Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Home
  • Home
EnglishFrançais
Public Health Nutrition Public Health Nutrition

Article contents

Consumer confusion about wholegrain content and healthfulness in product labels: a discrete choice experiment and comprehension assessment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 August 2020

Parke Wilde ,
Jennifer L Pomeranz ,
Lauren J Lizewski  and
Fang Fang Zhang
Parke Wilde
Affiliation:
Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, Tufts University, Boston, MA 02111, USA
Jennifer L Pomeranz
Affiliation:
School of Global Public Health, New York University, New York, NY, USA
Lauren J Lizewski
Affiliation:
Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, Tufts University, Boston, MA 02111, USA
Fang Fang Zhang
Affiliation:
Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, Tufts University, Boston, MA 02111, USA
Corresponding
E-mail address:
parke.wilde@tufts.edu
Get access
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

Using a legal standard for scrutinising the regulation of food label claims, this study assessed whether consumers are misled about wholegrain (WG) content and product healthfulness based on common product labels.

Design:

First, a discrete choice experiment used pairs of hypothetical products with different amounts of WG, sugar and salt to measure effects on assessment of healthfulness; and second, a WG content comprehension assessment used actual product labels to assess respondent understanding.

Setting:

Online national panel survey.

Participants:

For a representative sample of US adults (n 1030), survey responses were collected in 2018 and analysed in 2019.

Results:

First, 29–47 % of respondents incorrectly identified the healthier product from paired options, and respondents who self-identified as having difficulty in understanding labels were more likely to err. Second, for actual products composed primarily of refined grains, 43–51 % of respondents overstated the WG content, whereas for one product composed primarily of WG, 17 % of respondents understated the WG content.

Conclusions:

The frequency of consumer misunderstanding of grain product labels was high in both study components. Potential policies to address consumer confusion include requiring disclosure of WG content as a percentage of total grain content or requiring disclosure of the grams of WG v. refined grains per serving.

Keywords

Whole grains Food labels Consumer confusion Nutrition policy
Type
Research paper
Information
Public Health Nutrition , Volume 23 , Issue 18 , December 2020 , pp. 3324 - 3331
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Nutrition Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.
If you should have access and can't see this content please contact technical support.

