; P = 0.0014). Conclusions: Calorie labeling is effective when noticed. Wider adoption of calorie labeling for all food businesses and strengthening legislation with formatting guidelines should be the next step in public health policy.

Objectives Calorie labeling has been suggested as an antiobesity measure; however, evidence on its effects is scarce and formatting guidance not well defined. The aim of this study was to test the effects of prominent calorie labeling on sales of the labeled items. Methods Prominent calorie labels were posted in front of two popular items for a period of 1 mo. Sales were recorded for 2 mo consecutively, before and during labeling. Results Muffins sales (the higher-calorie item) fell by 30%, whereas sales of scones rose by 4%, a significant difference (χ2 = 10.258; P = 0.0014). Conclusions Calorie labeling is effective when noticed. Wider adoption of calorie labeling for all food businesses and strengthening legislation with formatting guidelines should be the next step in public health policy.

(1) Background: Obesity has become a global epidemic that arouse much attention from governments, companies and scholar. Physical activity calorie equivalent (PACE) labels are introduced as a more effective nudge invention on less-calorie ordering. However, the effects of PACE labels are controversial in previous literature, thus, the research objective is to explore the effects of different PACE labels and furtherly to explore the underlying psychological mechanism; (2) Methods: Across four scenario-based experiments, involving potato chips, chocolate and cookies, this study manipulated the three calorie-information labeling (standard calorie label, long time PACE and short time PACE labels). Meanwhile, the mediating mechanism of the effects involving anticipatory guilt and the moderation effects between consumers' future self-continuity and PACE labels are also measured; (3) Results: Results show that compared with the short time PACE and calorie labels, the longtime PACE labels have more negative influence on consumers' purchase intention for unhealthy food. What's more, the anticipatory guilt has negative effect of PACE labels as consumers are often prone to feeling guilty in the process of unhealthy food consumption. In addition, individuals with high future self-continuity have higher self-control and take more consideration of future outcomes, they are reluctant to choose unhealthy food than others; (4) Conclusions: Unhealthy food with a long time PACE label has more negative effect on consumers' purchase intention rather than a short time PACE label. At the same time, companies that produce healthy foods should actively participate in the movement to label calories through the PACE labels.

OBJECTIVES: Excess caloric intake is linked to weight gain, obesity and related diseases including type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease (CVD). Obesity incidence has been on the rise, with almost 2 of 3 people being overweight or obese in the US. In 2018, the US federal government passed a law mandating the labeling of calories on all menu items across chain restaurants, as a strategy to support informed consumer choice and reduce caloric intake. Yet, potential health and economic impacts of this policy remain unclear. METHODS: We used a validated microsimulation model (CVD-PREDICT) to estimate reductions in CVD events, diabetes cases, gains in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and cost-effectiveness of two policy scenarios: (1) implementation of the federal menu calorie labelling (menu calorie label), and (2) further accounting for corresponding industry reformulation (menu calorie label + reformulation). The model utilized nationally representative demographic and dietary data from NHANES 2009–2016; policy effects on consumer intake and BMI-disease effects from published meta-analyses; and policy effects on industry reformulation, policy costs (policy administration, industry compliance and reformulation) and health-related costs (formal and informal healthcare costs, productivity costs) from established sources. We conservatively modeled change in calories to change in weight using an established dynamic weight-change model. Findings were evaluated over 10 years and lifetime from a healthcare and societal perspective. Costs were inflated to constant 2018 USD, and costs and QALYs were discounted at 3% annually. We performed probabilistic analyses and a range of one-way sensitivity and subgroup analyses to assess the robustness of our findings. RESULTS: Sample statistics were shown (Table). American adults (35+) consume ∼21% calorie from restaurants (Figure) that would be reduced by 2% due to this law at the population level. Government administration costs were estimated at 11.6$M, industry ...

AbstractConsumers often form beliefs about credence attributes unsupported by the best available evidence. In particular, prior research has revealed many consumers have overly‐optimistic beliefs about the environmental and nutritional impacts of organic food. We propose and study the effects of a sustainability facts label (SFL), which displays quantitative environmental information related to global warming potential, land use, and energy use per serving size of the product. The SFL is akin to a nutrition facts label (NFL), which we also study. We surveyed a nationally representative sample of milk consumers in the United States (USA) to measure their choices and beliefs about organic vs. conventional milk under one of three different label information treatments; the NFL only, the SFL only, and both labels relative to a control without any nutrition or sustainability information. Unexpectedly, our results show that the SFL increased the likelihood of organic purchases. Facts panels altered beliefs; The participants exposed to the SFL increased their perception that organic performs better on environmental metrics, despite the fact the information contained in the label provided a nuanced picture with organic better in some dimensions and worse in others. Consistent with the information provided, consumers exposed to the NFL decreased their perception that organic had fewer calories and more protein than conventional milk. Prior beliefs about organic were found to be important determinants of choice and information acquisition.

OBJECTIVE: Increased consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages has contributed to rising obesity levels. Under Canadian law, calories for prepackaged foods and beverages are presented by serving size; however, serving sizes differ across products and even for the same product in different containers. This study examined consumer understanding of calorie amounts for government nutrition labels and industry labelling schemes. METHODS: A national sample of 687 Canadian adults completed an online survey. Participants were randomized to view images of Coke® bottles that displayed different serving sizes and calorie amounts. Participants viewed either the regulated nutrition information on the "back" of containers, or the voluntary calorie symbols displayed on the "front" of Coke® products. Participants were asked to determine how many calories the bottle contained. RESULTS: Across all conditions, 54.2% of participants correctly identified the number of calories in the beverage. Participants who viewed governmentmandated nutrition information were more likely to answer correctly (59.0%) than those who saw industry labelling (49.1%) (OR=5.3, 95% CI: 2.6–10.6). Only 11.8% who viewed the Coke® bottle with calorie amounts per serving correctly identified the calorie amount, compared to 91.8% who saw calorie amounts per container, regardless of whether information was presented in the Nutrition Facts Table or the front-of-pack symbol (OR=242.9, 95% CI: 112.1–526.2). CONCLUSIONS: Few individuals can use nutrition labels to correctly identify calorie content when presented per serving or using industry labelling schemes. The findings highlight the importance of revising labelling standards and indicate that industry labelling initiatives warrant greater scrutiny.

Nutritionists, health and food professionals need to be skilled in recognizing the various sources of calories in consumed foods and the implications of excessive caloric intake. Such skills are necessary in order to effectively counsel consumers and patients on food choices & weight management, or to advise food manufacturers to make and market products for better health. This paper will address the growing concern on overweight and obesity epidemic and the risks of excessive consumption of calories from various sources in our food supply, especially obvious and hidden calories. The paper will define what is meant by obvious and hidden sources of calories, with real life examples. Using data from published studies, the paper will discuss how caloric consumption impacts weight gain, obesity, health and wellness. Strategies for recognizing and reducing excessive caloric intake especially from hidden calories will be suggested. Such strategies would include lifestyle changes, dietary habits, physical activity, behavior modification, reading food labels, proper food selection & preparation, food substitution, food processing & consumption among others. A joint action by food consumers and regulators, food manufacturers & marketers, nutritionists, food and healthcare professionals will help consumers in managing weight and in fighting the overweight and obesity epidemic in many populations.

SUMMARYMany countries around the world have already mandated, or plan to mandate, the presence of nutrition related information on most pre‐packaged food products. Health advocates and lobbyists would like to see similar laws mandating nutrition information in the restaurant and fast‐food market as well. In fact, New York City has already taken a step forward and now requires all chain restaurants with 15 or more establishments anywhere in US to show calorie information on their menus and menu board. The benefits were estimated to be as much as 150,000 fewer obese New Yorkers over the next five years.The implied benefits of the presence of nutrition information are that consumers will be able to observe such information and then make informed (and hopefully healthier) food choices. In this study, we use the latest available dataset from the US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2005–2006) to explore whether reading such nutrition information really has an effect on body weight outcomes. In order to deal with the inherent problem of cross‐sectional datasets, namely self‐selection, and the possible occurrence of reverse causality we use a propensity score matching approach to estimate causal treatment effects.We conducted a series of tests related to variable choice of the propensity score specification, quality of matching indicators, robustness checks, and sensitivity to unobserved heterogeneity, using Rosenbaum bounds to validate our propensity score exercise. Our results generally suggest that reading nutrition information does not affect body mass index. The implications of our findings are also discussed.

Governments have proposed text warning labels to decrease consumption of sugary drinks—a contributor to chronic diseases such as diabetes. However, they may be less effective than more evocative, graphic warning labels. We field-tested the effectiveness of graphic warning labels (vs. text warning labels, calorie labels, and no labels), provided insight into psychological mechanisms driving effectiveness, and assessed consumer sentiment. Study 1 indicated that graphic warning labels reduced the share of sugary drinks purchased in a cafeteria from 21.4% at baseline to 18.2%—an effect driven by substitution of water for sugary drinks. Study 2 showed that graphic warning labels heighten negative affect and prompt consideration of health consequences. Study 3 indicated that public support for graphic warning labels can be increased by conveying effectiveness information. These findings could spur more effective labeling policies that facilitate healthier choices, do not decrease overall beverage purchases, and are publicly accepted.