CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 454Consumer Attitudes and Food LabelingConsumer Packaging Perceptions and TrendsConsumer behavior in food and health

Consumer effects of front-of-package nutrition labeling: An interdisciplinary meta-analysis

Open access
Ikonen, Iina, Sotgiu, Francesca, Aydinli, Aylin, Verlegh, Peeter W. J.·2020·Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science
DOI 10.1007/s11747-019-00663-9
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

As consumers continue to struggle with issues related to unhealthy consumption, the goal of front-of-package (FOP) nutrition labels is to provide nutrition information in more understandable formats. The marketplace is filled with different FOP labels, but their true effects remain unclear, as does which label works best to change perceptions and behaviors. We address these issues through an interdisciplinary meta-analysis, generalizing the findings of 114 articles on the impact of FOP labels on outcomes such as consumers’ ability to identify healthier options, product perceptions, purchase behavior, and consumption. The results show that, although FOP labels help consumers to identify healthier products, their ability to nudge consumers toward healthier choices is more limited. Importantly, FOP labels may lead to halo effects, positively influencing not only virtue but also vice products, e.g., interpretive nutrient-specific labels improve health perceptions of both vice and virtue products, yet they influence only the purchase intention of virtues.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11747-019-00663-9

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The PEF label's current alternative formats are based upon complex cue systems that have demonstrated very mixed effectiveness as an arbiter of consumer evaluation and choice in FMCG purchase situations.

    “all alternative current formats of it are based upon complex cue systems of a type that has demonstrated very mixed effectiveness as an arbiter of consumer evaluation and choice in FMCG purchase situations [13,14]”

    From Marketing Tactics for Sustainable Fashion and the Circular Economy: The Impact of Ethical Labels on Fast Fashion Choice (2023) · cites this paper as [14]

    The typology and ‘Identifying, choosing, and consuming healthier options’ sections describe varied front-of-package nutrition labels and differing effects on consumers’ evaluation and choices (page numbers unavailable in our copy). They do not address PEF-label formats or establish that all such formats use complex cue systems; the paper describes some nutrition labels as simplifying information. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Research in behavioral science and computing has found that, at best, disclosure and consent policies only help some people under some circumstances and that they can backfire.

    “Research in behavioral science and computing has found that, at best, disclosure and consent policies only help some people under some circumstances and that they can backfire [30, 52].”

    From Null Compliance: NYC Local Law 144 and the challenges of algorithm accountability (2024) · cites this paper as [30]

    The Key findings and Implications sections report that front-of-package nutrition labels have limited effects on healthier choices and can create misleading health halos or increase sales of unhealthy products. This supports the claim for one kind of information disclosure, but the paper does not address consent policies or establish the claim across behavioral science and computing generally. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 64

  1. Andrews, J. C., Netemeyer, R. G., & Burton, S. (1998). Consumer gen- eralization of nutrient content claims in advertising. Journal of Marketing, 62(4), 62-75.
  2. Andrews, J. C., Burton, S., & Netemeyer, R. G. (2000). Are some com- parative nutrition claims misleading? The role of nutrition knowl- edge, ad claim type and disclosure conditions. Journal of Advertising, 29(3), 28-42.
  3. Andrews, J. C., Burton, S., & Kees, J. (2011). Is simpler always better? Consumer evaluations of front-of-package nutrition symbols. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 30(2), 175-190.
  4. Aschemann-Witzel, J., & Hamm, U. (2010). Do consumers prefer foods with nutrition and health claims? Results of a purchase simulation. Journal of Marketing Communications, 16(1/2), 47-58.
  5. Aschemann-Witzel, J., Maroscheck, N., & Hamm, U. (2013b). Are or- ganic consumers preferring or avoiding foods with nutrition and health claims? Food Quality and Preference, 30(1), 68-76.
  6. Balasubramanian, S. K., & Cole, C. (2002). Consumers' search and use of nutrition information: The challenge and promise of the nutrition labeling and education act. Journal of Marketing, 66(3), 112-127.
  7. Belei, N., Geyskens, K., Goukens, C., Ramanathan, S., & Lemmink, J. (2012). The best of both worlds? Effects of attribute-induced goal conflict on consumption of healthful indulgences. Journal of Marketing Research, 49(6), 900-909.
  8. Bialkova, S., & van Trijp, H. (2010). What determines consumer attention to nutrition labels? Food Quality and Preference, 21(8), 1042-1051.
  9. Bialkova, S., Sasse, L., & Fenko, A. (2016). The role of nutrition labels and advertising claims in altering consumers' evaluation and choice. Appetite, 96(1), 38-46.
  10. Bijmolt, T. H. A., & Pieters, R. G. M. (2001). Meta-analysis in marketing when studies contain multiple measurements. Marketing Letters, 12(2), 157-169.
  11. Bix, L., Sundar, R. P., Bello, N. M., Peltier, C., Weatherspoon, L. J., & Becker, M. W. (2015). To see or not to see: Do front of pack nutrition labels affect attention to overall nutrition information? PLoS One, 10(10), e0139732.
  12. Block, L. G., & Peracchio, L. A. (2006). The calcium quandary: How consumers use nutrition labels. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 25(2), 188-196.
  13. Burke, S. J., Milberg, S. J., & Moe, W. W. (1997). Displaying common but previously neglected health claims on product labels: Understanding competitive advantages, deception, and education. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 16(2), 242-255.
  14. Burton, S., Cook, L., Howlett E. & Newman, C. L. (2014). Broken halos and shattered horns: overcoming the biasing effects of prior expec- tations through objective information disclosure. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(2), 240-256.
  15. Cabrera, M., Machín, L., Arrúa, A., Antúnez, L., Curutchet, M. R., Giménez, A., & Ares, G. (2017). Nutrition warnings as front-of- pack labels: influence of design features on healthfulness perception and attentional capture. Public Health Nutrition, 20(18), 3360- 3371.
  16. Cecchini, M., & Warin, L. (2016). Impact of food labelling sys- tems on food choices and eating behaviours: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized studies. Obesity Reviews, 17(3), 201-210.
  17. Dixon, H., Scully, M., Niven, P., Kelly, B., Chapman, K., Donovan, R., Martin, J., Baur, L. A., Crawford, D., & Wakefield, M. (2014). Effects of nutrient content claims, sports celebrity endorsements and premium offers on pre-adolescent children's food preferences: Experimental research. Pediatric Obesity, 9(2), E47-E57.
  18. Ducrot, P., Méjean, C., Julia, C., Kesse-Guyot, E., Touvier, M., Fezeu, L., & Péneau, S. (2015). Effectiveness of front-of-pack nutrition labels in French adults: Results from the NutriNet-Sante cohort study. PLoS One, 10(10), e0140898.
  19. FDA (2010). 75 FR 22602. Federal Register, 75(82), 22602-22606. Retrieved 15 June 2018 from https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/ FR-2010-04-29/2010-9939.
  20. Gardner, M. J., & Altman, D. G. (1986). Confidence intervals rather than P values: Estimation rather than hypothesis testing. British Medical Journal (Clinical Research Ed.), 292(6522), 746-750.
  21. Gearhardt, A. N., Bragg, M. A., Pearl, R. L., Schvey, N. A., Roberto, C. A., & Brownell, K. D. (2012). Obesity and public policy. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 8(1), 405-430.
  22. Geyskens, I., Krishnan, R., Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., & Cunha, P. V. (2009). A review and evaluation of meta-analysis practices in man- agement research. Journal of Management, 35(2), 393-419.
  23. Graham, D. J., Orquin, J. L., & Visschers, V. H. M. (2012). Eye tracking and nutrition label use: A review of the literature and recommenda- tions for label enhancement. Food Policy, 37(4), 378-382.
