Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Consumer confusion about wholegrain content and healthfulness in product labels: reply

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 October 2020

Parke Wilde
Affiliation:
Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, Tufts University, 150 Harrison Ave., Boston, MA 02111, USA Email parke.wilde@tufts.edu
Jennifer L Pomeranz
Affiliation:
School of Global Public Health, New York University, New York, NY, 10003, USA
Lauren J Lizewski
Affiliation:
Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, Tufts University, 150 Harrison Ave., Boston, MA 02111, USA Email parke.wilde@tufts.edu
Fang Fang Zhang
Affiliation:
Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, Tufts University, 150 Harrison Ave., Boston, MA 02111, USA Email parke.wilde@tufts.edu
Corresponding
E-mail address:
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Image of the first page of this article
Type
Letter to the Editor
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Nutrition Society

Madam

We are glad to respond to the recent letter expressing interest in our research on consumer confusion about wholegrain (WG) content and healthfulness(Reference Wilde, Pomeranz and Lizewski1). The letter said, ‘we noticed several inconsistencies regarding the study design that need to be addressed’, but it identified no such inconsistencies.

First, the letter discussed our side-by-side comparisons of hypothetical cereal products: (a) a less healthful product with higher sugar and lower WG content, accompanied by explicit or implicit front-of-pack WG labelling and (b) a more healthful product with lower sugar and higher WG content, accompanied by no WG labelling. As is the case for real products in the marketplace, we did not disclose an exact WG content in g, but the consumer could get some information from the Nutrition Facts Panel and the ingredient list, which were presented in identical format for both products. The labels were consistent with products having the following actual WG content: (a) a less healthful product with approximately 8 g of WG content and 13 g of added sugars and (b) a more healthful product with >9 g of WG content and 3 g of added sugars. There is no inconsistency.

Second, the letter said, ‘asking study participants to compare the WG content of two mixed-ingredient products is near impossible, because the information necessary for making that determination simply is not available’. However, this is not an ‘inconsistency’, but merely a correct observation about the impossible challenge facing consumers under current labelling rules. The letter’s authors say that consumers can better understand WG content if the label lists the WG gram amount, ‘providing consumers with information that would otherwise be inaccessible to them’. We agree. There is no inconsistency.

Third, the letter said, ‘the hypothetical Whole Grain Stamped products used in the discrete choice experiment are not reflective of the products that carry the Whole Grain Stamp’. The letter’s authors say, for example, that 79 % of products registered for the industry-supported WG Stamp ‘make at least half their grains whole’. This estimate seems plausible to us. It means that, even in the most rigorously defined case of the industry-supported stamp, about 21 % of the products with such WG labelling are predominantly composed of refined grains. This percentage is sufficiently high to be a policy-relevant problem, which merited the attention to the WG Stamp in our article. Moreover, with more subtle or implicit WG label statements, such as ‘multigrain’ or ‘wheat’ labelling, the percentage of products that are predominantly composed of refined grains may be even higher. Again, there is no inconsistency.

Previous research in this journal, by Mozaffarian et al. (Reference Mozaffarian, Lee and Kennedy2), has shown that it is difficult for consumers to use product labels to identify healthful products. A consumer who relies just on the ratio of carbohydrates to fibre may come closest to identifying such products. By contrast, ‘other criteria performed less well, including the industry-supported WG-Stamp which identified products with higher fibre and lower trans-fats, but also higher sugars and energy’. We appreciate that the industry-supported WG stamp may appear frequently on healthful products, as the letter’s authors indicate, but it also appears on other products such as Cheez Itz and Uncrustables and has been the subject of consumer-protection litigation(Reference Watson35). The WG Stamp is not limited to healthful products. Consumers are understandably confused about WG content in their foods. Based on the evidence, it would be reasonable for the Food and Drug Administration to step in and update the agency’s regulations to increase transparency for products containing whole and refined grains.

Acknowledgements

Financial support: This study was supported by NIH/ NIMHD 1R01MD011501. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. Conflict of interest: There are no conflicts of interest. Authorship: All authors contributed to this letter. Ethics of human subject participation: This study was conducted according to the guidelines laid down in the Declaration of Helsinki, and all procedures involving research study participants were approved by the Tufts University IRB. Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects/patients on the first page of the online survey.

References

Wilde, P, Pomeranz, JL, Lizewski, LJ et al. (2020) Consumer confusion about wholegrain content and healthfulness in product labels: a discrete choice experiment and comprehension assessment. Public Health Nutr 18. doi: 10.1017/S1368980020001688.Google ScholarPubMed
Mozaffarian, RS, Lee, RM, Kennedy, MA et al. (2013) Identifying whole grain foods: a comparison of different approaches for selecting more healthful whole grain products. Public Health Nutr 6, 22552264.Google Scholar
Watson, E (2020) Kellogg slams ‘meritless’ whole grain lawsuit, but CSPI says shoppers are being misled. FoodNavigator-USA; available at https://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Article/2016/05/20/Kellogg-sued-over-whole-grain-claim-claims-on-cheez-its (accessed May 2016).Google Scholar
Mantikas v. Kellogg Co., 910 F.3 d 633 (2nd Cir. 2018).Google Scholar
Vinson v. J.M. Smucker Co. , 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183515, 2013 WL 6987087 (C.D. Cal. March 25, 2013).Google Scholar

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: 58
Total number of PDF views: 65 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 12th October 2020 - 18th January 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Access
Hostname: page-component-77fc7d77f9-zjqt5 Total loading time: 0.327 Render date: 2021-01-18T21:21:35.924Z Query parameters: { "hasAccess": "1", "openAccess": "0", "isLogged": "0", "lang": "en" } Feature Flags last update: Mon Jan 18 2021 20:55:48 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) Feature Flags: { "metrics": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "peerReview": true, "crossMark": true, "comments": true, "relatedCommentaries": true, "subject": true, "clr": true, "languageSwitch": true, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true }

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: reply
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: reply
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: reply
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *