ABSTRACT
Front-of-package labels indicating a product's environmental footprint (i.e., eco-score labels) offer promise to shift consumers towards more sustainable food choices. This study aimed to understand whether eco-score labels impacted consumers' perceptions of environmental sustainability and intentions to purchase sustainable and unsustainable foods. US parents (n = 1,013) completed an online experiment in which they were shown 8 food products (4 sustainable and 4 unsustainable). Participants were randomized to a control (n = 503, barcode on product packaging) or eco-score label group (n = 510, eco-score label on product packaging). The eco-score label was color-coded with a grade of A-F based on the product's environmental footprint, where "A" indicates relative sustainability and "F" indicates relative unsustainability. Participants rated each product's environmental sustainability and their future likelihood of purchase. We used multilevel mixed-effects linear regression models and examined moderation by product category and sociodemographic characteristics. The eco-score label lowered perceived sustainability of unsustainable products by 13% in relative terms or -0.4 in absolute terms (95% CI -0.5, -0.3; p<0.001). The eco-score label increased perceived sustainability of sustainable products by 16% in relative terms or 0.6 in absolute terms (95% CI 0.5, 0.7, p<0.001). Effects on purchase intentions were smaller, with a 6% decrease for unsustainable products (p = 0.001) and an 8% increase for sustainable products (p<0.001). For unsustainable products, the effect of eco-score labels on sustainability perceptions was greater for older adults, men, participants with higher educational attainment, and participants with higher incomes. For sustainable products, the effect of ecolabels on sustainability perceptions was greater for those with higher educational attainment. Eco-score labels have the potential to direct consumers towards more sustainable products. Future studies should investigate eco-score label effectiveness on behavioral outcomes.
Subject(s)
Consumer Behavior , Food Labeling , Intention , Humans , Male , Female , Adult , Middle Aged , United States , Conservation of Natural Resources/methods , Conservation of Natural Resources/economics , Food Preferences/psychology , Young Adult , Perception , Choice Behavior , AdolescentABSTRACT
Brand and licensed characters frequently appear on children's breakfast cereal boxes and are known to affect children's product perceptions, selection, and consumption. However, less is known about their impact on parents' perceptions of foods they purchase for their child. The present study assessed the impact of brand and licensed characters featured on three children's breakfast cereal packages on parents' intentions and perceptions in an online experiment. Parents of children aged 2-12 years (n = 1013) were randomized into one of two conditions: breakfast cereals containing brand and licensed characters or breakfast cereals without any characters. Within each condition, participants viewed three breakfast cereal brands in random order per their assigned condition and reported their purchase intentions, healthfulness perceptions, and perceptions of appeal to children using 5-point Likert scales. No significant differences in purchase intentions (p = 0.91), perceived healthfulness (p = 0.52) or perceived child appeal (p = 0.59) were observed between the experimental and control groups. However, exploratory moderation analyses revealed that educational attainment moderated the impact of experimental condition on purchase intentions (p for interaction = 0.002) such that participants with a bachelor's degree in the character condition reported 0.36 points lower purchase intentions compared to the control with no difference between conditions for those with an associate's degree/trade school or high school degree or less. This study did not find an impact of brand and licensed characters on children's breakfast cereals, suggesting that their primary appeal is directly to children. Parents with higher educational attainment may be skeptical of characters on cereal brands. Additional research on the impact of brand and licensed characters on other products, in real-world settings, is needed.
Subject(s)
Breakfast , Consumer Behavior , Edible Grain , Food Preferences , Intention , Parents , Humans , Female , Male , Child , Child, Preschool , Parents/psychology , Food Preferences/psychology , Adult , Perception , Advertising/methods , Choice Behavior , Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice , Educational StatusABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Sugar-sweetened beverage and caffeinated beverage consumption are associated with a variety of health issues among youth. Food and beverage marketing has been shown to affect youth's preferences, purchases, and consumption of marketed products. Previous research suggests that outdoor food and beverage marketing differs by community demographics, with more advertisements in lower-income communities and near schools. The purpose of this study is to examine the density of sugar-sweetened and caffeinated beverage advertisements near schools by school type (middle vs. high school) and by school-level SES. METHODS: Data are from the Outdoor Measuring and Evaluating the Determinants and Influence of Advertising (MEDIA)study, which documented and described all outdoor food and beverage advertisements near 47 middle and high schools in 2012. Beverage advertisements were categorized as: sugar-sweetened/caffeinated, sugar-sweetened/non-caffeinated, non-sugar-sweetened/caffeinated, or non-sugar-sweetened/non-caffeinated. Schools were categorized by type (middle vs high) and by SES as determined by the percentage of students qualifying for free or reduced-price lunch. Bootstrapped non-parametric Mann-Whitney U tests compared the number of advertisements in each category by school type and school-level SES (higher vs lower). RESULTS: Compared to schools with higher SES, schools with lower SES had significantly more advertisements for sugar-sweetened/non-caffeinated beverages (Medianlow = 28.5 (IQR 17-69), vs Medianhigh = 10.5 (IQR 4-17) (p = 0.002)., sugar-sweetened non-caffeinated (Medianlow = 46 (IQR 16-99) vs Medianhigh = 13.5 (IQR 6-25), p = 0.002), -sugar-sweetened caffeinated (Medianlow = 12 (IQR 8-19) vs Medianhigh = 6 (IQR 2-8), p = 0.000), and non-sugar-sweetened non-caffeinated (Medianlow = 30 (IQR 13-65) vs Medianhigh = 14 (IQR 4-29), p = 0.045).There were no significant differences by school type. CONCLUSION: This study adds to the literature demonstrating pervasive marketing of unhealthy products in lower-income communities. Disproportionate exposure to sugar-sweetened and caffeinated beverage advertisements in lower-income communities may contribute to the disparities in associated health outcomes by economic status.
Subject(s)
Advertising , Schools , Sugar-Sweetened Beverages , Humans , Sugar-Sweetened Beverages/economics , Sugar-Sweetened Beverages/statistics & numerical data , Advertising/statistics & numerical data , Caffeine , Adolescent , Beverages/economics , MaleABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Excise taxes on unhealthy products like sugary drinks and tobacco can reduce purchases of these products. However, little research has investigated whether messages at the point of purchase, such as enhanced price tags, can increase the effects of taxes by heightening psychological reactions. This study aimed to examine whether including messages about taxes on price tags could amplify the benefits of excise taxes on unhealthy products. METHODS: In 2022, an online study recruited 1,013 U.S. parents to view seven price tag messages (e.g., "includes a 19% sugary drink tax") and a control (i.e., standard price tag with the tax included in the price) displayed in random order alongside sugary drinks. Participants were randomly assigned to view a caution-symbol icon or no icon on price tags. Analyses were conducted in 2023. RESULTS: All seven messages discouraged parents from buying sugary drinks for their children compared to control (average differential effects [ADEs] ranged from 0.28 to 0.48, all p<0.001). All messages led to greater attention to the price tag (ADEs ranged from 0.24 to 0.41, all p<0.001) and greater consideration of the cost of sugary drinks (ADEs ranged from 0.31 to 0.50, all p<0.001). Icons elicited higher cost consideration than text-only price tags (ADE=0.15, p<0.010), but not discouragement (p=0.061) or attention (p=0.079). CONCLUSIONS: Messaging on price tags could make excise taxes more effective. Policymakers should consider requiring messaging on price tags when implementing taxes.