References

Zhang, B, Zhao, Q, Guo, W et al. (2018) Association of whole grain intake with all-cause, cardiovascular, and cancer mortality: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis from prospective cohort studies. Eur J Clin Nutr 72, 57–65.Google ScholarPubMed
Chen, GC, Tong, X, Xu, JY et al. (2016) Whole-grain intake and total, cardiovascular, and cancer mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies. Am J Clin Nut 104, 164–172.Google ScholarPubMed
Aune, D, Keum, N, Giovannucci, E et al. (2016) Whole grain consumption and risk of cardiovascular disease, cancer, and all cause and cause specific mortality: systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of prospective studies. Br Med J 353, i2716.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Munter, JS, Hu, FB, Spiegelman, D et al. (2007) Whole grain, bran, and germ intake and risk of type 2 diabetes: a prospective cohort study and systematic review. PLoS Med 4, e261.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kyro, C, Tjonneland, A, Overvad, K et al. (2018) Higher whole-grain intake is associated with lower risk of type 2 diabetes among middle-aged men and women: the Danish diet, cancer, and health cohort. J Nutr 148, 1434–1444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aune, D, Chan, DS, Lau, R et al. (2011) Dietary fibre, whole grains, and risk of colorectal cancer: systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of prospective studies. Br Med J 343, d6617.Google ScholarPubMed
Food and Drug Administration (1999) Health Claim Notification for Whole Grain Foods. https://www.fda.gov/food/labelingnutrition/ucm073639.htm (accessed April 2020).Google Scholar
US Department of Health and Human Services and US Department of Agriculture (2015) 2015–2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. https://health.gov/our-work/food-nutrition/2015-2020-dietary-guidelines/guidelines/ (accessed April 2020).Google Scholar
Kantor, LS, Variyam, JN, Allshouse, JE et al. (2001) Choose a variety of grains daily, especially whole grains: a challenge for consumers. J Nutr 131, 473s–486s.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kushi, LH, Doyle, C, McCullough, M et al. (2012) American Cancer Society guidelines on nutrition and physical activity for cancer prevention: reducing the risk of cancer with healthy food choices and physical activity. CA Cancer J Clin 62, 30–67.Google ScholarPubMed
Violette, C, Kantor, MA, Ferguson, K et al. (2016) Package information used by older adults to identify whole grain foods. J Nutr Gerontol Geriatr 35, 146–160.Google ScholarPubMed
Marquart, L, Pham, AT, Lautenschlager, L et al. (2006) Beliefs about whole-grain foods by food and nutrition professionals, health club members, and special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children participants/State fair attendees. J Am Diet Assoc 106, 1856–1860.Google ScholarPubMed
Center for Science in the Public Interest (2018) Re: FDA-2018-N-238; the Food and Drug Administration’s comprehensive, multi-year nutrition innovation strategy; public meeting; request for comments. Division of Dockets Management, US Food and Drug Administration. www.regulations.gov/document?D=FDA-2018-N-2381-1249 (accessed July 2020).Google Scholar
Food Labeling Modernization Act of 2018, H.R.5425, 115th Cong. (2018).Google Scholar
Rubin v. Coors Brewing Co., 514 U.S.476 (1995).Google Scholar
N.Y. State Rest. Ass’n v. N.Y. City Bd. of Health, 556 F.3d 114 (2nd Cir. 2009).Google Scholar
National Institute of Family & Life Advocates v. Becerra, 138 S. Ct. 2361 (2018).Google Scholar
Zauderer v. Office of the Disciplinary Counsel, 471 US 626 (1985).Google Scholar
Pomeranz, JL (2019) Abortion disclosure laws and the First Amendment: the broader public health implications of the Supreme Court’s Becerra decision. Am J Public Health 109, 412–418.Google ScholarPubMed
Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Comm’n, 447 U.S. 557, 566 (1980).Google Scholar
Friedman v. Rogers, 440 U.S. 1 (1979).Google Scholar
In re R. M. J., 455 U.S. 191 (1982).Google Scholar
Peel v. Atty. Registration & Disciplinary Comm’n, 496 U.S. 91 (1990).Google Scholar
Ryan, M, Gerard, K & Amaya-Amaya, M (2008) Using Discrete Choice Experiments to Value Health and Health Care, Vol. 11, 1st ed. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Miller, LM, Cassady, DL, Beckett, LA et al. (2015) Misunderstanding of front-of-package nutrition information on US food products. PLoS One 10, e0125306.Google ScholarPubMed
Federal Trade Commission (1983) FTC Policy Statement on Deception. https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/410531/831014deceptionstmt.pdf (accessed April 2020).Google Scholar
POM Wonderful, LLC vs. F.T.C., 777 F.3d 478 (D.C. Cir. 2015).Google Scholar
In re Telebrands Corp., 140 F.T.C. 278, 291 (2005), aff’d, 457 F.3d 354 (4th Cir. 2006).Google Scholar
ECM Biofilms, Inc. v. FTC, 851 F.3d 599 (6th Cir. 2017).Google Scholar
Nat’l Consumer’s League v. Doctor’s Assocs., 2014 D.C. Super. LEXIS 15 (D.C. Super. Ct 2014).Google Scholar
Mantikas v. Kellogg Co., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 34756 (2nd Cir. 2018).Google Scholar
In re R. M. J, 455 U.S. 191 (1982).Google Scholar
21 CFR 139.138 (2018).Google Scholar
Pomeranz, JL & Lurie, PG (2019) Harnessing the power of food labels for public health. Am J Prev Med 56, 622–625.Google ScholarPubMed

Wilde et al. Supplementary Materials

Wilde et al. Supplementary Materials 1

File 50 KB

Wilde et al. Supplementary Materials

Wilde et al. Supplementary Materials 2

File 2 MB

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 81
Total number of PDF views: 279 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 10th August 2020 - 21st January 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Hostname: page-component-76cb886bbf-4qfsd Total loading time: 1.635 Render date: 2021-01-21T02:48:27.840Z Query parameters: { "hasAccess": "0", "openAccess": "0", "isLogged": "0", "lang": "en" } Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false }

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Consumer confusion about wholegrain content and healthfulness in product labels: a discrete choice experiment and comprehension assessment
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Consumer confusion about wholegrain content and healthfulness in product labels: a discrete choice experiment and comprehension assessment
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Consumer confusion about wholegrain content and healthfulness in product labels: a discrete choice experiment and comprehension assessment
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *