Objective: The US Food and Drug Administration and Institute of Medicine are currently investigating front-of-package (FOP) food labelling systems to provide sciencebased guidance to the food industry. The present paper reviews the literature on FOP labelling and supermarket shelf-labelling systems published or under review by February 2011 to inform current investigations and identify areas of future research. Design: A structured search was undertaken of research studies on consumer use, understanding of, preference for, perception of and behaviours relating to FOP/ shelf labelling published between January 2004 and February 2011. Results: Twenty-eight studies from a structured search met inclusion criteria. Reviewed studies examined consumer preferences, understanding and use of different labelling systems as well as label impact on purchasing patterns and industry product reformulation. Conclusions: The findings indicate that the Multiple Traffic Light system has most consistently helped consumers identify healthier products; however, additional research on different labelling systems' abilities to influence consumer behaviour is needed.

No abstract

Although most research on consumers’ choices, and resulting insights, have focused on choices that consumers make solely for themselves, consumers often make choices for others, and there is a growing literature examining such choices. Theoretically, how can this growing literature be integrated, and what gaps remain? Practically, why should marketers, consumers, and policy makers care when choices are made for others, and what should they do differently? A 2 × 2 framework of consumers’ choices for others addresses these questions. This framework has two fundamental dimensions: the chooser’s social focus (relationship vs. recipient oriented) and the chooser’s consideration of consumption preferences (highlight the recipient’s preferences vs. balance the recipient’s preferences with the chooser’s preferences). These dimensions generate four cells that represent prototypical choosing-for-others contexts: gift-giving (relationship focus, highlighting recipient’s preferences), joint consumption (relationship focus, balancing recipient’s and chooser’s preferences), everyday favors/pick-ups (recipient focus, highlighting recipient’s preferences), and caregiving (recipient focus, balancing recipient’s and chooser’s preferences). This framework captures most choosing-for-others situations, and each cell involves a distinct profile of motives, ultimately affecting choices. This framework integrates the choosing-for-others literature, which we hope will guide future research, and it also offers practical implications for marketers, consumers, and policy makers.

Many policy interventions that address rising obesity levels in the United States have been designed to provide consumers with more nutrition information, with the goal of encouraging consumers to decrease their caloric intake. We discuss existing information‐provision measures and suggest that they are likely to have little‐to‐modest impact on encouraging lower caloric intake, because making use of such information requires understanding and/or motivation, which many consumers lack, as well as self‐control, which is a limited resource. We highlight several phenomena from the behavioral economics literature (present‐biased preferences, visceral factors, and status quo bias) and explain how awareness of these behavioral phenomena can inform both more effective information‐provision policies and additional policies for regulating restaurants and public school cafeterias that move beyond information to nudge people towards healthier food choices.

We introduce a simple solution to help consumers manage choices between healthy and unhealthy food options: vice-virtue bundles. Vice-virtue bundles are item aggregates with varying proportions of both vice and virtue, holding overall quantity constant. Four studies compare choice and perceptions of differently composed vice-virtue bundles relative to one another and to pure vice and pure virtue options. Although multiple consumer segments can be identified, results suggest that people overall tend to prefer vice-virtue bundles with small (¼) to medium (½) proportions of vice rather than large (¾) proportions of vice. Moreover, people generally rate vice-virtue bundles with small vice proportions as healthier but similarly tasty as bundles with larger vice proportions. For most individuals, choice patterns are different from those predicted by variety-seeking accounts alone. Instead, these findings provide evidence of asymmetric effectiveness of small vice and virtue proportions at addressing taste and health goals, respectively.

Providing calorie counts on restaurants’ menus/menu boards is one of the most prominent policy interventions that has been implemented to combat the obesity epidemic in America. However, previous research across multiple disciplines has found little effect of providing calorie counts on calories ordered, leading some to call calorie provision a failed policy. The authors propose that this failure is partly due to not considering how people process information when making food choices: Americans read from left‐to‐right, processing calorie information only after processing the food item's name. Thus, the authors test a simple way to improve the effectiveness of calorie counts: display calorie counts to the left (vs. right) of food items. A field study and a laboratory study with American participants found that calorie counts to the left (vs. right) decreased calories ordered by 16.31%. A final laboratory study demonstrated that this effect is reversed among Hebrew‐speakers, who read from right‐to‐left, providing further evidence that the order in which calorie information is processed matters. Accordingly, calling calorie labeling a policy failure may be premature.

No abstract

Objective: Food marketing has been identified as a significant driver of the childhood obesity epidemic. The purpose of the present study was to (i) conduct a content analysis of the types of sports references that appear on supermarket food and beverage products and (ii) assess each product's nutritional and marketing profile. Design: This was a descriptive study. Every product featuring sports references on the packaging was purchased in two major supermarkets during 2010. A content analysis was conducted and nutritional evaluations were made based on the Nutrient Profile Model, a validated nutrition model. Marketing data were obtained from The Nielsen Company. Setting: Two major supermarkets in Connecticut, USA. Subjects: Food and beverage products (n 102) were selected from two supermarkets. Results: The 102 products (fifty-three foods and forty-nine beverages) had sports references as part of their packaging: 72?5 % featured a character exercising, 42?2 % were endorsed by a professional sports entity and 34?0 % were child-targeted. The median nutrition score for food products was 36 (1 5 unhealthiest and 100 5 healthiest; scores of $63 are considered healthy according to this model). More than two-thirds of beverages (69?4 %) were 100 % sugar-sweetened. Children saw significantly more commercials for these products than adults. Conclusions: Companies place sports figures on food and beverage products that are child-targeted and unhealthy.