The impact of front-of-pack nutrition labels on consumer product evaluation and choice: An experimental study
Open accessAbstract
Objective: The present research was an experimental test that aimed to quantify the impact of two dominant front-of-pack (FOP) nutritional label formats on consumer evaluations of food products that carried them. The two FOP label types tested were the traffic light label and the Percentage Daily Intake. Design: A 4×5 partially replicated Latin square design was used that allowed the impact of the FOP labels to be isolated from the effects of the product and the consumers who were performing the evaluations. Setting: The experiment was conducted on campus at the University of Otago, New Zealand. Subjects: The participants were 250 university students selected at random who met qualifying criteria of independent living and regular purchase of the products used in the research. They were not aware of the purpose of the research. Results: The presence of FOP labels led to significant and positive changes in consumer purchase intentions towards the products that carried them. These changes were not affected by the nature of FOP labels used, their size or the product nutritional status (good/bad) that they were reporting. Conclusions: The result is consistent with the participants paying attention to the FOP label and then using it as an adimensional cue indicating product desirability. As such, it represents a complete functional failure of both of these FOP label types in this specific instance. This result supports calls for further research on the performance of these FOP labels before any move to compulsory deployment is made.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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 results are in accordance with earlier labelling research in the food industry that examined the impact of similar formats of nutritional labels on consumer purchase intent.
“The results were quite clear cut and are in accordance with the results obtained in earlier labelling research within the food industry, which examined the impact of similar formats of nutritional labels on consumer purchase intent [12,46,57].”
From Marketing Tactics for Sustainable Fashion and the Circular Economy: The Impact of Ethical Labels on Fast Fashion Choice (2023) · cites this paper as [57]
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
Partially Replicated Latin Squares
Youden, W. J., & Hunter, J. S. (1955) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/3001719 · Cited by 35 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Campos S, Doxey J & Hammond D (2011) Nutrition labels on pre-packaged foods: a systematic review. Public Health Nutr 14, 1496-1506.
- van 't Riet J (2013) Sales effects of product health informa- tion at points of purchase: a systematic review. Public Health Nutr 16, 418-429.
- Banks S (1965) Experimentation in Marketing. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Does the Australasian “Health Star Rating” Front of Pack Nutritional Label System Work?
Hamlin, R., & McNeill, L. (2016) · Nutrients · doi:10.3390/nu8060327 · Cited by 76 · see citing works
Self-citationHamlin, R. P., & McNeill, L. S. (2023) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su151310331 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Hamlin, R. P., McNeill, L. S., & Moore, V.
- Affiliations
- University of Otago (NZ)
- Corresponding author
- Hamlin, Robert P
- Venue
- Public Health Nutrition
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2014-12-22
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 2126-2134
- ISSN
- 1368-9800 (ISSN-L)
- 1475-2727
- PMC
- PMC10271474
- OpenAlex
- W2138721290
- Cited by
- 60
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 4
- FWCI
- 5.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Public Health Nutrition (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- University of Otago
- 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 nutrition labels, traffic light labels, consumer purchase intention, food product evaluation, food choice, nutrition labeling policy
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Choice Behavior, Consumer Behavior, Female, Food Labeling, Food Preferences, Humans, Male, New Zealand, Pilot Projects, Young Adult
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