Displaying Common but Previously Neglected Health Claims on Product Labels: Understanding Competitive Advantages, Deception, and Education

Abstract

An aim of the Food and Drug Administration food labeling regulations is to ensure that manufacturers aid consumers in making choices regarding their diets by eliminating “hollow” health claims. Of particular concern are health claims made by one brand when the claim is inherent to the product category but has not been featured previously in advertisements or on packaging. There is concern that consumers will use information provided by one brand about such an attribute to infer that the other brands in the product category do not possess the attribute and thus be misled. Results from three experiments show that this practice can mislead consumers and affect consumer inferences, use of the target attribute, and choice in favor of the brands displaying the attribute. However, consumer understanding regarding the typicality of the attribute in the product category was improved when this practice was employed. Furthermore, it was shown that improved consumer education can be achieved without the deception associated with narrow (brand-specific) health claims by using broader (category-defined) claims. Finally, it was shown that an incentive should remain for manufacturers to use broader claims whenever consumers are likely to be choosing between alternatives from broadly defined product categories (e.g., cooking oils versus peanut oils).

Deception in cosmetics advertising: Examining cosmetics advertising claims in fashion magazine ads

“…Burke, Milberg, & Moe, 1997;Johar, 1996). Over time, such efforts may lead consumers to become defensive toward and distrustful of advertising claims (Darke & Ritchie, 2007).…”

Do empirical studies address the objectives of the nutrition labeling and education act: a review and synthesis relevant for marketing academicians

“…Since consumers can clearly be misled by health claims of this nature, this study supports the FDA's decision to exclude "nutrient free" claims upon product packages. However, Burke et al (1997) suggest that if "nutrient free" information is not displayed on labels in any form, it is likely that consumers, unaware of the typicality of the attribute, will remain uninformed and potentially make poorer nutritional choices.…”

“…Burke et al (1997) found that using a "cholesterol free" claim on brand labels resulted in confusion and misunderstandings among consumers. In this study, consumers assumed that products that do not mention cholesterol must not have it.…”

“…Consumers who saw short front panel claims generated a greater number of attribute-specific thoughts about the product than those seeing longer claims; short claims were more believable than long claims mixed support in data as to whether the NLEA has promoted nutrition info processing Burke et al (1997), JPP&M Study 1: subjects were exposed to one of three levels of target attribute mentions. Subjects answered a questionnaire which asked them to rate the degree to which they agree that the target attributes are typical of the associated product category;…”

Review of Package Warning Labels and Their Effect on Consumer Behaviour with Insights to Future Anticounterfeit Strategy of Label and Communication Systems

“…Therefore, the FDA ruling that disallows the practice of using this type of 'free' nutrient claim on foods that are inherently free of the nutrient can benefit consumers in those contexts. 68 Other studies suggest that broader 'nutrient-free' claims are less deceptive and help inform low-knowledge consumers regarding the typicality of the nutritional attribute for all brands in the product category. 68 That being said, few product-level groups use the 'nutrient-free' claims.…”