CALIFORNIA STATE IDTIVERSITY, UORTHRI:JXi-E
CO:I:TSU11ER USE OF NUTRITION I-ABELS
\\
COl"lPARED WITH EATING &'\BITS
A thesis submitted in partial satisfaction of the
requirements for the degree of Master of Science in
Home Economics
by
Shana Mayerson Longley
...----
August, 1978
The Thesis of Shana Mayerson Longley is approved:
ii
To my parents, brother, and grandmother, who
have always shared in my sorrm1 and joy.
share with me this achievement.
iii
May they
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author wishes to express her sincere appreciation to Dr. Ann Stasch, Professor and Committee
Chairperson, for her patient assistance and professional advice during the development of this thesis.
Gratitude is also extended to Dr. Marjory Joseph,
Professor and Chairperson of the Home Economics Department, Dr. Lillie Parkin, Professor of Home Economics,
and Dr. Charles Bearchell, Dean of Graduate Studies,
for their time and helpful suggestions toward this
project.
A special thank you is also given to all the men
and women who completed the survey questionnaire and
made this study possible.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
DEDICATION • • •
ACIQTO~'f£EDGMEJ:.TTS
LIST OF Tl1..BLES
ABSTRACT • • •
• • • • • • • • • • •
• •
~
~
.......... .
. •
•
• • .. . •
. . ..
•
• ,.
• •
•
tl
•
4111
•
•
~
• •
#
•
•
•.
t
•
iii
iv
vi
vii
CHAPTER
. .
I.
INTRODUCTION • • •
..
Statement of the Problem
Objectives
Hypotheses
Assumptions and Limitations
Definition of Terms
II.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE • • •
METHODOLOGY
III.,
IV.
•
•
•
~
•
•
#
~
•
..
~
•
..
•
•
1
9
39
RESULTS and DISCUSSION • • • • I' •
45
CONCLUSIONS and
•••••
....
88
• •
'100
• • • • • • •
105
S~~1RY 1
RECOI~ATIONS
... .•
AP:PENDIX A .. . .. . .. •
REFERENCES
'~.
•
P..PPEND!X B • • •
~
• • • •
.
•
• •
.,•.
.
•
"
•
8
"
. . ..
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
1
Demographic Characteristics • • • • • • •
46
2
Point Scores Assigned to Responses
on the Food Intake Checksheet • • • • • •
48
3
Dietary Intake of Selected Foods. • • • •
49
4
Other Selected Dietary Habits •• • • • •
51
5
Changes in Consumers' Eating Habits •
53
6
Diet Changes Consumers Have Made in
the Last Five Years • • • • • • • • .
..
..
56
7
Respondents' Opinions Regarding Various
Statements About Nutrition Labeling • • •
62
8
Frequency of Using Nutrition Labels
During Grocery Shopping • • • • • • • • •
71
Consumers' Reasons for Using or Not
Using Nutrition Label Information •
.. .
73
Respondents' Frequency of Reading the
Label to Determine "Pureness" of the
Food Product. • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
'74
Consumers' Preference for Nutrition
Labeling Method .. • • • • • • .. ., •
76
9
10
11
12
. .. .
]Tequency of Using Nutrition Labels
by Respondents Compared to Their
13
14
Eating Habits . . . . . . . . . . . . • • •
78
Respondents' Comprehension of Questions
Regarding the Nutrition Information
on a M.ilk Carton. • • • • • .. • • • • .. •
8'1
Correct Responses to a Nutrition. Label
Test Compared to Prequency of Intake
from Food Categories •• " .. • o . . . " •
87
vi
o
ABSTRACT
CONSUMER USE OF NUTRITION LABELS
COMPARED WITH EATING HABITS
by
Shana Mayerson Longley
Master of Science in Home
Econo~ics
Nutrition labeling of food products was implemented to
help consumers better identify the nutrient compostion of
the food they purchase.
The purpose of this study was to
examine the consumers" actual use and comprehension of
nutrition labels.
Eating habits were also analyzed to
determine if the frequency of using nutriticn labels were
related to the nutrient composition of the consumers•
diets~
and to :find out if positive dietary trends were taking place
among the sample.
A
questionnaire was distributed to one hundred con-
sumers in .four different areas
'ltli thin
greater Los A:ngeles.
The findings of the study i.ndl.cate that the majority
of consumers (86 percent) were in faYor of the nutrition
label progra.:m.
There was no difference in .frequency c>f
using label inf'o:rma.tion among respondents from different
vii
socio-economic backgrounds.
However, dietary habits were
positively correlated with the use of nutrition label information.
Higher intake scores for the basic four foods and
lower intake scores for snack items were found among consumers who more frequently used nutrition labels.
Comprehension of nutrition label information was
directly related to educational attainment; however, total
food intake scores were not higher among consumers who had
higher comprehension scores on the nutrition label test.
viii
CHAPTER I
IUTRODUCTION.
The Food and Drug Administration's nutrition labeling
regulations became fully effective on January 1, 1975.
Dur-
ing the past decade, several interrelated factors acted as
catalysts in the eventual enactment of this very significant
change in food labeling practices.
Great impetus came forth
from two nation-wide nutrition surveys:
the 1965 Food
Consumption Survey (36) and the Ten State Nutrition Survey
of 1968 - 1970 (39).
Substantial evidence from both indi-
cated that many Americans were improperly nourished.
investigational committee reported that:
.P..n
"A significant
portion of the population surveyed was malnourished or was
at a high risk o:f developing nutritional problems (39:12). 11
Within the same period, consumers in the United States
became very communicative of their increasing skepticism
about the nutritional quality of the :food they purchased.
These consumers expressed difficulty in identifying the
nutrient content of
formulated .foods..
~~
increasing number of processed and
A wni te House Conference on Food, Nutri··
tion, and Health, held in 1969 (34), clearly emphasized the
need for more informative labeling of th-e nutritive values
of our food supply.
Following six more years of study,
nutrition labeling finally became law in 1975 (17:120).
In the supermarkets, nutrition labels currently appear
on a great many packaged and canned foods.
question has been raised:
The follO\'ling
Has the nutritional well being of
contemporary American society improved, or are consumers
still making poor food choices which contributed to the
decline in their diet approximately ten years ago (28)?
The more recent national consumption studies have
uncovered
dif~ering
results.
The 29th Annual Consumer
Expenditure Study, conducted in 1976 by Supermarketing (9),
contributed data which suggested that Americans allocated
their food dollars in much the same way in 1975 as they did
in 1965.
More encouraging results were fomld in a separate
survey conducted by the Economic Research Service of the
United States Department of Agriculture.
1976, 1,400
In the Spring of
United States households were interviewed and
the information collected indicated that Americans were
"altering their diets to avoid potential health :pro·olems ·(41:27)."
The second question raised since the nutrition labeling
laws became effective in 1975 concerns the use and comprehension of the labels by the consumer.
The
~~swers
uncov-
ered in recent studies pose a ·very disturbing situation.
Most American consumers are not
eq1..U:pp(~j
by prior education
to effectively interpret and use nutrition label information
Although the maj or.i ty o:f consumera say they "<-.rant and are
willing to pay for nutrition information, only a very small
percentage of these consumers actually use nutrition labeling aids when making a purchase decision (17).
With the largely negative findings concerning the
consumers' actual use of nutrition labels, the short existence of this informational aid is in danger of being
~
discontinued.
However, such a decision at this time would
be premature.
Further examination of food labeling use and
impact should be of immeasurable value to consumers, government agencies, food associations, nutritionists, and all
individuals within the scientific and food distribution
communities.
Statement of the Problem
The primary objective of this research study was to
examine the use and comprehension of nutrition labeling by
the consumer in the Los Angeles area, and to determine if
there was a relationship between food intake and nutrition
label impact.
Little attention has been given to the study of the
consumers' actual food selection behavior in the supermarket
as a result of the advent of nutrition labels.
!I
The need for
merely providing information has been overemphasized 1 and
yet the consumers' level of comprehension of nutri·tion
labeling and the e:f.fect of knowledge about the label on
their actual eating behavior has not been fully studied ..
4
Objectives
The researcher was interested in studying the present
day eating habits of a conveniently selected sample of
consumers in Los Angeles.
Recent market surveys suggested
that the consumer is motivated to read articles about nutrition and that this increased awareness has caused consumers
to make changes in the kinds of foods they buy and serve
their families.
The secondary objectives of this research study were to
answer the following questions:
1.
vfuat are the dietary habits of a sample of con-
sumers?
Are their dietary intake levels adequate in
nutrient content?
2.
What kinds of diet changes, if any, have consumers
made in the last five years?
3.
What are the consumers' reasons for using or not
using nutrition informational aids?
4·.
\Vhat better types of nutritional aids would con-
sumers like to see implemented in the supermarket?
Hypotheses
The main hypotheses of this study were:
Null hyuothesis I
There is no significant difference in the frequency of
using nutrition labels among cons1.1mers based on their
5
socio-economic status.
Null hypothesis II
There is no significant relationship between food
intake scores (as measured by a food intake checksheet) and the frequency of using nutrition labels.
Null hypothesis III
There is no significant relationship between the
number of correct responses to a nutrition label test
and the age and
educat~onal
level of the consumer.
Null hypothesis IV
There is no significant relationship between food
intake scores (as measured by a food intake checksheet). and the number of correct responses to a nutrition label test.
Assumptions
This research study made the following assumptions:
1.
It was assumed that the question..'>laire was a valid
means of collecting data from consumers concerning
their food habits and their use and comprehension of
'
nutrition labels.
2.
I·t
1r~as
assumed that the participating consumers
answered the questionnaire truthfully.
3.
It was assumed that based on a sample o£ one hun-
dred respondents
~~
acceptable significance level
would be attained at .05 or less utilizing chi square
and Pearson's T.
6
Limitations
The study had the following limitations:
1.
Distribution of the questionnaire was confined to
approximately one hundred subjects within. a limited
geographical area o£ Los Angeles, and therefore does
not represent a complete spectrum of Los Angeles
residents.
2.
The full spectrum of the American population was
not represented by this study due to obvious financial
and time restraints.
3.
There was no previous research available on the
sample to serve as a guideline for comparison.
Definition of Terms
Basic four:
four food groups, milk, meats, vegetables
and fruits, and breads and cereals, which supply a nutritiously balanced diet.
"Basic four nlus" foods:
a category devised by the
author to include those foods recommended by the Senate
Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs for ·their
lower fat content
higher fiber content.
and
Foods consid-
ered "basic four plusn are poultry, fish, an.d whole grain
breads and cereals.
Consumer:
a service.
cne:,)lho
uses a commodity, such as food or
t....,_:-...,... ..
~,_
7
Convenience £oods:
foods which have services added to
the basic ingredients to reduce the amount of preparation
required in the home.
Convenience sample:
a type of sample which is based
on the availability 9f respondents and does not use a random
or set schedule of selection.
Family income:
family unit.
the total income of all members in the
If. the respondent is self supporting and
living by him or herself, then the family income is only his
or her income.
Food faddism:
unusual pattern of food behavior
enthusiastically adopted by its adherents.
Food habits:
the way in which individuals, in response
to social and cultural pressures, select, consume, and
utilize,portions of the available food supply.
Fresh foods:
foods which are in their "natural" state
or unprocessed.
~:
flesh of any animal~
Nutrition label:
information (appearing on some
packaged and canned food items) of the nutrient content of
a food and designed to aid consumers in the identification
~Ld
selection of nutritious foods.
Processed foods:
ca~ed,
those foods that are commercially
dried, frozen, baked, precooked, or premixed.
Pureness:
a word used to describe a food product that
contains no artificial additives or preservatives&
8
Red meat:
refers to beef, pork, veal, and lamb mainly,
and not poultry and fish.
Snack foods:
those foods or beverages consumed between
meals and usually containing a high percentage of sugar or
other ingredients to enhanse taste.
Soft drinks:
beverages of the cola or non-cola type,
containing mostly a sweetener, water, and some flavor, which
may or may not be carbonated.
Starchy and complex carbohydrates:
high residue and
starchy foods, such as pasta, rice, whole grain foods, and
corn products, etc.
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
This present research study directs attention to
nutrition labeling's impact on food consumption behavior.
Since the(nutrition labeling regulations)were not enacted
until January, 1975, it is important to review consumption
behavior prior to 1975 and also to examine changes in eating
habits since 1975.
Also, this investigation will include
related studies of consumers' nutrition knowledge, the use
and comprehension of food labels, and the relationship of
nutrition knowledge to actual eating practices.
Nutritional Status Prior to 1975
Three important surveys of the nation's food
h~bits
and
nutritional status were undertaken by the United States
government during the ten year period before 1975.
Each
o~
these studies revealed substantial evidence that many
Americans were improperly nourished.
The 1965 Household Food Conslmption Survey (36/ was
conducted by the
Depart~ent
of Agriculture.
Findings from
this report established that there 1.t1as an .insufficient
dietary intake of vitamins A,
iron, and calcium among a
c,
B6, thiamine, riboflavin,
significa~t
.9
number of the sample •
10
Almost five years later, the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare administered the Ten State Nutrition
Survey (39).
Again, nutrient deficiencies among the
.American people \'iere reported.
For all segments of the
population, an immoderate pre·valence of low hemoglobin and
hematocrit values were detected.
~~d
Low levels of serum iron
serum transferrin further indicated a widespread problem
of iron deficiency.
The report also documented a signif-
icant prevalence of low vitamin A levels among young people
~in
all groups studied.
Inadequate protein
int~~es
for a
large proportion of pregnant and lactating females were also
confirmed by the Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare survey.
A general finding of the Ten State Nutri•
tion Survey was:
Persons with lower income, with lesser parental
education, blacks, Spanish-Americans, and persons
from low-income areas tend to have a higher
prevalence of multiple deficiencies09:17).
Data collected between 1971 and 1972 comprised the
third major survey, called the
F~TES
Nutrition Examination Survey).
report (Health and
Deficiencies in nutrient
intake, especially among persons below the poverty level,
were also made apparent by the
Hfu~S
Food Consumption
Prio~
report (38).
to
197~
In 1965, consumers allocated the largest share of their
food money for meat and alternate protein foods..
Approx-
11
imately $38 of every $100 spent on food was to purchase red
meat, poultry, eggs, dry beans, peas, and nuts (9:12).
The
intake of all meats was equivalent to about six ounces per
person per day (26).
Consumption of pork, veal, and fishery products declined in 1965.