Subject(s)
Sugar-Sweetened Beverages , Taxes , Tobacco Products , Humans , Commerce , Consumer Behavior , Tobacco Products/legislation & jurisprudence , Sugar-Sweetened Beverages/legislation & jurisprudenceABSTRACT
We examined if areas around schools with more students of lower socioeconomic status (SES) have more total food/beverage advertisements and/or more advertisements with poorer nutritional content as compared to areas around schools with fewer students with lower SES. All outdoor food/beverage advertisements within a half-mile radius of 47 middle and high schools in the United States were objectively documented in 2012 and coded for nutritional content. The total number of advertisements and the macronutrient and micronutrient contents (total calories, fat (g), protein (g), carbohydrate (g), sugar (g), and sodium (mg)) of food and beverage items depicted in the advertisements were calculated. In total, 9132 unique advertisements were recorded, with 3153 ads displaying food and beverages that could be coded for nutrient content. Schools located in areas of lower SES (≥60% students receiving free/reduced-price lunch) had significantly more advertisements displaying food and beverages that could be coded for nutrient content (z = 2.01, p = 0.04), as well as advertisements that contained more sodium (z = 2.20, p = 0.03), as compared to schools located in areas of higher SES. There were no differences in calorie, fat, protein, carbohydrate, or sugar content. Policies to reduce the prevalence of outdoor food and beverage advertising are warranted.
Subject(s)
Advertising , Beverages , Humans , Nutrients , Micronutrients , Schools , Social Class , Carbohydrates , SugarsABSTRACT
Introduction: New warning labels for alcohol could reduce alcohol-related health harms. This study examined consumer responses to alcohol warnings with different designs. Methods: A national sample of 3,051 U.S. adults completed an online survey in August 2021. Participants were randomized to 1 of 4 warning topics (addiction, liver damage, early death, or colon cancer). Participants viewed 3 labels, presented in random order: 2 types of warning labels (text-only and icon) showing a newly developed warning message about their assigned topic and a text-only control label showing a neutral message. Participants rated each label on effectiveness at discouraging alcohol consumption (primary outcome) and attention (secondary outcome) using 1 to 5 Likert-type scales. Participants also rated warnings with different causal language variants (e.g., "increases risk of," "contributes to") and marker words (e.g., "WARNING," "SURGEON GENERAL WARNING"). Results: Both the text-only and icon warnings were perceived as more effective (Average Differential Effects [ADEs]=0.79 and 0.86, respectively) and more attention-grabbing (ADEs=0.43 and 0.69, respectively) than control labels (all ps<0.001). The icon warnings were rated as more effective and attention-grabbing than the text-only warnings (ADEs=0.07 and 0.27, respectively, both ps<0.001). Although all warning topics outperformed the control messages, warnings about addiction were rated as less effective and attention-grabbing than the other topics. A majority (60%) of participants selected "increases risk of" as the most discouraging causal variant and a plurality (47%) selected "SURGEON GENERAL WARNING" as the most discouraging marker word. Conclusions: New alcohol warnings could discourage alcohol consumption, especially if warnings include icons.
Subject(s)
Alcohol Drinking , Product Labeling , Adult , Humans , Alcohol Drinking/adverse effects , Alcohol Drinking/prevention & control , Surveys and QuestionnairesABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Natural claims on food are largely unregulated in the U.S. This study examined the effects of natural claims on a fruit-flavored drink with added sugar (i.e., fruit drink). METHODS: In 2019, U.S. parents of children aged 2-12 years (N=1,078) recruited from an online survey panel were randomized to one of three arms: natural claim on a fruit drink, 100% all-natural claim, or a no-claim control. Parents reported their intentions and perceptions regarding fruit drinks using 1-5 response scales. Analysis occurred in 2022-2023. RESULTS: Both natural claims led parents to have higher intentions to purchase a fruit drink for their child than the control (average differential effect=0.20-0.24, both p<0.05). The natural claim (but not the 100% all-natural claim) also led parents to think that the fruit drink was healthier for their children (average differential effect=0.22, p=0.024). Claims made parents less likely to think that the drink contained added sugar (average differential effect= -0.08 to -0.12, both p<0.05) and led to lower estimated amounts of added sugar in teaspoons (average differential effect= -1.77 to -2.09, both p<0.05). Mediation analyses revealed that the claims led to higher intentions to purchase the fruit drink by increasing perceived healthfulness of the fruit drink and by leading parents to believe that there was no added sugar in the fruit drink. CONCLUSIONS: Natural claims could increase interest in and perceived healthfulness of fruit drinks. Misperceptions about the nutritional content caused by claims appear to be driving greater purchase intentions. These findings suggest a need for stronger regulation around natural claims to prevent consumer misunderstanding.