  24. Grunert, K. G., & Wills, J. M. (2007). A review of European research on consumer response to nutrition information on food labels. Journal of Public Health, 15(5), 385-399.
  25. Hamlin, R., & McNeill, L. (2016). Does the Australasian Bhealth star rating^front of pack nutritional label system work? Nutrients, 8(6), 327-341.
  26. Hawley, K. L., Roberto, C. A., Bragg, M. A., Liu, P. J., Schwartz, M. B., & Brownell, K. D. (2013). The science on front-of-package food labels. Public Health Nutrition, 16(3), 430-439.
  27. Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando: Academic Press.
  28. Heiman, A., & Lowengart, O. (2014). Calorie information effects on consumers' food choices: Sources of observed gender heterogeneity. Journal of Business Research, 67(5), 964-973.
  29. Hersey, J. C., Wohlgenant, K. C., Arsenault, J. E., Kosa, K. M., & Muth, M. K. (2013). Effects of front-of-package and shelf nutrition label- ing systems on consumers. Nutrition Reviews, 71(1), 1-14.
  30. Hieke, S., & Newman, C. L. (2015). The effects of nutrition label com- parison baselines on consumers' food choices. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 49(3), 613-626.
  31. Hieke, S., & Taylor, C. R. (2012). A critical review of the literature on nutritional labeling. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 46(1), 120-156.
  32. Hodgkins, C., Barnett, J., Wasowicz-Kirylo, G., Stysko-Kunkowska, M., Gulcan, Y., Kustepeli, Y., Akgungor, S., Chryssochoidis, G., Fernández-Celemin, L., Storcksdieck genannt Bonsmann, S., Gibbs, M., & Raats, M. (2012). Understanding how consumers cat- egorise nutritional labels: A consumer derived typology for front-of- pack nutrition labelling. Appetite, 59(3), 806-817.
  33. Huyghe, E., Verstraeten, J., Geuens, M., & Van Kerckhove, A. (2017). Clicks as a healthy alternative to bricks: How online grocery shop- ping reduces vice purchases. Journal of Marketing Research, 54(1), 61-74.
  34. Institute of Medicine. (2010). Front-of-package nutrition rating systems and symbols: Phase I report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
  35. Jones, G., & Richardson, M. (2007). An objective examination of consumer perception of nutrition information based on healthiness ratings and eye movements. Public Health Nutrition, 10(3), 238-244.
  36. Kanter, R., Vanderlee, L., & Vandevijvere, S. (2018). Front-of-package nutrition labelling policy: Global progress and future directions. Public Health Nutrition, 21(8), 1399-1408.
  37. Kaur, A., Scarborough, P., & Rayner, M. (2017). A systematic review, and meta-analyses, of the impact of health-related claims on dietary choices. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 14(1), 93-110.
  38. Kees, J., Royne, M. B., & Cho, Y. N. (2014). Regulating front-of- package nutrition information disclosures: A test of industry self-regulation vs. other popular options. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 48(1), 147-174.
  39. van Kleef, E., & Dagevos, H. (2015). The growing role of front-of-pack nutrition profile labeling: A consumer perspective on key issues and controversies. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 55(3), 291-303.
  40. Kozup, J. C., Creyer, E. H., & Burton, S. (2003). Making healthful food choices: The influence of health claims and nutrition information on consumers' evaluations of packaged food products and restaurant menu items. Journal of Marketing, 67(2), 19-34.
  41. Levy, A. S., Fein, S. B., & Schucker, R. E. (1992). More effective nutri- tion label formats are not necessarily preferred. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 92(10), 1230-1234.
  42. Liem, D. G., Miremadi, F., Zandstra, E. H., & Keast, R. S. J. (2012). Health labelling can influence taste perception and use of table salt for reduced-sodium products. Public Health Nutrition, 15(12), 2340-2347.
  43. Lobstein, T., & Davies, S. (2009). Defining and labelling Bhealthy^and Bunhealthy^food. Public Health Nutrition, 12(3), 331-340.
  44. Mai, R., & Hoffmann, S. (2015). How to combat the unhealthy = tasty intuition: The influencing role of health consciousness. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 34(1), 63-83.
  45. Méjean, C., MacOuillard, P., Péneau, S., Hercberg, S., & Castetbon, K. (2013). Perception of front-of-pack labels according to social char- acteristics, nutritional knowledge and food purchasing habits. Public Health Nutrition, 16(3), 392-402.
  46. Moon, W., Balasubramanian, S. K., & Rimal, A. (2011). Health claims and consumers' behavioral intentions: The case of soy-based food. Food Policy, 36(4), 480-489.
  47. Naylor, R. W., Droms, C. M., & Haws, K. L. (2009). Eating with a purpose: Consumer response to functional food health claims in conflicting versus complementary information environments. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 28(2), 221-233.