The demand also declined for eggs, all
dairy products, fresh fruits and vegetables, cereal products
~~d
coffee (36:vii).
There was a large increase in the consumption of
protein from animal products.
In 1966, two-thirds of the
protein in the average American diet came from animal products compared with only one-half in 1909-13 (36:11).
Since
1950, increases in consumption of beef and poultry have been
primarily responsible for the increased consumption of
animal products.
In contrast to the rise in intake of animal protein,
there was also a sharp downward trend in the consumption of
cereal and flour products.
Findings of the 1965 Household
study showed ·an obvious reduction in the intake of starchy
carbohydrate products, such as potatoes.
Compared to the
average carbohydrate intake of Americ&"ls around 1909,
Americans were consuming 25 percent less from this food
energy so·urce in 1965 (36:12).
One example of an individual
food item in this category that declined drastically in use
was sweet potatoes.
Per capita consumption of sweet pota-
toes dropped precipitously from 29 pounds in 1920 to just
12
5 pounds in 1965, equalling a decline of 83 percent (28:143).
Americans increased their intake of sucrose and other
refined carbohydrates during the decade prior to 1975.
There was also an increased consumption of a wide variety of
snacks, such as potato chips, corn chips, soft drinks, and
According to the 1965 Household survey (36), the
beer.
United States population ate 83 percent more potato chips
than in 1955.
Americans in 1965 also drank about 18 gallons
of sweet beverages, such as cola, root beer, and fruit
flavored drinks (5:273).
As part of the nationwide household survey of 1965,
information was also obtained on the food intake for one day
of individual members of the households interviewed (37).
Data were recorded for this separate report of food actually
eaten over a 24 hour period.
Some findings of the report
were that men, between the ages of 20 and 34, were the
highest consumers of meat, poultry, and
foods.
alte~ate
protein
They consumed an average quantity of 12 ounces of
meat per day.
Women in the same age group used an average
of 7 ounces of meat per day.
Consumption of grain products
was also greater by males than females.
All persons in the
study (14,500) ate more bread products, such as sandwich
bread, rolls, and biscuits,
tha~
any other type of grain or
cereal product (37:12).
During the period from 1945 to 1968, a sharp decline in
the use of fresh vegetables occurred.
Consumption of fresh
13
vegetables dropped nearly 77 percent compared to usage
twenty-five years earlier (28:141).
Similarly, fresh fruit
consumption decreas?d by 42.4 percent.
This meant that 44
pounds less fresh fruit were consumed yearly per individual
( 28:141) ..
Consumption of all fruits and vegetables in 1966 was
well below peak rates of the late 1940's.
The Individual
Household Survey of 1965 (37) reported that only 10 to 20
percent of all individuals ate dark green and deep yellow
vegetables during the 24 hour period recorded..
The propor-
tion of persons using tomatoes and citrus fruit in a day was
50 percent for men and
wome~
aged 20 to 54 years, and lower
percentages were recorded for all other age groups (37:14).
Between 1940 and 1974 there was a steady rise in the
use of convenience food items.
Evidence of household con-
sumption of such items as T.V. dinners, canned stews, soups
and sauces, and frozen fruits and vegetables increased from
33 percent in 1940 to 40 percent by 1955, and to 45 percent
in 1965 (28:141).
In a study of food waste behavior of
households in Tucson, Arizona (15:15), researchers revealed
findings of a 30 percent increase in the use of convenience
£oods between the period of 1973 to 1974.
Consumers also increased their use of nutrient fat by
approximately 16 percent in 1965 as compared to cons1.m1ption
levels for fat in 1909 (36:4).
Higher consumption of red
meats was the main contributor to this increase.
Conversely,
14
consumption
in 1965.
o~
animal
Evidence
o~
~ats
such as lard and butter decreased
a growing trend in the consumption of
more nutrient fat as margarine and vegetable shortening
was indicated.
Finally, the national food consumption surveys of 1965
through 1975 indicated an overall decline in the use
o~
dairy products (2) {36).
o~
In particular, consumption
milk
decreased to 4.1 quarts per week in 1965 as compared to 4.5
quarts per week in 1955 (2).
Additionally, consumption of
eggs declined sharply since World War II.
sumption of eggs was 393 in 1951.
Per capita con-
Data.. collected in 1966
(36:11) revealed the per capita consumption of eggs to be
314 per year.
In summary, it can be said that shifts in food consumption as indicated by numerous national surveys prior to
1975,
~fected
the nutritional quality of household diets.
It was revealed that a
signi~icantly
lower percentage
o~
Pjffierican diets met the allowances for calcium, vitamin A,
and ascorbic acid in 1965 than in 1955.
About 20 percent
of the diets in 1965 were rated poor in that they were below
two-thirds of the allowances for one or more
selected nutrients.
o~
seven
In 1955, 15 percent of the diets fell
into this high risk category.
15
Consumer Opinions About Nutrition Labeling
Following several years of deliberation, the United
States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) set forth regulations on nutrition labeling.
A standard format for dis-
closing nutritional composition is required for'products
which have been fortified with additional nutrients and for.
products which make a nutritional claim either on the label
itself or through advertising (10:170).
Nutrition labeling
is voluntary for all other products.
In response to survey questions, the majority of con- .
sumers have said they want nutrition labels.
Findings of a
national survey conducted by the Economic Research Service
(ERS) in the winter of 1977 (21:17), to assess consumers'
behavior, attitudes and motives toward food, support the
·following conclusion:
In general, consumers are interested
in more information about food and they also express a need
for additicnal.label information.
The survey results have been very consistent for a
number of years.
Lenahan et ai. (23:4) report that nearly
100 percent of the 2,195 men and women they interviewed in
1972 were in favor of nutrition labeling of the U.S. RDA
variety.
About 60 percent said they would use nutrition
labels when they became available.
Moreover, 44 percent of
this sample expressed a willingness to pay "at least something" on a $25 grocery bill in order to have the labels.
16
In more recent surveys, the general findings are
similar.
A national sample of 15,000 respondents were asked
i f they would use nutrition label information when making
purchase decisions.
This study, conducted by the FDA (1),
reported that 75 percent of the respondents would use the
nutrition label information and 48 percent were nwilling to
pay 50 cents more each week" just for having nutrition
labeling available on food containers.
The FDA Division of Consumer Studies conducted a survey
in 1975 (26:27) shortly after the
to the public.
u.s.
RDA_1·s were introduced
Individuals purchasing food for households
were interviewed and the majority (75.percent) of the
respondents claimed that they paid attention to the expiration date on the container.
Nearly half of the sample
checked the ingredients on cans and packages, and one-third
used nutrition labeling when choosing foods and beverages.
In another study, Daly (1976) found that consumers were
very much in favor of nutrition labeling (10).
An over-
whelming majority of respondents perceived the need for the
labels (91 percent) and appeared to regard them as a means
of enhancing their confidence when doing their food shopping (89 percent).
Consumers of all demographic subgroups
seemed equally positive in their opinions.
Respondents aged
65 and over were the only subgroup that did not feel the
labeling program was especially needed (10).
The Daly study
also revealed that 58 percent of the respondents were
17
"willing to pay a few pennies extra" on their weekly grocery
bill.
In general, the younger and better educated respond-
ents were most emphatic that nutrition labeling be retained
regardless
o~
possible costs.
The non-use
bene~its
recognized by a majority
76 percent
o~
o~
o~
nutrition labeling were also
consumers (10:173).
those surveyed felt that
11
At least
nutrition labeling
will make people more aware of the importance of good
nutrition."
Another 61 percent agreed that "compulsory
nutrition labeling will lead manufacturers to make their
products more nutritious."
The most recent survey
ions
o~
re~ults
are based on the
opin~
.
1,433 randomly selected,shoppers throughout the
United States.
In the Winter of 1977, the second phase of
a two part survey (phase one was carried out in Spring 1976)
called the National Study of Consumer Food Related Attitudes
and Motives was conducted by Response Analysis Corporation
of Princton, New Jersey for the Economic Research Service
(21).
They found that the majority of shoppers felt that
nutrition labels were very useful when they \'lere shopping
for
~ood.
A total of 30.8 percent said it would
extremely useful; 31.8 percent, very
oe
21.5 percent,
use~ul;
somewhat useful; 10.4 percent, not too useful, and 4e6
percent said not useful at all.
The number of those who
ans\vered "extremely useful" rose with income.
percent of the households with $25,000-plus
Almost 40
a~.nual
income
18
thought nutrition labels were extremely useful.
A total
of 36.3 percent of shoppers with children under twelve also
said nutrition information is extremely usefuJ:, while those
with older children or none had a lower percentage of
positive responses (14:4).
All the survey research in the past few years has
produced consistent findings.
Consumers say they want
nutrition information, say they would or do use it, and say
they are willing to pay something extra to have it availabla
Actual Use and Comprehension
of Nutrition Labels
Despite the fact that consumers express a strong desire
for nutrition information, the data from recent studies
suggest that they devote a negligible portion of their prepurchase search to actually acquiring nutrition information.
During the course of a long shopping trip, it is estimated
that consumers attain or acquire less than 10 percent of the
nutrition information available on food produ.cts (17:123).
Among many of the shortcomings with which the nutrition
labeling program operates, the greatest reason for the low
rate of actual usage is the consumers' inability to comprehend the nutrition information as currently provided on the
package.
The consumers possess the motivation to use the
labels, but they are not equipped by prior training tv
effectively interpret the label information (17:127).
The
!."
19
nutrition information as it currently appears on packages
requires a fairly high level of nutrition knowledge.
The
consumer needs, at the very best, to have some fundamental
understanding of the four basic food groups as well as of
the nature of proteins, fats, carbohydrates, vitamins,
minerals, and their functions in the body (23:2).
In a study to test actual use of nutritional labels
(17:121) adult subjects were placed into a purchase simulation with an array of product information.
They were given
freedom to acquire none, some, or all of this information
prior to arriving at their purchase decision.
\~en
brand
names were given, the percent of subjects who actually
acquired some form of nutrition information ranged from a
high of 21 percent for calorie information to a low of
2 percent for fat content.
\Y.hen the same study was carried
out using Purdue University undergraduates (17:122) the
percentage of usage ranged from 39 percent for calorie
information to 8 percent for carbohydrate information.
Students seemed more positively inclined toward acquiring
nutrition information.
Chestnut and Jacoby (7) in another study addressed the
question of what happens to the acquisition of nutrition
information as an increasing number of products are shopped
for on the same trip.
They found that the use of nutrition
labels decreased by more than 50 percent when the number
of products shopped for was at least twelve items.
20
These findings are highly contradictory to the consumers' high degree of enthusiasm and desire for nutrition
labels.
In regards to the low rate of nutrition label
Jacoby et al. (17:124) state:
usag~
"why acquire information that
will only confuse and thereby make the selection of a brand
more difficult?"
Consumers are confused by nutrition label information.
The Farm Index, a service of the United States Department of
Agriculture, summarized their findings of a study with this
statement:
Despite the perceived usefulness of these aids,
consumers' actual experience with open date, nutritional and ingredient labeling received low marks ••
•••• Consumers have expressed considerable confusion
about what the various types of shopping aids mea~
(40:8).
Actual comprehension of the nutrition label was found
to be significantly related to educational attainment (23).
Basic arithmetic skills are necessary to convert the nutrient values given on the label to individual daily requirements.
\Vhen subjects were shown a nutrition label and asked
to tell how many cups of the product would supply the total
Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA) of vitamin D, only 34 percent gave the correct answer (10:176).
On the consumers• ability to understand label information, the findings of Jacoby and Chestnut (17:124) are
consistent with previous reports.
Most respondents could
not indicate how much of each nutrient they needed in their
21 '
daily diet.
Although many could give accurate figures for
calories (71 percent), only a very few knew the proper
amounts for carbohydrates, fats, and protein.
Consumers'
awareness and comprehension of protein information on the
label was tested.
Awareness of protein as an essential
nutrient was stated by 82 percent; stated usage of protein
information, 57 percent; knowledge or ability to define
protein, 6.5 percent, and knowledge of protein daily needs
was stated by 2.7 percent.
Very similar percentages were
obtained for fat and carbohydrates.
Few consumers have a
proper understanding of the nutrition information on food
labels they say they are using.
It appears to be very clear that the provision of raw
nutrition information can not have desirable impact without
prior relevant education.
Consumers must be taught to
comprehend and utilize the information from the labels.
Only then will the full potential benefits of nutrition
labeling on actual eating behavior be realized.
Consumers' Knowledge of Nutrition
The American consumer has a low level of knowledge
about nutrition and the components of a well balanced diet.
Even though consumers today are demonstrating a new awareness of the importance of nutrition and its effects on their
health, they are misinformed and unprepared to benefit from
the new educational information available to them.
In
22
reference to nutrition labels, the question is asked:
How
useful is nutrition labeling i f consumers are limited in
their ability to comprehend and apply the printed facts?
A study entitled "Homemakers' Food and Nutrition
Knowledge, Practices and Opinions" was carried out in 1975
by the United States Department of Agriculture (44).
The
sample consisted of 3,600 households and was stratified
by geographic area, population density, and intercensal
growth rate.
One portion of the survey was a test of the
respondents' knowledge of the nutritional adequacy of five
different daily food plans.
Two-thirds of the respondents
correctly recognized which plans were nutritionally balanced (44:6).
However, only one-sixth of these correct
respondents were also able to give any reasons for their
opinions.
The survey further established the low ability
of the consumer to
~pply
nutrition information to improve
his or her dietary practices.
Less than 50 percent of the
respondents understood the need for using a variety of foods
in their diet (44:8).
They also were unaware of the amounts
and kinds of foods needed by different family members
depending on their age and sex.
The Pillsbury Company's Nutrition Baseline Study (45)
uncovered findings similar to the U.S.D.A.'s findings.
The
average housewife is unfamilar with the kinds of foods that
make up a balanced diet.
Almost 90 percent of the women
surveyed reported, that in their judgments, their families
23
obtain nutritionally adequate meals.
However, less than
50 percent of the mothers could define a balanced diet.
Respondents were not able to clearly distinquish the nutrient benefits of various food items.
Vitamins were thought
to be the main nutrient contribution of milk, and not calcium.
Information of our nutritional needs is available and
plentiful.
During the 1960's and 1970's there has been a
growing awareness in our society regarding the relationship
between eating behavior and our health.
The scientific·
knowledge of nutrition is advancing rapidly, but the consumers' level of nutrition knowledge remains low.
There are many problems that can account for the
consumer knowledge lag.
Besides lacking the necessary
educational base, consumers are not motivated to actively
participate in the learning process.
and
nutritio~
as
~hey
The study of foods
perceive it, does not interest them
unless they have a personal health problem which involves
diet therapy.
The 1975 U.S.D.A. Nutrition Knowledge Su.-vey
(44:21) found that the women they surveyed had..a fair knowledge of food and nutrition facts but the women (33 percent)
also stated that they were not interested in learning more
about nutrition.
Similarly, women interviewed in the
Pillsbury Baseline Study (45) were more concerned with
pleasing their families, and especially their husbands than
learning more about nutritious foods.
Weight reduction
24
was also a main concern among the sample women in the
•
Pillsbury Baseline Study.
In another study, family preference exerted the
strongest influence on food selection among 590 housewives
(8:154).
The data indicated that the husband would exert
a stronger influence on the wife's trying a new food than
any other motivational factor.
The influence of a
doc~or,
nurse, or nutritionist had secondary influence in persuading
a respondent to try a new food.
Most would readily accept
suggestions if urged by their doctors.
Other investigations of the general public's nutrition
knowledge have been conducted in recent years.
Cons1mers 1
nutrition knowledge was studied in a special two part report
for the Food and Drug Administration in 1975 (4).
Over
3,500 consumers were interviewed and the findings indicated
.that the overwhelming majority (90 percent) felt that they
had no problem providing a nutritious diet for their
families; but most of the shoppers could not define what a
nutritious diet was.
The FDA "Consumer Nutrition Knowledge Survey, Report
II 11 also ascertained that confidence about nutrition knowledge and one's actual knowledge do not necessarily coincide.
Of the respondents who scored low on the nutrition knowledge
test, only 40 percent admitted their lack of knowledge.
Twenty percent of the low scorers strongly believed that
that they knew a great deal about nutrition.
Contrastingly,
25
40 percent who scored high on the knowledge test felt they
knew little or nothing about nutrition (41:31).
Knowledge about nutrition is dependent upon many
internal and external environmental factors.
Just as food
behavior itself is the result of environmental, person.al,
and biologic factors, attitudes towards food and ones knowledge of nutrition are also the result of many psycho-social
elements (31).
Nutrition knowledge of mothers was investigated in
relation to selected demographic and attitudinal variables.
The researcher found that mothers who knew the most about
nutrition came from higher socioeconomic groups and also
expressed the attitude that nutrition was important (33).
The subjects in the study were rather highly educated in
terms of the number of school years completed and their
scores on the four foods group test and nutrition knowledge
test were high.
Nutrition knowledge was highest among
mothers who were younger and had less authoritarian attitudes about child rearing.
Families who were at the later
stages in the life cycle tended to exhibit lower levels of
nutrition knowledge.
Income was not positively correl.g"ted with n],li;:ri1:;i9Jl
~.!-"""~·-~-'-'•~.._.~~···'~·-~'-'"•••~,-,_,._-,,~-..._,,~,ni,,,"~''--~-- --•·-•• _, •' "•""' '" ·--
0
'•
'"'
•
, , _ , • o<
!•••"
knO'\V"ledge in both the 1965 and 1955 national food consump.... _..
tion surveys.
_.,,.~~-."
·--·•'"
~-··--··'-'· ~,-,·--,.--s
•,-• , ___ , .,, ., ..
Many higher income families did not know
what constitutes a nutritionally desirable diet and did
not express the desire to select foods that provide such
26
a diet (44:1).
General failure by consumers to understand and apply
nutrition information is in large part due to the many
misinterpretations about nutrition circulating in the mass
media today.
In a study released by the Federal Trade
Commission (35), many consumers' misconceptions about nutrition were made visible.
Of the sample interviewed, 36 per-
cant expected "energy food" to contain sugar, glucose or
dextrose.
Another 25 percent associated protein with
energy and 22 percent thought an energy food contained
vitamins mainly.
Nutrition related health practices and opinions of
Americans were examined in a nation-wide survey conducted
between the period from 1969 to 1972.
The survey was
administered by the FDA with the support of the
Agricultural Research Service, Administration on Aging,
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development,
National Institute of Mental Health, Veterans Administration
and the Vocational Rehabilitation Administration (29).
They
found that no one group of people is consistently associated with questionable nutrition-related beliefs and practices.
For example, about one-third of the sample did not
agree with this statement:
"People who eat a variety of
available foods everyday can get all the vitamins and minerals they need."
Demographic and personal characteristics of both food
27
faddists and non-faddists were studied by Jalso et al. (19).
Findings were similar to the results of the FDA study (29).
Subjects who composed the faddist sub-sample had less
formal education and less nutrition education than did the
non-faddists.
Further, the faddists more frequently were
older subjects and they also had lower incomes.
The review of consumer knowledge studies illustrate
that educational attainment and nutrition education correlate highly with nutrition knowledge.
Moreover, previous
survey research has substantiated that American consumers
are in much need of effective nutrition education.
Nutrition Knowledge Compared to
Eating Habits
Positive CP:t':t"elations have been proven between
--~-~·----~~,-·-·"·-·
''"'~
•.
,,_,, •• -.~-·,o--r-">
.,_., .. ,, .•. ~"'"·"''""'"•'-~ .•
·,.·-·--"~····-o·•·-···.·-·-••~·--
-
tional attainment and nutrition knowledge.
·.. -.,_-
eq~qa-
Socioeconomic
.._,., __ .
status is also a determining factor of nutrition knowledge
(33) (46).
However, greater knowledge of nutrition alone
does not assure a person an adequate diet or motivate him
to apply his knowledge when making food choices.
Many forces shape the habits that determine people's
daily food practices.
Besides knowledge of nutrition, the
influence of one's family life, one's culture, the mass
media~
income, and religion are just some of the other
factors which influence actual dietary intake.
researcher appropriately stated:
One
" ••• food with man is not
28
just food; it is the crossroads of emotion, religion,
tradition, and habit (11)."
The role of nutrition knowledge in determining food
practices is of: prime concern in this:research and will be
focused upon in the next few pages.
Thus far, it has only
been hypothesized that knowledge of nutrition will influence the selection of foods that are high in nutrient quality.
Many studies have tested this hypothesis and to date
the findings are at variance.
A research study involving approximately 650 homemakers in Rochester and Syracuse, New York found a positive
correlation between knowledge and practices (46).
Home-
makers with higher educational backgrounds and better
knowledge of nutrition served more "adequate daily :menus"
to their families than those with little or no knowledge.
Of the homemakers with some knowledge of nutrition, 60 percent used food from all the basic food groups, and only
40 percent of the respondents with little or no knowledge
used all basic four food groups.
Quality of breakfast also
increased as nutritional knowledge increased.
In addition,
higher educational attainment was positively correlated
with increased consumption of milk as an adult beverage.
Overall, the food groups about which the homemakers' knowledge was weakest were also those most poorly used.
Milk,
cheese, green and yellow vegetables, and citrus fruits were
some of the foods neglected due to a lack of knowledge
29
about them.
Data collected in a 1965 study of nutritional beliefs
and practices suggested that knowledge is
practice (19).
r~ected
in
Education was positively correlated with
scores on both practices and opinions.
Nutritional opin-
ions and practic_es were more valid as level of knowledge
increased (19:265).
Subjects with more misconceptions
about nutrition also used vitamin and "health" supplements
more extensively.
They had less formal education and less
nutrition education than subjects with more valid nutritional practices.
Food choices of women with above average education and
income were studied and the findings do not support a positive relation between knowledge and practices.
Only 65
percent of the women ate breakfast daily, and 26 percent
ate fewer than three meals per day (8:153).
Low correla-
tions were also obtained by Eppright et al. (13) who found
that favorable attitudes toward
nutritio~
as a
res~t
/
of
nutrition education, did not seem to influence the quality
of the subject's diets.
More positive data were collected in a food habit
study of college women in 1977.
Educational and parental
influences were cited as the main reasons for the intake of
highly nutritious and well balanced meals among a group of
Cornell University students (18).
The mean intakes of the
group showed that the recommended allowances for all
30
nutrients studied were exceeded, except for energy,
and iron.
thiami~
Mean intakes for energy and thiamin fell only
slightly below the recommendations, while the somewhat low
mean dietary iron intake of 12.4 mg. was not unexpected
(18:411).
High school graduates were the subjects involved in
another investigation of the effectiveness of nutrition
education in instilling good eating behavior (32).
Dietary
intakes of 313 respondents were assessed and their nutritional practices were numerically scored using a "basic
.four checklist."
Scores were then correlated with previous
enrollment in a high school food and nutrition course of
a home economics class.
No significant differences in food
intake scores were found between graduates who had and had
not enrolled in the home economics classes.
Intakes of
foods in the fruit and vegetable group were below basic
four recommendations.
The subjects had even less adequate
intakes of foods in the bread and cereal groups (32).
Ruth Norman of Columbia University researched the
effect of
nut~ition
men and women (27).
knowledge on the food intake of college
A nutrition test was administered and
a food intake score was also collected by way of a two day
food recall.
The food intake score was a rough estimate of
the subject's food consumption based on a system developed
by Chaney and Ross (6:18).
In this system, foods were
divided into the basic four food groups and 9redits were
31
given based on the number of servings a subject had from
each food group.
Using this scoring system, Norman found
that although more women had high nutrition test scores
than men, fewer women than men applied their knowledge to
their food choice.
As in previous findings, women in this
study (27) were more motivated by other factors, such as
weight control or family preference, when choosing food.
Men, however, were more inclined to apply nutrition knowledge when selecting food.
Additional related studies found that greater knowledge of nutrition brought about better diet practices.
In
a Puerto Rican community of Chicago, the dietary patterns
of 75 teenage girls were assessed and then compared to
scores on an objective nutrition knowledge test.
Greater
dietary diversity was significantly and positively correlated with higher knowledge scores.
Vitamin A intake and
vitamin C intake was also significantly higher among
subjects with higher knowledge scores (11).
In another investigation of the relationship between
nutritional knowledge and nutritional practices, sixty
mothers in a Beirut suburb were evaluated (3).
ings were significant and positive.
The find-
Children whose mothers
had attained the highest level of schooling, had better
nutritional status.
Mothers who had additional nutritional
instruction in the higher grades, scored highest on the
practice questionnaire.
f.
'
32
f'
Finally. in another recent United States Department of
.Agriculture survey ( 20) , higher education was found to
correlate positively with diet practices.
Respondents w11o
altered their diet because of existing health problems or
simply to follow preventative health measures, also had
higher educational backgrounds.
Food Habits Since 1975
r~y
forces were responsible for altering food con-
sumption behavior in the last decade.
Price changes,
incomes, household size, and the age structure of the
population are
~actors
that have had an
dietary practices of Americans.
a~~ect
on the
The consumers' concern
for the healthfulness of the food they select in the supermarket may have also contributed to some changes in dietary
practices over the last five years.
In the Spring of 1976, the Economic Research Service
(ERS) surveyed approximately 1,400
u.s.
households in an
attempt to assess what diet changes were being made.
report uncovered some very favorable findings.
The
One-
fourth of the households surveyed reported diet changes to
avoid potential health problems (20).
The types of changes
reported were an avoidance of sweets and snacks, fried
foods, fatty red meat, ice cream, and soft drinks.
Con-
sttmers, in general, appeared to be using items lower in
sugar, saturated fats and oils.
They reported using lowfat
'
33
milk and cheese, lean red meat, fish, fresh fruits and
vegetables, poultry, and broiled and baked foods.
The Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human
Needs convened in 1977 and set forth some national dietary
goals (25).
One of the goals decided upon was that
Americans substitute more poultry and fish in place of red
meats which are high in saturated fat.
It was also recom-
mended that Americans increase their dietary intake of
whole grain products and reduce their intake of foods high
in sugar content, butter fat, and salt.
In an Economic Research Service report, published in
June, 1977, for National Food Situation (42), an investigation compared consumption behavior in 1975 with that of
1965 and found that American diets appear to be increasing
in nutrient content.
u.s.
per capita consumption of meat,
poultry and fish rose from 178 pounds to about 280 pounds
between 1960 and 1976.
As compared to 34 pounds per capita
consumption of poultry in 1960, use of poultry increased
to 54 pounds per capita in 1976.
Since the mid-1950's there has been a steady decline
in the use of fluid whole milk (24:27).
Processed cheese
has currently taken over as the main food source of our
calcium needs.
The use of processed cheese has increased
more than 100 percent
sin~
1965 (41:36).
American cheese
is most demanded by consumers presently and almost accounts
for two-thirds of the calcium provided by all cheese.
34
Factors that may have affected the large increase in cheese
consumption are a recent taste for foods containing cheese,
such as pizza, and a taste for more varieties of cheeses
accompanied by increased availability.
Use of fluid lowfat milks have increased substantially
in the past two decades (9:15).
The phenomenal growth in
the use of yogurt in recent years has been a main factor in
the larger increases of lowfat milk supplies.
Consumers
are using a little more than two pounds of yogurt per
capita per year.
Yogurt consumption increased four times
between 1967 and 1975.
Egg consumption declined 12 percent over the last
decade.
Men were the high egg consumers in 1965 and they
are the group most likely to have been affected by concern
about the cholesterol content of eggs (22:29).
The Agricultural Research Service conducted a study in
1975 based on the findings of Supermarketing magazine
(41:34).
The data disclosed a rise in per capita consump-
tion of salad and dinner vegetables.
In the period between
1973 and 1975, consumption per person of vegetables had
risen to 106 percent of the amounts consumed in 1939 to
1941.
Although use of canned and frozen vegetables
accounted for the majority of the increases, consumption of
vegetables which are sold in fresh form only, such as lettuce, increased nearly 50 percent in recent years.
review of Supermarketing findings reflected a sharp
The
35
increase in the consumption of vegetables in salads and
a significant
shi~t
in dinner vegetables to the frozen
form for those products where freezing is feasible.
Indications are that the low intakes of both vitamins A
and C in the last decade may be currently improving.
Another researcher, Corinne B. LeBovit, reported on
the impact of demographic changes in the 1970's on food
consumption (22).
More Americans today are living alone
or in two-person households.
Smaller household size has
been a growing trend since the 1960's and predictions by
the Census Bureau are that the trend will continue.
Higher divorce rates, lower birth rates, and the break-up
o~
the nuclear
~amily
are some factors that have affected
changes in household size.
Consequently, food consump-
tion behavior is altered by smaller household size.
The study found that vegetable and fruit consumption is
higher
~or
persons living alone.
A less encouraging trend has also been developing in
the past two decades.
In the 1960's soft drink usage
gained tremendous popularity, and in 1977 consumption was
still rising.
\ihile milk and coffee consumption had
dropped 12 to 15 per cent in the past 20 years, soft
drinks have doubled and fruit and vegetable juices and
drinks went up nearly 80 per cent.
Soft drink consumption
is up 133 per cent since 1955 and cola claims 61 per cent
of the total increase (41:35).
36
Consumers' food related behavior was assessed in
another survey by the United States Department of Agriculture (41:24).
The two phase nationwide survey was
conducted in 1974 and again in 1976 to measure consumers'
level of satisfaction with various food products and
services.
Some findings were that consumers demonstrated
a low degree of satisfaction with convenience foods in
1974 due to health concerns.
In 1976, the data suggest-
ed even more dissatisfaction with convenience products.
In another survey, also administered in 1976, consumers
generally viewed highly processed foods as less nutritious than natural or less processed foods (29:2).
A food habit study of college women (18:408) conducted in early 1977, support the u.s.D.A. findings.
The college women sample excluded many foods because they
were thought to be unhealthy.
Foods eliminated were:
sweets, carbonated beverages, white bread, drJ cereals,
foods with additives, highly processed foods, snack type
foods, and eggs.
Also in this study of college womens'
eating habits, a total of 47 percent of the subjects
snacked in the evening and to a lesser degree in both the
morning and afternoon (18:409).
eaten as snack foods included:
Items most frequently
coffee, tea, candy,
cookies, beverages, and sweets, such as
c~~e,
pie, and
ice cream.
Response Analysis Corporation conducted another
37
nationwide two phase survey for the United States
Department of Agriculture in 1976 and 1977 (14).
The
survey was organized to study consumers' food related
attitudes and practices.
The general finding was that
consumers want more information about the food they buy.
Almost three-fourths of the shoppers interviewed said they
tried to avoid food with additives.
Regarding consumer
use of convenience foods, a majority of the respondents
said they either seldom or only sometimes bought food
requiring little home preparation because they preferred to
prepare foods from scratch.
The Supermarketing findings (9) showed that in 1975
fresh and unprocessed foods were highly popular.
~rice
as
much of the food dollar spent in 1975 was for fresh foods
as compared to the food dollars spent on processed foods
(9:13).
A decline in consumption in 1975 compared to 1965
was noted for some ready mixed, ready to eat, and ready to
heat foods.
These foods were, for example, ice cream, ready
whipped topping, frozen dinners, chips, candy, cookies, and
prepared cakes (9:14).
According to a nutritional rating
system developed by Jacobson in 1973 (16), some of these
processed, ready to eat foods have "disaster-zone scores
(16:71)" because they contain so much sugar.
gives these foods negative point values.
Jacobson
Some candy bars
are rated as low -55, but if the candy contains milk, egg
whites and peanuts the score is higher.
Therefore, if
38
consumers are becoming less satisfied with these types of
processed foods as indicated in the Supermarketing (9)
findings, consumers' diets may be increasing in nutrient
content as a result of consuming more fresh foods from
the basic four foods group.
Overall, the nutrition surveys of 1975 and later
indicated that the nutrient quality of American diets
improved compared to their diets in the mid-1960's when
nutritional deficiencies were reported for 20 percent of
the American population (36).
If -consumption data for
1976 is compared with 1967 records, the findings suggest
that, except for calcium, all nutrients meet or exceed
1967 levels (24:25).
Larger meat supplies account for
more iron, magnesium, and vitamins B6 and B12.
in ascorbic acid is attributed to more fruit.
An increase
Vitamin A
values are also presumably higher as a result of the
increased consumption of poultry and a wide variety of
vegetables.
Therefore, the conclusions are that const1.mers
studied since 1975 are making some beneficial changes in
their diets.
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
Procedure
For this research study, i t was decided that the best
method to use to collect data about consumers» reactions to
nutrition labels was the survey.
A questionnaire was devel-
oped and pretested with a convenience sample of twelve consumers from different socioeconomic areas in Los Angeles.
Comments and criticisms from the pilot sample were gratefully accepted and used to construct
the questionnaire.
~~
improved version of
The questionnaire was again reviewed by
other selected consumers and more corrections were made.
The final draft of the questionnaire was developed
111i th
the
assistance of several respected advisors from selected academic backgrounds.·
(The final questionnaire .f'orm appears in
Appendix A.)
The questionnaire was five pages in length and inquired
into the eating habits of consumers and their reaction to
nutrition labels on food products.
The
su_~ey
device con-
tained an example of a nutrition label from a carton of
milk.
Nine questions designed to test the respondentts
practical understanding of this nutrition label example were
also i:r:cluded..
Other questions sought the opinions and
·39
40
degree of actual prep1xrchase use of nutrition labels by
consumers.
The personal characteristics of the respondents
were ascertained by questions five through nine on the
second page of the survey.
Data Collection
The survey was administered in four main areas within
greater Los Angeles.
The four geographical locations were
Northridge-Reseda, Santa Monica, Culver City, and Venice,
California.
These areas were chosen in order that the
sample be unbiased in respect to age, income, and educational level.
A total of one hundred subjects comprised the sample.
Twenty-five participants were conveniently selected from
each of the four locations.
Individuals were approached at
shopping centers, recreational sites, schools, restaurants,
and residences.
The researcher identified herself as a
graduate student from
c.s.U.N.
and politely asked for the
prospective subject's consent to participate in the research
project.
If the subject gave his or her consent to partici-
pate, the subject was handed the questionnaire and also
given some brief verbal instructions.
He or she was told
to answer each question to the best of their ability by
either checking the appropriate space following the question
or filling in the
bl~~.
No interaction '\'lith the subject took place while the
41
survey was in progress.
Each participant returned the ques-
tionnaire to the researcher upon completion.
One hundred
usable questionnaires were collected out of a total of
107 questionnaires which were distributed.
Analysis of Data
The questionnaires were analyzed with the help of a
computer available at the
c.s.U.N.
Computer Center.
Various computations were performed by the researcher
initially before the data could be coded and punched onto
IBM cards.
Dietary intake was assessed by a point system developed
for this study.
The method included calculating the fre-
quency of intake for foods listed on the "food intake checksheet11 (question number one of the survey).
The tw·enty-fonr food and beverage items listed were
separated into three distinct categories:
basic four foods,
"basic four plus 11 foods, and snack foods.
The basic four
foods comprised the first sixteen items on the food check-.
sheet..
The nbasic four plus" foods included fish, poultry
and whole grain breads and cereals.
These foods
w~re
distinguished from the basic four foods group because of
their preferred nutritional contribution as outlined in the
Senate Select Committee's dietary goals for the United
States (25).
The last group of foods are frequently eaten
42
as snack items and on this basis were separated into the
snack category (18).
Also, they were
di~ferentiated
from
the other ,two food categories because these items are
usually processed foods •
Point values for the three food categories were based
on frequency of intake (Table 2).
For the basic four foods
group the following point system was used based on the
number
period:·
o~
times the food was consumed within a given time
6 points·- 3 times daily, 5 points - 2 times daily,
4 points - once daily, 3 points - 3 times weekly, 2 points -
once weekly, and 1 point if the food was eaten twice monthly.
The "basic four plus" foods ,.,ere worth more points depending
on their frequency of intake.
were as follows:
8 points -
Point values for these foods
3 times daily, 7 points -
2 times daily, 6 points - once daily, 5 points - 3 times
\'Teekly, 3 points - once weekly, and 1 point if eaten twice
monthly (No extra points were given if eaten twice monthly).
Snack food items received negative points because of their
high sugar content or for the other non-beneficial ingredients they may contain.
P-lso, snack foods present the dan-
ger of displacing more nutritious foods in the diet, such as
from the basic four and "basic four plusn lists (25).
Point
values ranged from -6 to 0 (Table 2) depending on frequency
of intake and were based on a scoring system developed by
Jacobson (16).
Chips, candies and cookies received the
highest negatiYe values.
No negative points were giv-en i:f
43
a snack food or beverage was consumed less than once daily.
Since the point values assigned for each response of
intake for a food was based on a rough estimate of intake,
total scores for each food category were calculated and
divided into quartiles.
For the fresh food categories,
basic four foods and "basic four plus" foods, the third and
fourth quartiles were combined and used as a low intake
level.
The second quartile was used as a medium intake
le·vel and the first quartile .became the high intake level.
Total point scores for the snack foods and beverages were
calculated and divided into five intake levels.
value ranges for each category,
basic four foods:
high intake
medium intake
low intake
''basic four plus" foods:
high intake
medium intake
low intake
snack foods:
high intake
medium-high intake
medium intake
medium-low intake
low intake
therefor~
The point
are as follows:
36 - 46
26 - 35
4 - 25
13 - 20
6 - 12
1 -
5
-14 to -16
-11 to -13
-8 to -10
-4 to - 7
0 to - 3
The program selected for processing the data was the
Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS computer
program).
Computer cards were keypunched in the format
required by the SPSS package.
The total breakdown of age,
education, and employment categories on the questionnaire
had to be collapsed into fewer categories so that the data
could fit on the computer cards.
The breakdown of age on
.the questionnaire had six categories.
For computer
the following categories were combined:
analysi~
under 20 and 21 -
25 became under 26, 26 - 35 and 36 - 50 became 26 - 50, and
51 - 65 and 65+ became 51 and over.
For the education cate-
gory, the following breakdown based on years of school completed was used:
1 - 8 years, 9 - 12 years, 1 - 3 years of
college, and 4 years of college or more.
The breakdown of
the employment category had the following change:
other
white collar, housewife, student, and retired became the
same category.
This last breakdown of a category was based
on the socio-economic categories devised and used in the
FDA study of "Food and Nutrition Knowledge, Beliefs: Part I
(1:16)."
The statistical tests calculated on the various
s~~ey
questions were the chi square test of significance and the
Pearson's product moment correlation coefficient, r.
Abso-
lute and adjusted frequencies were also calculated by the
computer.
reference.
The data have been
arr~~ged
into tables for easy
The minimum accepted level of significance for
all tests run on the computer was the .05 level.
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In a survey conducted in Spring, 1978, one hundred
consumers in Los Angeles expressed their opinions regarding
the
~ederally
enacted nutrition label program.
The data
presented in this section describe the information gained
from the questionnaires distributed in the survey.
Many of
the findings are shown in table form for easier reference.
Description
A convenience sample
~our di~~erent
Consumer Sample
o~
o~
one hundred consumers
~rom
areas within greater Los Angeles comprised
the total sample.
The majority of the respondents (73 per-
cent) were women.
There was a wide distribution of ages represented in
the survey.
Nearly one-third
o~
between the ages of 26 and 35.
the participants were
Except for the age groups
under 20 (6 percent) and over 65 (3 percent), the different
age groups between 21 and 65 were nearly equally represented (Table 1).
A
large percentage
o~
respondents (42 percent) had
attended college between 1 and 3 years.
Another 21 percent
of <the sample had attended college for 4 or more years ..
Only four of the consumers surveyed had received fewer
45
46
TA:SLE 1
DEMOGR~PHIC
CHARACTERISTICS
Characteristic
Respondents
N=100
0
No.
Sex
Male
Female
27
73
27.0
73.0
Age range in years
under 20
21 - 25
26 - 35
36 - 50
51 - 65
65 and over
6
24
31
16
20
3
6.0
24.0
31.0
16.0
20.0
3.0
4
33
42
21
4.0
33.0
42.0
21.0
27
13
27.0
13.0
59
1
59.0
1.0
14
40
17
29
14.0
40.0
17.0
29.0
Years of school completed
1 - 8
9 - 12
College 1 - 3
College 4 or more
Type of work
Professional/technical
r.1anagers/ officers
Other white collar, housewife,
student, retired
:Slue collar
Family income
under $10,000
$10,000 - $14,999
$15,000 - $19,000
$20,000 and over
47
than nine years of schooling (Table ·1 ) •
Most of the consumers (59 percent) were employed in
other white collar positions or were housewives, students;
or retired.
Two-fifths of the sample had total family
incomes which ranged between $10,000 and $15,000.
Forty-
six percent of the total family incomes reported were
above $15,000.
Food Habits of Resnondents
Consumers were aSked to indicate how often they ate
foods from a selected list of food and beverage items.
The foods from the "checklist" (question number one of the
survey) were divided into three main categories:
basic
four foods, "basic four plus" foods, and snack foods.
Foods from the same category had similar point values
(Table 2).
Respondents received a separate total point
score for each food category.
The results revealed that 37 respondents had a medium
dietary intake of the basic four foods.
One-third of the
sample scored in the high intake level, and another 30 percent of the subjects had low intakes for the foods listed
in the basic four category (Table 3).
Dietary intake scores for po'\:.ltry, fish, and whole
grain products were encouraging.
A strong 56 percent of
the respondents obtained medium intake scores for these
foods in the "basic four plus" category (Table 3).
Another
'
TABLE 2
POINT VALUES ASSIGNED TO RESPONSES
ON THE FOOD INTAKE CllliCKSHEET
Point Values
Item
fresh or frozen broccoli or spinach
green pepper, brussel sprouts
carrots, yellow squash
sweet potatoes, yams
white potatoes (fresh)
fresh apples, bananas, pears
melons, papaya, mango (in season)
orange, grapefruit, tomato
beans, lentils, peas, corn
nuts, seeds, peanut butter
rice, grits, barley, oats, etc.
milk
cheese, yogurt, other milk products
eggs (1 eZg per serving)
red meat beef, pork, veal, lamb)
liver, kidney, heart
poultry (chicken or turkey)
fish (include fresh, frozen, canned)
whole grain bread or cereal products
sweet rolls, donuts, cakes, pies
snack foods (chips, candy, cookies)
sweetened soft drinks
sugar free, low calorie soft drinks
coffee, tea. (or a substitute)
3 times
daily
2 times
daily
once
daily
3 times
weekly
once
weekly
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
7
7
7
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
8
8
8
.•.
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
6
6
6
5
5
5
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
-1
0
.0
-5·
-4
-3
-2
-1
-2
-1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
2
3
3
3
-2
-1
0
0
1
1
2
-3
-6
-3
-2
twice
monthly
--~-~---~----------------------·
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
·--·-~".
.p.,
aJ
49
TABLE 3
.