  48. Newman, C. L., Howlett, E., & Burton, S. (2014). Shopper response to front-of-package nutrition labeling programs: Potential consumer and retail store benefits. Journal of Retailing, 90(1), 13-26.
  49. Newman, C. L., Howlett, E., & Burton, S. (2016). Effects of objective and evaluative front-of-package cues on food evaluation and choice: The moderating influence of comparative and noncomparative process- ing contexts. Journal of Consumer Research, 42(5), 749-766.
  50. Newman, C. L., Burton, S., Andrews, J. C., Netemeyer, R. G., & Kees, J. (2018). Marketers' use of alternative front-of-package nutrition symbols: An examination of effects on product evaluations. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46(3), 453-476.
  51. Raghunathan, R., Naylor, R. W., & Hoyer, W. D. (2006). The unhealthy = tasty intuition and its effects on taste inferences, enjoyment, and choice of food products. Journal of Marketing, 70(4), 170-184.
  52. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
  53. Roberto, C. A., Shivaram, M., Martinez, O., Boles, C., Harris, J. L., & Brownell, K. D. (2012). The smart choices front-of-package nutri- tion label: Influence on perceptions and intake of cereal. Appetite, 58(2), 651-657.
  54. Roe, B., Levy, A. S., & Derby, B. M. (1999). The impact of health claims on consumer search and product evaluation outcomes: Results from FDA experimental data. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 18(1), 89-105.
  55. Savoie, N., Barlow, K., Harvey, K. L., Binnie, M. A., & Pasut, L. (2013). Consumer perceptions of front-of-package labelling systems and healthiness of foods. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 104(5), e359-e363.
  56. Sinclair, S. E., Cooper, M., & Mansfield, E. D. (2014). The influence of menu labeling on calories selected or consumed: A systematic re- view and meta-analysis. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 114(9), 1375-1388.
  57. Storcksdieck genannt Bonsmann, S., Celemín, L. F., Larrãaga, A., Egger, S., Wills, J. M., Hodgkins, C., & Raats, M. M. (2010). Penetration of nutrition information on food labels across the EU-27 plus Turkey. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 64(12), 1379-1385.
  58. Suher, J., Raghunathan, R., & Hoyer, W. D. (2016). Eating healthy or feeling empty? How the Bhealthy = less filling^ intuition influences satiety. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 1(1), 26-40.
  59. Talati, Z., Pettigrew, S., Dixon, H., Neal, B., Ball, K., & Hughes, C. (2016). Do health claims and front-of-pack labels lead to a positivity bias in unhealthy foods? Nutrients, 8(12), 787-805.
  60. Talati, Z., Norman, R., Pettigrew, S., Neal, B., Kelly, B., et al. (2017). The impact of interpretive and reductive front-of-pack labels on food choice and willingness to pay. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 14, 171-181.
  61. Temple, N. J., & Fraser, J. (2014). Food labels: A critical assessment. Nutrition, 30(3), 257-260.
  62. van Herpen, E., & van Trijp, H. C. M. (2011). Front-of-pack nutrition labels: Their effect on attention and choices when consumers have varying goals and time constraints. Appetite, 57(1), 148-160.
  63. Volkova, E., & Ni Mhurchu, C. (2015). The influence of nutrition label- ing and point-of-purchase information on food behaviours. Current Obesity Reports, 4(1), 19-29.
  64. Williams, S. L., & Mummery, K. W. (2013). Characteristics of consumers using Bbetter for you^front-of-pack food labelling schemes -an example from the Australian Heart Foundation Tick. Public Health Nutrition, 16(12), 2265-2272.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ikonen, I., Sotgiu, F., Aydinli, A., & Verlegh, P. W. J.
Affiliations
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
Corresponding author
Ikonen, Iina
ORCID
Venue
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2019-05-16
Volume
48
Issue
3
Pages
360-383
ISSN
  • 0092-0703 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-7824
DOI
10.1007/s11747-019-00663-9
OpenAlex
W2910229398
Cited by
454
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 66 · 2025: 77 · 2024: 65 · 2023: 75 · 2022: 74 · 2021: 58 · 2020: 33 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 1
FWCI
39.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • VU Research Portal (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
VU University Amsterdam
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Consumer Attitudes and Food Labeling
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Consumer Packaging Perceptions and Trends
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Consumer behavior in food and health
Keywords
front-of-pack labeling, consumer behavior, purchase intention, halo effect, food choice, health perception

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review