DIETARY INTAKE OF SELECTED FOODS
Food Category
Point
Scores
Respondents
N=100
No
Basic four foods:
fresh or frozen broccoli, spinach
green pepper, brussel sprouts
carrots, yellow squash
sweet potatoes, yams
white potatoes, (fresh)
milk
cheese, yogurt, other milk
products
orange, grapefruit, tomato
fresh apples, bananas, pears
melons, papaya, mango
beans, lentils, peas, corn
nuts; seeds, peanut butter
rice, grits, barley, oats, other
grains
·
red·meat (beef, pork, lamb, veal)
liver, kidney, heart
eggs
High intake
Medium intake
Low intake
"Basic four plus" foods:
poultry (chicken or·turkey)
fish (fresh, frozen, canned)
whole grain breads and cereals
High intake
Medium intake
Low intake
36-46
26-35
4-25
33
37
33.0
37.0
30
30.0
13-20
6-12
24
56
20
24.0
56.0
20.0
1-5
50
24 percent reported high levels of intake while only
20 percent had low intakes.
The higher prices in the
supermarkets for red meats may be an important factor
which has influenced the higher intakes of poultry and
fish.
Consumer health consciousness, however, has also
been credited for this habit change (20).
\ihen asked if they ate sugar-coated cereals or added
their own sugar to cereals, 66 percent of the respondents
answered that they did not.
Consumer use of other snack
foods was divided into five intake levels (Table 4).
Foods
in the snack category included chips, candy, sweet cakes,
and soft drinks.
The results show that at least 36 percent
of the sample had medium intakes for the snack items listed
on the food checklist.
Another 20 percent had medium-high
intakes of these foods and 7 percent of the sample had a
high intake score for snack foods.
Nutrition educators emphasize the importance of a well
balanced morning meal to provide the body with energy early
in the day.
The majority of the respondents surveyed
(55 percent) did eat breakfast between 5 and 7 times per
week.
However, 23 percent ate a morning meal only 3 to 4
times per week and 22 percent reported that they ate breakfast less than 3 times weekly (Table 4).
51
TABLE 4
OTHER SELECTED DIETARY HABITS
Item
Snack foods:
sweet rolls, donuts, cakes, pies
chips, candy, cookies, etc.
sweetened soft drinks
sugar free, low calorie soft drinks
coffee, tea, or a substitute
0
Low intake
Medium-low intake
-4
Medium intake
-8
Medium-high intake
-11
High intake
-14
Do you eat sugar-coated cereal
or add sugar to your cereal?
Yes
No
Do you eat a morning meal between
the hours from 6 A.M. to 11 A.M?
5 - 7 times weekly
3 - 4 times weekly
less than 3 times weekly
Point
Scores
to -3
to -7
to -10
to -13
to -16
Respondents
N-100
No.
%
4
33
36
20
7
4.0
33.0
36.0
20.0
7.0
34
66
34 .o
66.0
55
23
22
55.0
23.0
22.0
52
Changes in Consumers' Eating Habits
The growing consumer interest in the quality of the
food they purchased \vas among the main factors \vhich catalyzed the birth of the nutrition label program.
There
was also concern expressed by scientists and governmentc
agencies that the status of the American diet may be
declining as evidenced by the results of the nutritional
surveys administered in the 1960's and early 1970's.
This investigation was carried out in the Spring of.
1978 and one of the objectives was to determine the eating
habits of consumers in Los Angeles.
A sample was asked
if they thought their eating habits had changed compared
to the way they were eating five years ago.
of this question are shown in Table 5.
an
over\~helming
The results
It was found that
majority, 87 percent of the 100
respondent~
said that their diet habits had changed.
Respondents were also asked to indicate what types of
diet changes they made in the last five years (Table 6: p .. 56).
Chi square was calculated for each type of diet change to
see if there was a significant difference based on the
respondent's age and educational attainment.
Although decreased intake of salt was not significantly different among educational levels, respondents
who had attended college most often reported a reduction
in salt usage.
The data collected show that 52.4 percent
53
TABLE 5
CHANGES IN CONSUMERS t EATING HABITS
Item
Yes
Responses
No
Number
Number
27
3
20
3
3
1
4
37
5
3
Do you think your eating habits
have changed compared to the way
you were eating five years ago?
Age range in years:
under 26
26 - 50
51 and over
40
7
Years of school completed:
1 - 8
9 - 12
College 1 - 3
College 4 or more
29
18
54
of the respondents who attended college for 4 or more years
reduced their salt intake.
Also, respondents aged 26 and
older more often decreased their salt intake than
respondents under 26.
The restuts show a significant difference between the
age of the respondent and the practice of drinking lowfat
or
no~at
ficance).
milk in place of whole milk (.01 level of signiAt least 40 percent of the respondents between
the ages of 26 and 50 had shifted to lowfat or nonfat milk.
The age group who most often made this change were respondents over age 51.
Almost 70 percent of this age group had
changed to lowfat or nonfat milk within the last five
years.
In contrast, only one-third of the respondents
under age 26 made this diet change.
It was stated earlier in this report that almost
one~
fourth of the sample surveyed had scored high in their
dietary intake of fish and paul try.
Another significant _
portion (56 percent) had at least. medium intake scores for
this food category.
Further evidence is shown in Table 6
for the use of more fish and poultry in place of red meat
by the respondents in this study.
Again, the diet change
was significantly different (.004 level of significance)
based on the respondent's age.
Only one-third of the
subjects under 26 indicated that they ate more fish and
poultry in place of red meat, but 50 percent of the
subjects between 26 and 50 reported affirmatively for this
55
diet change.
The largest percentage of respondents who
indicated making this change were age 51 and older.
Seventy-four percent of the respondents in this age group
made this diet change.
The
~indings o~
a survey conducted by
Supermarketin~
magazine (41) showed a rise in per capita consumption
salad and dinner vegetables.
in
~resh ~orm
Consumption
only, such as lettuce, increased nearly
in~ormation
In this study, the data collected support the
Supermarketing
~indings.
Sixty-four percent of the subjects
had said they were eating more
vegetables than
~ive
~resh
years ago.
most often made this diet change.
salads and frozen ·
The younger respondents
Seventy percent of the
respondents under 26 reported eating more
vegetables.
vegetables sold
o~
50 percent in recent years according to the
they gained.
o~·
~resh
and frozen
Subjects with higher educational levels more
frequently answered that they were eating more fresh and
frozen vegetables compared to five years ago.
The largest
proportion (73 percent) of subjects who made this diet
change had attended college between 1 and 3 years.
It was indicated by 59 percent of the respondents that
they had reduced their dietary intake of sweets and snacks
compared to their consumption of snack-type foods five
years ago.
The data collected (Table 6) also indicate.
that as educational attainment increased, a greater
percentage of subjects reported a decrease in their intake
56
TABLE 6
DIET CHANGES CONSUMERS HAVE MADE
IN LAST FIVE YEARS
Diet Change
Decreased intake of salt
Age
under 26
26 - 50
51 and over
Education
1 - 8
9 - 12
College 1 - 3
College 4 or more
Shifted :from whole milk to
low:fat or nonfat
Age*
under 26
26 - 50
51 and over
Education
1 - 8
9 - 12
College 1 - 3
College 4 or more
Eat more poultry and fish
in place o:f red meat
Age**
under 26
26 - 50
51 and over
Education
1 - 8
9 - 12
College 1 - 3
College 4 or more
Number
Responses
Yes
30
47
23
36.6
40.4
39.1
63.3
59.6
60.9
4
33
42
21
30.3
42.9
52.4
o.o
100.0
69.7
51.1
47.6
30
47
23
33·3
40.4
69.6
66.6
59.6
30.4
4
33
42
21
50.0
45.5
47.6
38.1
50.0
54.5
52.4
61.9
39
:47
23
33.3
48.9
73.9
66.6
51.1
26.1
4
33
42
21
50.0
45.5
50 .. 0
57.1
50.0
54.5
50.0
42.9
No
57
TABLE 6 CONTINUED
DIET CHANGES CONSUMERS HAVE MADE
IN LAST FIVE YEARS
Diet Change
Became a vegetarian
Age
under 26
26 - 50
51 and over
Education
1 - 8
9 - 12
College 1 - 3
College 4 or more
Eat more salads and vegetables
Age
under 26
26 - 50
51 and over
Education
1 - 8
9 - 12
College 1 - 3
College 4 or more
Decreased intake of sweets
and snacks
Age
under 26
26 - 50
51 and over
Education
1 - 8
9 - 12
College 1 - 3
College 4 or more
Number
Responses
Yes
No
4
33
42
21
o.o
2.1
o.o
o.o
o.o
2.4
o.o
100.0
100.0
97.6
100.0
30
47
23
70.0
63.8
56.5
30.0
36.2
43.5
4
33
42
21
50.0
51.5
73.8
66.6
50.0
48.5
26 .. 2
33 .. 3
30
47
23
63.3
55.3
60.6
36.6
44.6
39.4
4
33
42
25.0
51.5
64.3
66.6
75.0
48.5
35.7
33.3
30
47
23
21
100.0
97.9
100.0
58
TABLE 6 CONTINUED
DIET CHANGES CONSUMERS HAVE I1ADE
IN LAST FIVE YEARS
Diet Change
Use less processed foods and
eat more fresh foods
Age
under 26
26 - 50
51 and over
Education
1 - 8
9 - 12
College 1 - 3
College 4 or more
Use more convenience foods
Age
under 26
26 - 50
51 and over
Education
1 - 8
9 - 12
College 1 - 3
College 4 or more
Eat more meat (all kinds)
Age
under 26
26 - 50
51 and over
Education
1 - 8
9 - 12
College 1 - 3
College 4 or more
* .01
*·*. 004
level of significance
level o:f significance
Number
Responses
Yes
No
30
47
23
43.3
53.2
34.8
56.6
46.8
65.2
4
33
42
21
42.4
47.6
57.1
o.o
100 .. 0
57.6
52.4
42.8
30
47
23
20.0
8.5
13.0
80.0
91.5
87.0
o.o
33
42
21
15.2
14.3
9.5
100.0
84.8
85.7
90 .. 5
30
47
23
6.6
14.9
o.o
93.3
85.1
100.0
4
33
42
21
25.0
6.1
9 .. 5
9.5
75.0
93.9
90.5
90.5
4
59
p
o~
sweets and snacks.
In the current literature (41) it was suggested that
consumers generally viewed highly processed foods as less
nutritious than natural or less processed foods.
The
information obtained in this survey shows that a total o£
46 percent of the respondents reported using less processed
Of those in the age category of 26 to 50, 53 percent
~oods.
reported making this diet change.
l~so,
respondents who had
attended college for 4 or more years frequently reported
using less processed foods (Table 6, p. 58).
~ihen
asked if they were eating more meat (all kinds)
than they were five years ago, only nine subjects from the
total sample felt that this was a diet change they had
made.
No subjects over age 51 had answered that they were
eating more meat.
Educational level made no difference
in the response to this survey question (Table 6, p. 58).
Consumers' Opinions About Nutrition Labels
In
order to assess the consumers' opinions about the
nutri·tion labeling program, a series of attitudinal statements were given.
The consumers were asked to give their
opinions towards the statements using a rating scale.
The
scale consisted of five degrees of opinion from strongly
agree at one end to strongly disagree at the other,
A
neutral opinion was found at the midpoint of the scale.
'
60
Chi squares were calculated to determine i£ there was a
significant dif£erence in opinion for each statement based
on the age, educational level, and family income of the
respondent.
Over one-half of the consumers surveyed (55 percent) ,
strongly disagreed with the statement that read: "Nutrition
labeling on food products is not really needed."
31 percent disagreed with the statement.
Another
Seventy-one
percent of those who had attended college for 4 or more
years felt strongly opposed to this statement (Table 7).
Many of the sample felt ttmore confident in food shopping
just knowing that nutrition labels were available. '1
Sixteen percent agreed and 24 percent strongly agreed that
they were more confident.
shoppers remained
n~utral
Another 24 percent of the
in
their opinion regarding con£i-
dence in food shopping due to the availability of nutrition
labels.
Reaction to the statement:
"I would be willing to pay
50 cents more each week on my grocery bill to have nutrition labels available," was not significantly different
among income groups as might be expected.
The data col-
lected indicated that 55 percent of the respondents with
incomes over $20,000 were willing to pay the added fee,
and a substantial number of consumers from
lm~·er
groups were also willing to pay 50 cents extra.
third of the
res~ondents
disagreed or
stro~_gly
income
Only one-
disagreed
6t
with paying 50 cents extra (Table 7).
There was a direct relationship between the respondents' educational level and their willingness to pay 50
cents extra on their weekly grocery bill for nutrition
labeling (.01 level of significance).
Of those who
attended college for 4 or more years, 47 percent strongly
agreed or agreed with the statement.
Over 64 percent of
the respondents with some college (between 1 and 3 years)
also agreed or strongly agreed with paying 50 cents extra.
More negative reactions were expressed among respondents
as educational level decreased.
Consumers in the higher educational levels also
disagreed with the statement which read:
"Nutrition
labeling should be dropped if it ends up costing the consumer more money."
For the total sample, 67 respondents
either disagreed or disagreed strongly with this statement (Table 7).
Fifty-one consumers agreed that ncompulsory nutrition
labeling will lead food manufacturers to make their products more nutritious.n
There was also a direct correlation
(.03 level of significance)
be~1een
the age of the respond-
ent and the opinion that compulsory nutrition labeling had
this beneficial effect on the nutrient quality of the food
product.
Older
~espondents
were more inclined to agree
with the beneficial effect, while youn.ger respondents were
more cautious.
TABLE 7
RESPOltDENTS' OPINIONS REGARDING VARIOUS STATEMENTS
ABOUT NUTRITION LABELING
Stat.ement
Responses
Number
~---
2E- --
--=-
%
~-
--
Neutral Agree
~%
---~-
~-~%
Strongly
Agree
~-----
--~26
d
Nutri.tion labeling on food products is not really needed.
Total sample:
Age:
under 26
26 - 50
51 and over
Education:
1 - 8
9 - 12
College 1 - 3
College 4 or more
Family income:
under $10,000
$10,000 - $14,999
$15,000 - $19,999
$20,000 a.nd over
~-----··-------~-----
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
100
55.0
31.0
7.0
7.0
o. o
30
47
23
66.6
55.3
39.1
26.6
27.7
43.5
6.7
8.5
4.3
8.5
13.0
o. o
o.o
o.o
o.o
51 .. 5
54.8
71.4
o.o
75.0
33.3
35.7
9.5
25.0
6.1
2.4
14.2
o.o
o.o
o.o
o.o
o.o
64.3
57.5
47.1
14.3
32.5
35.3
34.5
21.4
o.o
o.o
o.o
o.o
o.o
4
33
42
21
14
40
17
29
51.7
o.o
5.9
10.3
9.1
7.1
14.2
10.0
11.8
3.4
·-------
0\
(\..)
TABLE
7 CONTINUED
RESPONDENTS t OPINIONS REGARDING VARIOUS STATEMENTS
ABOUT NUTRITION LABELING
Statement
Responses
Number
..., .,.,
I feel more confident in food
shopping just knowing that nutri-·
tion labels are available.
Total sample:
Age:
under 26
26 - 50
51 and over
Education:
1 - 8
9 - 12
College 1 - 3
College 4 or more
Family income:
under $10,000
$10,000- $14,999
$15,000 - $19,999
$20,000 and over
..__ . ...,...
Neutral Agree
----------2[--------%--~~---
,_
~JnL
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
.. %...
--96-
Strongly
Agree
-%
100
2.0
4.0
24.0
46.0
24.0
30
47
23
o.o
3.3
6.6
2.1
4.3
26.6
21.3
26.1
33.3
51 .1
52.2
30.0
25.5
13.0
4
33
42
21
o.o
6.1
o.o
o.o
o.o
50.0
33.3
14.3
23.8
50.0
45.5
50.0
38.1
12.1
30.1
33.3
14
40
17
29
o. o
2.4
o.o
o.o
28.6
17.5
29.4
27.6
57.1
45.0
35.3
48.3
14.3
27.5
29.4
20.7
·-
4.3
3.4
3.0
4.8
4.8
7.5
5.9
o.o
o.o
---------·---------
--
0\
~
TABLE 7 CONTINUED
RESPONDENTS' OPINIONS REGARDING VARIOUS STATEMENTS
ABOUT NUTRITION LABELING
Statement
Responses
Number
I would be willing to pay 50 cents
more each week on my grocery bill
to have nutrition labels available.
Total sample:
100
Age:
under 26
30
4'7
26 - 50
51 and over
23
Education:**
4
1 - 8
33
9 - 12
College 1 - 3
42
College 4 or more
21
Family income:
under $10,000
14
$10,000 - $14,999
40
$15,000 - $19,999
17
$20,000 and over
29
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree
Agree
%
%
.. ~ %
.. ~ ~-~-~- =-~~~
10.0
24.0
15.0
40.0
11.0
16.7
8,5
4.3
16.7
23.4
34.8
13.3
14.9
17.4
40,0
40.4
39.1
13.3
12.8
4.3
50.0
12.1
2.4
14.3
50.0
24.2
16.6
33.3
21.2
16.6
4.8
39.4
52.4
23.8
o.o
o.o
3.0
11.9
23.8
28.6
5.0
11.8
6.9
14.3
27.5
14.3
15.0
13.8
17.2
28,6
42.5
17.6
55.2
14.3
10,0
17.6
6.9
41.2
o.o
11.8
0\
.p..
TABLE 7 CONTINUED
RESPONDENTS' OPINIONS REGARDING VARIOUS STATEMENTS
ABOUT NUTRITION LABELING
Responses
Statement
Number
-
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree
Agree
---- ·- --·- -- ----· ----- --------------------------------------- % -- _%__ - - __ jL_~=-.JI···- -%
Nutrition labeling should be
dropped if it ends up costing
the consumer more money.
Total sample:
Age:
under 26
26 - 50
51 and over
Education: **
1 - 8
9 - 12
College 1 - 3
College 4 or more
Family income:
under $10,000
$10,000- $14,999
$15,000- $19,999
$20,000 and over
100
28.0
39.0
19.0
s.o
6.,0
30
47
23
36.7
27.7
17.4
30.0
44.7
39.1
20.0
14.9
26.1
3.3
8.5
13.0
10.0
4.3
4.3
4
33
42
21
27.3
28.6
19.0
21.2
47.6
57.1
o.o
50.0
24.2
19.0
4.8
25.0
18.2
2.5
25.0
9.1
2.4
4.8
14
40
17
29
35.7
27.5
29.4
24.1
42.9
35.0
29.4
48.3
20.0
35.3
17.2
o.o
7.1
12.5
5.9
3.4
14.3
5.0
o.o
o.o
o.o
6.9
0\
U1
TABLE 7 CONTINUED
RESPONDENTS' OPINIONS REGARDING VARIOUS STATEMENTS
ABOUT NUTRITION LABELING
Responses
Statement
Number
Compulsory nutrition labeling will
lead food manufacturers to make
their products more nutritious.
Total sample:
Age: *
under 26
26 - 50
51 and over
Education:
1 - 8
9 - 12
College 1 - 3
College 4 or more
Family income:
under $10,000
$10,000- $14,999
$15,000 - $19,999
$20,000 and over
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree
Agree
--··· %
%---- . ~.. %._ . -·------· .J[~_-_ _=:-]6..:_=_····--
100
2.0
10.0
17.0
51.0
20.0
30
47
23
3.3
2.1
o.o
6.6
12.8
8.7
36.6
8.5
8.7
36.6
55.3
60.7
16.6
21.8
21.7
o.o
o.o
o.o
23~8
50.0
15.2
19.0
9.5
50.0
51.5
50.0
52.4
24.2
21.3
14.3
o.o
2.5
o.o
21.4
7.4
28.6
20.0
11.8
10.3
35.7
47.5
70.6
51.7
14.3
22.5
17.6
20.7
4
33
42
21
14
40
17
29
3.0
2.4
3 .. 4
6.1
7.1
o.o
13.8
o.o
..--...u~~--------~~----~--MM~~--~--~--~------~----.----------------.----------~----------------~--.-----~--------------------------------------------~~
0"1
0\
TABLE 7 CONTINUED
RESPONDENTS' OPINIONS REGARDING VARIOUS STATEMENTS
ABOUT NUTRITION LABELING
Responses
Statement
Number
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - -
- -
- - -
Nutrition labeling will make
people more aware of the importance of good nutrition.
Total sample:
Age: ***
under 26
26 - 50
51 and over
Education:
1 - 8
9 - 12
College 1 - 3
College 4 or more
Family income:
under $10,000
$10,000- $14,999
$15,000 - $19,999
$20,000 and over
--
--
----
Strongly
Disagree
-----
u
%:__
Disagree
Neutral Agree
.
-~
u-
:%_- ----
---- _____=:£
Strongly
Agree
- "%
100
2.0
15.0
11.0
58.0
14.0
30
47
23
3.3
2.1
o.o
26.7
12.8
4.3
20.0
4.3
13.0
43.3
63.8
65.2
6.7
17.0
17.4
4
33
42
21
o.o
3.0
2.4
o.o
9.1
14.3
28.6
o.o
100.0
66.7
54.8
42.9
o.o
15.2
11.9
19.0
14
40
17
29
o.o
2.5
o.o
35.7
12.5
o.o
50.0
52.5
64.7
65.5
14.3
20.0
17.6
3.4
o.o
3.4
5.9
13.8
6.1
16.7
9.5
12.5
11.8
13.8
0'\
--3
TABLE 7 CONTINUED
RESPONDENTS' OPINIONS REGARDING VARIOUS STATEMENTS
ABOUT NUTRITION LABELING
Statement
Responses
Number
-
----- --r-
More information indicates a
greater concern for consumer
welfare.
Total sample:
Age:
under 26
26 - 50
51 and over
Education: **
1 - 8
9 - 12
College 1 - 3
College 4 or more
Family income:
under $10,000
$10,000 - $14,999
$15,000 - $19,999
$20,000 and over
***
***
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral Agree
%:::----::1!-- __22:___
Strongly
Agree
--9f- ·-
100
3.0
15.0
11.0
54.0
17.0
30
47
23
3.3
2.1
4.3
23.3
12.8
8.7
13.3
8.5
8.7
43.3
59.5
56.5
16.6
14.9
21.7
4
33
42
21
o.o
25.0
9.1
12.2
28.6
75.0
6.1
9.8
4.8
o.o
63.6
56.1
47.6
o.o
15.2
19.5
19.0
23.1
7.5
17.6
20.7
15.4
5.0
11.8
46.2
60.0
64.7
44.8
15.4
22.5
5.9
17.2
14
40
17
29
6.1
2.4
o.o
o.o
5.0
o.o
3.4
13.8
level of significance
level
of si~1ificance
.01
.003 level of si~1ificance
.. 03
0'
co
69
Younger respondents were also not as inclined as the
older respondents to agree \V"i th the statement that "nutrition labeling \AJill make people more aware of ·the importa..."l'lce
o:f good nutrition."
Only 50 percent o:f the subjects under
26 agreed or strongly agreed that people will become more
aware of good nutrition.
In comparison, 80 percent of both
the 26 to 50 age group and the 51 and over age group agreed
or strongly agreed with the statement claiming that the
public 1 s av-.;areness o:f nutrition will heighten as a result
o:f· the :food labeling program (Table 7).
An overwhelming majority o:f the consumers (71 percent)
agreed or strongly agreed that nmore information indicates
a greater concern for consumer welfare."
A direct rela-
tionship was found between the subject's educational level
attained and his or her reaction to this statement (.01
level o:f.· .significance).
Almost 80 percent o:f the subjects
with a high school education were in agreement with the
statement.
In comparison, lesser percentages o:f the
respondents in the higher educational groups agreed.
The respondents were asked to indicate.how often they.
looked for information on labels concerning the nutritive
content of the food product.
A summary of the frequency
of reading nutrition label in:fo:r'Dlation by consumers in the
70
sample is found in Table 8.
Descriptive data of the
respondents and their use of nutrition labels are given.
Among the total sample, 39 percent of the respondents
said they frequently read nutrition labels.
Another one-
third of the subjects answered that they used it occasionally, and 27 percent said they used this information only
seldom.
A higher percentage of females than males reported
th~t
they frequently used nutrition information on food
products.
All age groups in this sample ·were found to
use nutrition labeling at approximately the same frequency.
The data collected showed that respondents who had a
college education read nutrition information on food products more often than the group of respondents with a high
school education or less (Table 8).
Forty-six percent of
the respondents who attended college between one and three
years frequently read the nutrition labels, but just
36 percent of the respondents with a high school education
reported using the labels at a similar rate.
Many different reasons have been given by consumers
for using or not using the nutrition information now
appearing on packaged and canned foods.
In this study,
consumers were asked to check their reasons from a given
list (Table 9, .p. 73).
Eighty-five respondents said they used nutrition
labeling.
Almost 60 percent who read the label did so to
71
TABLE 8
FREQUENCY OF USING NUTRITION LABELS
DURING GROCERY SHOPPING
Responses
Description of Data
Number
Frequently
ao
When you do your grocery
shopping, do you look for
information on labels conearning the nutritive content of the food product?
Total sample:
Age:
under 26
26 - 50
51 and over
Sex:
Male
Female
Education:
1 - 8
9 - 12
College 1 - 3
College 4 or more
Type of work:
Professional/technical
Managers/officers
Other white collar,
student, housewife
Blue collar
Family income:
under $10,000
$10,000 - $14,999
$15,000 - $19,999
$20,000 and over
Occasion- Seldom
ally
0
00
100
39.0
34.0
27.0
30
47
23
41.4
38.3
39.1
31.0
36.2
30.4
27.6
25.5
30.4
27
73
30.8
42.5
42.3
30.1
26.9
27.4
4
33
42
21
36.4
46.3
38.1
o.o
25.0
27.3
41.5
28.6
75.0
36.412.2
33.2
27
13
30.8
46.2
46.2
30.8
23.1
23.1
59
42.4
o.o
28.8
1
o.o
28.8
100.,0
14
40
17
29
35.7
47.5
41 .. 2
28.6
14 .. 3
32.5
29 .. 4
46 .. 4
50.0
20.0
99
'- • '+·~
25 .. 0
determine the overall nutrient content of the product.
A
large percentage (59 percent) of those who used the label
were also interested in determining how many calories the
food contained.
Only fifteen respondents said they did not use nutrition labels and they gave their reasons why.
Eight of
these respondents said they did not know enough about
nutrition to use the label.
Seven respondents claimed
they did not have any special dietary needs (Table 9).
In a recent survey conducted by Supermarketing News
(14) almost three-fourths of the shoppers reported that
they were trying to avoid foods with additives at least
·occasionally.
The results of this investigation support
the Supermarketing News findings.
Fifty percent of the
respondents reported that they read the label to determine
"pureness" at least occasionally and thirteen percent did
so frequently {Table 10, p. 74).
A significant di.ff'erence "'as .found 'between the educa-
tional attainment o.f the respondent and the tendency to
read the label for "pureness" (.01 level of significance).
Respondents who ate sugar-coated cereal or added sugar to
their cereal were least likely to read labels to determine
":pureness" (.002 level of signigicance).
There was also
a. significant :rela-tionshJ.p between the subjects' to-tal
eatbg habit scores and the .freq1:.ency vf 1·eading
for trptrrenessn (.001 level o.f significance)...
the label
Other
'
TABLE 9
CONSm1ERS' REASONS FOR USING OR NOT USING
NUTRITION LABEL INFORMATION
Item
Responses a
No.
Reasons given for using nutrition
labels:
To determine overall nutrient content.
To find out how many calories the food
contains.
To determine protein content.
For ingredient content {in compliance
with special diet).
Reasons given for not using nutrition.
labels:
It is inconvenient. I do not have
the time.
Don't know enough about nutrition to
use the labels.
I am more concerned ~.-lith price.
Don't have any special dietary needs.
Can get balanced meals without
nutrition information.
a
o
59
59.0
~
50
...
~'
38.8
~~5
29 .. 4
5
22.7
8
4
7
18.2
4
22.7
58.8
36.4
31.8
Percentages total more than 100 in each case because
of the possibility of more than one a.nS\'ier by each
consumer. Also, the questionnaire precluded consumers
answering both questions.
'
74
TABLE 10
RESPONDENTS' FREQUENCY OF READING THE LABEL
TO DETERMINE "PURENESS" OF THE FOOD PRODUCT
Item
Responses
Number
Frequently
00
Do you read the label to
determine the "pureness"
(no artificial additives
or preservatives) of the
product?
Total sample:
Age:
under 26
26 - 50
51 and over
Education: *
1 - 8
9 - 12
College 1 - 3
College 4 or more
Use sugar-coated cereal
or add sugar to cereal:
Yes
No
*
**
**
Occasion- Seldom
ally
0'0
0
100
13.0
50.0
37.0
30
47
23
16.7
12.8
8.7
53.3
51.1
43.5
30.0
36.3
47.8
4
33
42
21
o.o
3.0
21.4
14.3
o.o
48.5
47.6
66.7
100.0
48.5
31 .o
19.0
34
66
6.0
16.7
33.3
59.1
60.6
25.8
.01 level of significance
.002 level of significance
7.5
significant correlations were also found between the frequency of reading the label to determine "purenessn and
the following diet changes made by respondents in the last
five years:
decreased intake of salt (.01
level of signi-
ficance), decreased intake of sweets and snacks (.03 level
of significance), and the use of more fresh foods and less
processed foods (.001 level of significance).
The consumers' response to nutrition labeling was also
evaluated in terms of their preference for a particular
labeling method (Table 11).
Respondents were asked to
check which method of labeling they preferred to see used
in the supermarket.
Only one method was chosen by each
respondent.
From a list of six methods, nineteen respondents felt
that a "unit nutrient" system would be the most satisfactory.
Another seventeen respondents were interested in
having nutritious recipes printed on the package or can.
Only 15 percent of the respondents were most satisfied
with the present labeling method over the others that were
listed.
Eleven respondents did no·t express their opinion
for a preferred method (Table 11).
7.6
TABLE 11
CONSUMERS' PREFERENCE FOR
NUTRITION LABELING METHOD
Labeling Method
Which method do you prefer?
List other foods to serve with the one
in the package in order to make a well
balanced meal.
16
16.0
Simplify the label by only showing a
single composite value representing the
total nutritional contribution of the
product.
10
10.0
Preserve the present nutrition labeling
method but limit the amo1xnt of other nonnutritional information appearing on the
package.
10
10.0
Give nutritious recipes for using the
food inside the package.
17
17.0
Have 11 unit nutrient labeling" (similar
to the existing "unit pricing" system).
The supermarket shelves would list information comparing nutrient content among
various brands.
19
19.0
The existing nutrition labeling method is
the most satisfactory.
15
15.0
2
2.0
11
11.0
Other method.
No opinion.
77
Respondents' Eating Habit,s
Compared to Their Use and Comp:rehens;fon
of Nutrition Labels
'
One o:f the goals o:f the nutrition labeling program
was to make consumers more conscious of the nutrient content of the :foods they buy and serve their families.
It
was hoped that consumers would find nutrition labels a
helpful guide :for planning nutritious meals.
A good evalu-
ation o:f the labeling program is to measure its impact on
the consumers' actual eating behavior.
In this
investi~
>
gation, the researcher analyzed the :food habits o:f the
respondents in relationship to their :frequency of using
nutrition label information.
A positive correlation (.001 level of significance)
was found between total eating habit scores obtained by
the respondents and their :frequency of using nutrition
labels.
Almost 55 percent o:f the respondents who received
a high intake score :for their use of the basic four foods
indicated using nutrition labels frequently- (Table 12).
Significant results were also obtained when the
respondents' use of snack foods and sugar-coated cereal
was compared to their frequency of reading nutrition labels
while grocery shopping (.05 and .01 level of significance).
Almost 58 percent of the consumers who had medium-low
intake scores for snack foods used nutrition labels
frequently.
However, consumers who had high intake scores
78
TABLE 12
FREQUENCY OF USING NUTRITION LABELS
BY RESPONDENTS
COMPARED TO THEIR EATING HABITS
Item
Responses
Number
FreOccasion- Seldom
quently ally
0
Eat a morning
5 - 7 times
3 - 4 times
less than 3
meal:
weekly
weekly
times
weekly
Eat sugar-coated cereal
or add sugar to cereal:
Yes
No
Basic four foods:
High intake
Medium intake
Low intake
"Basic four plus" foods:
High intake
Medium intake
Low intake
Snack foods:
Low intake
*
**
.05
.01
55
22
43.6
27.3
36.4
29.1
27.3
36.4
23
40.9
40.9
18.2
34
66
48.5
21.2
36.4
31.8
19.7
33
37
30
54.5
35.1
27.6
27.3
37.8
34.5
18 .. 2
27.0
24
50.0
15.8
16.7
26 .. 8
19
33.3
30.4
42.1
42.1
4
25.0
57.6
40.0
25.0
50.0
21.2
34.3
50.0
28.6
25.0
**
57
42.9
42.4
~
0
3 I • ·"'
*
intake
Medium intake
Medium-high L~take
High intake
Medi~low
0
34
35
20
7
level of significance
level of significance
o.o
21 .. 2
25.7
25.0
71.4
79
£or snack foods seldom read nutrition labels while grocery
shopping (Table 12).
Although consumers express a high level o£ desire £or
nutrition labels and say they use the in£ormation to make
their prepurchase decision, actual comprehension of the
label information by consumers has been found to be very
limited (17).
In this survey, a sample nutrition label was repro-
duced on the third page of the questionnaire (Appendix A)
and a comprehension test of the label data was given.
The
test consisted of nine questions about the nutrition information shown on an actual milk carton label.
The consum-
ers' ability to answer correctly these nine questions were
analyzed according to the demographic data of the sample
and to food intake scores.
Chi square and
Pearson~s
r
statistics were calculated.
A positive correlation was found between the total
test score (total correct answers out of nine) and the
educational level attained by the respondent (.001 level
of significance).
Age of the respondent was also signi-
ficantly related to the total test score received (.02
level of significance).
One question involved the calculation of the grams of
protein in one quart o£ milk from the data given on the
nutrition
label~
Sixty-nine percent of the consumers who
attended college for one to three years answered this
80
question correctly (.005 level of significance).
The
total number of correct responses to this question was 62
(Table 13).
According to the label information given, the correct
answer to the question:
"How many grams of protein do you
need in you:r daily diet?" should be 40 grams of protein.
However, the U.S.RDA for protein from a high quality
source, such as milk, is 45 grams per day.
Thus, any
answer of 40 grams or greater was accepted.
Still, there
were only 34 correct responses among the respondents.
The respondents' level of education was a significant
factor.at the .001 level.
Fifty-seven percent of the
respondents who attended college for 4 or more years
answered this question correctly {Table 13).
Just fifty percent of the consumers responded
rectly to the following question:
cor~­
"About how many cups of
this product would supply the total Recommended Daily
Allowance of Vitam.inD?"
with this question:
Respondents also had difficulty
"Which one of the nutrients listed
is needed by the body to build and repair all of its
tissues?"
Only 55 percent of the sample knew that protein
was the correct response.
Ninety percent of the respond-
ents who attended college for 4 or more years gave the
correct answer (.0001 level of significance).
Sixty-five consumers from the sample knew that Vitamin
A was the nutrient essential for vision in dim light ..
81
TABLE 13
RESPONDENTS' COMPREHENSION OF QUESTIONS
REGARDING THE NUTRITION INFORMATION
ON A MILK CARTON
Question
Responses
Number
Correct
0
How many grams of protein are
in the entire carton of milk?
Total sample
Age**
under 26
26 - 50
51 and over
Education *
1 - 8
9 - 12
College 1 - 3
College 4 or more
How many grams of protein do
you need in your daily diet?
Total sample
Age
under 26
26 - 50
51 and over
Education ***
1 - 8
9 - 12
College 1 - 3
College 4 or more
Incorrect
or Blank
00
100
62 .. 0
38 .. 0
30
47
23
85.3
46.8
65 .. 2
16.7
53.2
34.8
4
33
42
21
o.o
57.6
69.0
66.7
100.0
42.4
31.0
33.3
100
34.0
66.0
30
47
23
43.3
29.8
30.4
56.7
70.2
69.6
4
33
42
21
12.1
42.9
57.1
o.o
100.0
87.9
57 .. 1
42 .. 9
..
82
TABLE 13 CONTINUED
RESPONDENTS t COMPREHENSION OF QUESTIONS
REGARDING THE NUTRITION INFO~~TION
ON A MILK CARTON
Question
Responses
Number
Correct
0
What percent of the Recommended
Daily Allowance for Vitamin D is
supplied by one serving of this
product?
Total sample
Incorrect
or Blank
00
100
67,.0
33.0
30
47
23
63.3
76.6
52.2
36.7
23.4
47.8
4
33
42
21
54.5
76.2
81.0
o.o
100.0
45.5
23.8
19.0
About how many cups of this product
would supply the total Recommended
Daily Allowance of Vitamin D?
Total sample
100
53.0
47 .. 0
30
47
23
63.3
55.3
34.8
36.7
44.7
65.2
4
33
42
21
45.5
52.4
76.2
o.o
100.0
54.5
47.6
23.8
Age
under 26
26 - 50
51 and over
Education
1 - 8
9 - 12
College 1 - 3
College 4 or more
Age
under 26
26 - 50
51 and over
Education *
1 - 8
9 - 12
College 1 - 3
College 4 or more
83
TABLE 13 CONTINUED
RESPONDENTS' COI.fi'REHENSION OF QUESTIONS
REGARDI:t-iG THE NUTRITION INFORMATION
ON A MILK CARTON
Question
Responses
Number
Correct
0
Which one of the nutrients listed
is needed by the body to build and
repair all of its tissues?
Total sample
Age
under 26
26 - 50
51 and over
Education ****
1 - 8
9 - 12
College 1 - 3
College 4 or more
Three of the nutrients listed
can provide energy for the body.
Can you name one of them?
Total sample
Age
under 26
26 - 50
51 and over
Education *
1 - 8
9 - 12
College 1 - 3
College 4 or more
Incorrect
or Blank
0
100
55.0
45.0
30
47
23
51.7
61.7
47.8
48.3
38.3
52.2
4
33
42
21
33.3
61.9
90.0
o.o
100.0
66.7
38.1
10.0
100
71.0
29.0
30
47
23
80.6
72.3
56.4
20.0
27.7
43.6
4
33
42
21
25.0
54.5
81.0
85.7
75.0
45.5
19.0
14.3
84
TABLE 13 CONTINUED
RESPONDENTS' COMPREHENSION OF QUESTIONS
REGARDING THE NUTRITION INFORMATION
ON A MILK CARTON
Question
Which nutrient is essential
~or vision in dim light?
Total sample
Age *
under 26
26 - 50
51 and over
Education **
1 - 8
9 - 12
College 1 - 3
College 4 or more
Which mineral is essential for
the structure and growth of
bones and teeth?
Total sample
Age
under 26
26 - 50
51 and over
Education **
1 - 8
9 - 12
College 1 - 3
College 4 or more
Responses
Number
Correct
Incorrect
or Blank
100
65.0
35.0
30
47
23
60,0
76,6
47.8
40.0
23.4
52.2
4
33
42
21
o.o
100,0
54.5
71.4
81 .. 0
19.0
100
83.0
17 .o
30
16.7
47
23
83 .. 3
85.1
78.3
4
33
42
25 .. 0
84.8
81 .o
95 .. 2
75.0
15.2
21
4-5.5
28.6
14.9
21.7
19.0
4 .. 8
85
TABLE 13 CONTINUED
RESPONDENTS' COMPREHENSION OF QUESTIONS
REGARDING THE NUTRITION !}!FORMATION
ON A MILK CARTON
Question
Responses
Number
Correct
00
Which mineral is needed for the
formation of the :red :part of the
blood?
Total sample
Age*
under 26
26 - 50
51 and over
Education **
1 - 8
9 - 12
College 1 - 3
College 4 or more
*
**
.05
.01
*** .001
**** .0001
level
level
level
level
of
of
of
of
significance
significance
significance
significance
Incorrect
or Blank
00
100
73.0
27.0
30
47
23
76.7
80.9
52.2
23.3
19.1
47.8
4
33
42
21
66.7
78.6
85.7
o.o
100.0
33.3
21.4
14.3
86
Level of education was significantly different between the
respondents who answered this question correctly and those
who did not (.01
level of significance).
The last two questions of the label comprehension test
pertained to the functions of minerals in the body.
The
majority of the respondents understood the reason for the
body's need of calcium and iron.
Most of the respondents
(83 percent) knew that calcium was essential for the
structure and growth of bones and teeth.
Iron was named
correctly by 73 percent of the respondents as the mineral
essential in blood formation (Table 13).
Comprehension of the nutrition label questions was
also analyzed with respect to the respondents' eating
habits
~able
14).
Results showed that there was a signi-
ficant difference between the respondents' level of intake
of foods from the basic four foods group and the number of
correct answers given on the label test (.01
significance).
level of
Respondents who had low intakes of the
foods from this category also had lower scores on the
label test.
87
TABLE 14
CORRECT RESPONSES TO A NUTRITION LABEL TEST
COMPARED TO FREQUENCY OF INTAKE
FROM FOOD CATEGORIES
Food Category
Responses
Number
0
1-3
4-7
8-9
Basic four foods *
High intake
Medium intake
Low intake
33
37
30
2.6
17.2
5.3
17.2
44.7
48.3
47.4
17.2
"Basic four plus" foods
High intake
Medium intake
Low intake
24
57
19
4.2
3.6
15.0
16.7 58.3
16.1 41.1
5.0 55.0
20.8
39.3
25.0
Snack foods
Low intake
intake
Medium intake
Medium-high intake
High intake
Medi~low
*
.01 level of significance
4
34
35
20
7
o.o 21.2 511-5 27.3
o.o 59 .. 0 50.0
5.9
5.7
10.0
o.o
11.8
5.7
20.0
28.6
44 .. 1
60.0
40.0
28.6
o.o
38.2
28.6
30.0
42.9
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS
AND RECO~IDATIONS
The primary purpose of this study was to examine consumer use and comprehension of nutrition label
i~~ormation
and to determine if there was a relationship between eating
habits and nutrition label impact.
In
view of the sample
size and geographic and time limitations placed on this
investigation, the findings cannot be generalized beyond
the population studied.
Summary of the Findings
The sample population consisted of 73 women and 27 men
from four different areas within greater Los Angeles.
The
majority of the ·.respondents (59 percent) were other white
collar, housewives,
students~
or retired.
Most of the
consumers had completed between one and three years of
college.
Only fourteen of the respondents reported a total
family income below $10,000.
Forty-six·percent of the
respondents reported family incomes above $15,000.
The dietary habits of the respondents were analyzed.
Two-thirds of the sample surveyed obtained medium to high
scores for consumption of fre·sh foods from the basic four
list.
Substantial intake of fresh foods such as milk 1
88
89.
meat, eggs, nuts, vegetables, and fruit, was also evidenced
in a United States Department of Agriculture study of data
collected by Supermarketing in 1975 (8).
The results of
this thesis research are consistent with the Supermarketing
findings, which determined that Americans spent the largest
share of their food dollar on fresh, unprocessed foods from
the basic four list.
Consumers in this research study were eating significant amounts of poultry, fish, and whole grain products.
Eighty percent of the respondents reported medium to high
intakes for these foods. According to the Economic Research
Service, poultry consumption has increased 20 percent since
1960 (42).
The consumption of snack-type foods and desserts by
the consumer sample was generally minimal.
of the sample
in~icated
Only 27 percent
eating these kinds of foods often.
The rest of the sample (73 percent) ate these foods only
occasionally or rarely.
Sugar-coated cereal was used by
only 34 percent of the respondents.
The low consumption rates of snack foods by respondents may be due to the age distribution of the sample.
Teenagers are the biggest consumers of
so~t
drinks and
snack-type foods {22:29) and only six respondents in the
sample were under 20 years of age.
College students and
the general public are becoming conscious of the ill effect
o~
too many snack foodsH
In one documented study, college
90
women reported that they eliminated sweets and overly
processed foods from their diet because such items were
thought to be unhealthy
(18:408~
In a separate study,
consumers generally viewed highly processed foods as less
nutritious than .fresh foods, such as those from the basic
four list (41 ).
In a nation-wide food habit survey conducted by the
Economic Research Service in the Spring of 1976 (41), onefourth of the households surveyed reported diet changes to
avoid potential health problems.
Preventive diet changes
were more often introduced in higher income households and
among more highly educated homemakers.
The information collected in this investigation did
not find educational attainment significantly related to
the initiation o.f specific diet changes, but the age of the
respondent was a .factor.
Almost 70 percent of the sample
over age 51 had shifted from whole milk to lowfat or nonfat
milk.
Likewise, 74 percent of the respondents over age 51
were eating more fish and poultry in place o.f red meat.
No respondents over age 51 indicated actually eating more
meat than compared to five years ago, but ntne respondents
from the younger age groups had increased their intake of
meat.
When consumers were asked to give their reactions to
the nutrition label program, the majority o.f the sample was
very much in favor o.f this
ir~ormation
service.
Eighty-six percent of the respondents disagreed with the
statement:
"Nutrition labeling on food products is ·not
really needed."
The majority o:f consumers (70 percent)
also indicated that they had more confidence when food
shopping as a result o:f the nutrition label program.
Daly (1976) :found that 90 percent o:f the consumers she
surveyed felt more confident in food shopping because o:f
the existence of nutrition labels (10).
Higher educated respondents showed more support for
the label program.
Sixty-four percent of the consumers who
attended college bet\'leen 1 and 3 years and almost fifty
percent of those who attended college for 4 or more years
were
11
\'rilling to pay fifty cents extra on their weekly
grocery bill to have nutrition labels available."
In the
Daly study (10), better educated respondents were most
emphatic that nutrition labels be retained regardless of
possible costs.
The majority of the respondents expressed a high level
of desire :for the availability of nutrition labels and much
concern for the continued existence of this public information program.
These findings are consistent with most of
the previous survey resu.lts.
Consumers '\'lere highly moti-
vated to use the nutrition labels in 1972 (before the FDA
label regulations were implemented).
At that time,
Lenahan et al. reported that nearly 100 percent of the
2,195 consumers interviewed were in favor of the nutrition
92
labeling program (23).
Six years later, this investigation
of one hundred consumers in foux areas of Los Angeles
has uncovered similar findings.
The overwhelming majority
of the sample studied was in favor of the nutrition
labeling of food products.
An equal number of consumers (approximately 40 percent) from each of three age groups studied frequently used
nutrition label information while grocery shopping.
Between
twenty-five percent and thirty percent of each age group
seldom used the label
info~ation.
The level of education
attained by the respondent made no difference in his or her
frequency of using nutrition labels.
Income was also not
a significant factor.
A positive relationship was found between the number
of correct responses to a nutrition label test and the
age (.02 level of significance) and educational attainment
(.001 level of significance) of the respondent.
Respondents
who attended college for four or more years more frequently
gave the correct responses to the various nutrition label
test questions.
Also, the younger consumers gave more
correct responses than the older consumers in the sample.
The total eating habit scores were computed for all
respondents and the results showed that there was a
significant relationship between total food intake scores
and the frequency of using nutrition labels (.001 level
of significance).
93
According to the findings presented in Table 12,
consumers who frequently used nutrition labels also seldom
consumed snack foods.
Fifty percent of the consumers who
received a high intake score for poultry, fish, and whole
grain foods frequently used nutrition labels.
For those
consumers who had a high dietary intake of fresh foods
from the basic four list, 54.5 percent frequently used
nutrition labels.
Respondents with high intake scores for foods listed
in the basic four foods category also scored higher on the
nutrition label test.
Chi square analysis shewed that
there was a significant difference in dietary intake of
the basic four foods among respondents with different
comprehension scores on the label test (.01 level of
significance).
Total food intake scores, however, for all three
food categories were not significantly related to the total
number of correct responses to the nutrition label test
{Table 13).
The respondents' practical understanding of
the nutrition label was not significantly related to their
consumption of snack foods or the "basic four plus" foods.
94
Summary and Conclusions
Nutrition labeling of food products was implemented
to help consumers better identify the nutrient composition
of the food they purchased.
The national nutrition surveys
carried out in the 1960's and early 1970's had found that
a significant portion of the United States' population
was below the recommended intake levels for some nutrients.
It was hoped that consumers would use the nutrition labeling
of foods to help them plan better balanced meals for themselves and their families.
The nutrition labeling program has been in existence
for three years.
Many packaged and canned products must
contain information regarding the nutrient composition of
the food inside.
The Food and Drug Administration now
requires that products which are fortified with additional
nutrients or products which make a nutritional claim, must
have a nutritional composition label.
This research study was performed to examine the
actual use and comprehension of nutrition labels among
consumers in Los Angeles.
Many previous studies had
discovered that although consumers expressed a high level
95
of desire for the existence of nutrition labels, very few
consumers actually used the information when making a
purchase decision.
The eating habits of consumers were
also studied in comparison to their use and comprehension
of nutrition labels.
This researcher was interested to
see i f the frequency of using nutrition label information
was related to the respondents' consumption of foods from
three food categories.
The data were gathered by means of a questionnaire
administered to one hundred consumers in Los Angeles.
The
information collected was analyzed by a computer located
at the C.S.U.N. Computer Center.
The results showed that two-thirds of the sample had
medium to high intake levels for fresh foods from the basic
four foods category.
Eighty percent of the consumers had
medium to high intakes for poultry, fish, and whole grain
foods.
The consumption of snack foods was minimal for the
majority of the sample.
A significant percentage of consumers (87 percent)
indicated that their diets had improved or changed compared
to the way they were eating five years earlier.
Almost
t'lr.ro-thirds of the sample said they were eating more salads
and fresh vegetables.
The respondents (59 percent) also
decreased their intake of sweets and snack foods.
There-
fore, the indications were that consumers have made· some
beneficial changes in their eating habits.
(
96
The majority of consumers (86 percent) indicated that
they were in favor of the nutrition label program.
The
"willingness to pay extra on their weekly grocery bill to
have nutrition labels available," was significantly related
to the educational attainment of the respondent.
Higher
educated respondents showed the most support for the
nutrition label program.
Thirty-nine percent of the sample said they used
nutrition label information frequently; 33 percent, occasionally; and 27 percent, seldom.
There was no significant
difference in the. frequency of using nutrition labels
based upon the different age, income, and educational levels
of the respondents.
esis I was accepted.
Based on these findings, null hypothThere is no significant difference in
the frequency of using nutrition labels among consumers
based on their socio-economic status.
Seventy percent of those who used nutrition labels,
did so to determine the overall nutrient content of the
food.
Caloric content was determined by 59 percent of the
consumers who used nutrition label information.
Eight
consumers said they did not use nutrition labels because
they did not know enough about nutrition, and five consumers
said it was inconvenient to use.
Results showed that respondents who frequently used
nutrition labels, also had better eating habits.
Fifty-
five percent of the consumers who had a high intake score
97
for fresh foods from the basic four foods category
frequently used nutrition labels.
rejected.
Null hypothesis II was
The alternate hypothesis was accepted.
There
is a significant relationship between food intake scores
(as measured by a food intake checksheet) and the frequency
of using nutrition labels.
Consumers with higher educational attainment gave
more correct responses to the nutrition label test.
Under-
standing of the nutrient terms on the label and the ability
to determine recommended daily nutrient requirements from
the label information given was directly related to the
respondents' educational attainment.
Age was also signi-
ficantly related to label comprehension skills.
The
younger consumers gave more correct responses than the
older consumers.
rejected.
Therefore, null hypothesis III was
The alternate hypothesis was accepted.
There
is a significant relationship between the number of correct
responses to a nutrition label test and the age and educational level of the consumer.
The number of correct responses to the nutrition label
test was not significantly related to the respondentst
total food intake scores.
Knowledge of nutrition was not
applied to actual food choice by a significant number of
respondents.
The use of foods from the Qasic four foods
category was higher among respondents with more correct
responses to the nutrition label test.
However, total
98
eating habit scores did not show a significant relationship
to the nutrition label test scores.
hypothesis IV was accepted.
On this basis, null
There is no significant
relationship between food intake scores (as measured by a
food intake checksheet) and the number of correct responses
to a nutrition label test.
Recommendations
Some suggestions for further research are:
1.
To investigate the amount of information acquired
or attained by consumers as a function of the number of
information dimensions available.
The typical grocery
product today has a considerable amount of printed material
on its container.
Besides information required by law
(nutritional composition, weight, size, ingredients, etc.)
the product labels also contain advertising claims and a
variety of other printed material.
However, it has been
shown that there are finite limits to the ability of human
beings to assimilate and process information during a fixed
time period.
Therefore, the consumers' behavior tends to
become confused and dysfunctional if presented with an
overload of information during grocery shopping.
2.
To study the influence of brand name on the con-
sumers' prepurchase search for nutrition information.
The consumers' loyality to a particular brand of an item
99
may preclude the consumers' search for nutritional information about the product.
3.
To compile information of the supermarkets'
current involvement in educating consumers about nutrition.
4.
To investigate the consumers' opinions about
food additives.
What is the relationship between actual
purchase choice and eating behavior to the consumers'
opinions about food
5.
additives~
To investigate
speci~ic
changes food
man~acturers
have made to meet the consumers' demand for more natural
and nutritious products.
REFEREUCES
1 Abelson, H., Schrayer, D., and Gunzelman, s. ttFood
and Nutrition Knowledge, Belief's: Part I,"
Division of Consumer Studies, Food and Drug
Administration, 1974.
2 Adelson, J.
1965,"
"Changes in Diets of Households, 1955 Journal of Home Economics, 60:450, 1968.
3
Al-Isi, I.J., Kanawati, A.A., and McLaren, D.S.
"Formal Education of Mothers and their Nutritional
Behavior,"Journal of Nutrition Education,
7:22, 1975.
4
Bauman, H.E. "What does the Consumer lmow about Nutrition?" Journal of the American ~.:fedical Association, 225:61, 1973.
5
Burkart, A. C. . "Smm:aten Up and Snack Right! Here 's Ho'!t:
to Do It." Food For Us All, United States
Department of Agriculture, 1969.
6
Chaney, M.s., and Ross, M.L. Nutrition, Houghton
Mifflin Company: 1966, p. 1s.
7
Chestnut, R.w·., Jacoby, J. "Consumer Information
·
Processing: Emerging Theory and Findings, n
Foundations of Consumer and Industrial Buying
Behavior. New York: 1977, 119-133.
8
Cooper, B.A., and Wakefield, L.rq. "Food :Jhoices of
Women, u Journal of the .American Dietetic Association, 66:154, 1975
9 Cromwell, c., and Kerr, R. "How· Food Dollars were
Divided, 1965 and 1975," Family Economics Review,
Su~er:12-16, 1977.
10
Daly, PaA. 17 The Response of Consumers to 1\futrition
Labeling," Journal of' Consumer Af.fairs, 10:170,
1976.
"'1
I •
Duy:ff, R.L., Sanjur, D., and 1-Telson, H.Y.
"Food
Behavior and Related Factors of Puerto Rican.American Teen-agers, n Journal of Nutrition
Education, 7:99, 1975.
'100
101·
12 Eppright, E.s.
Factors Influencing Food Acceptance,"
Journal of the American Dietetic Association,
11
23:579, 1947
13 Eppright, E.s., Fox, H.lJI., Fryer,
B.A., Lamkin, G.H.,
and Vivian, V ~M. "The ~Torth Central Regional
Study of Diets of Preschool Children. 2. Nutrition Knowledge and Attitudes of Mothers."
Journal of Home Economics, 62:327, 1970.
14 Greenwald, J.
"Consumers Want Food Data,"
Supermarketing News, 26:5, October 31, 1977.
15
Harrison, G.G., Rathje, W.L., and Hughs, Vf.~1. "Food
\'/aste Behavior in an Urban Society.n Journal of
Nutrition Education, 7:13-16, 1975.
16
Jacobson, M.F. Nutritional Rating System, Center for
Science in the Public Interest, 1973·.
·~
17 Jacoby, J., Chestnut, R.vl., and Silberman,
..•
\'l.
11 Consumers Use and Comprehension of Nutrition
Information," Journal of Consumer Research,
4 : 11 9, 1977 •
18
Jakobovits, c., Halstead, P.,
and Young, C.M. "Eating
Intakes of College ~Ifomen
Period," Jou_'T'!lal of the
ation, 71:405, 1977.
Kelley, L., Roe, D.A.,
Habits and Nutrient
over a Thirty-Year
American Dietetic Associ-
19 Jalso, S.B., Burns, M.M., and Rivers, J.I-1 ..
"Nutritional Beliefs and Practices, n Jo1L.'""""l.al of the
American Dietetic Association, 47:263, 1965.
20
Jones, J .L. "Are Health Concerns Changing the American
Diet?" ·National Food Situation, Economic Research
Service, March:27, 1977.
21
Kaitz, E. "Food Shopping Behavior," National Food·
Situation, Economic Research Service, U.S.D.A.,
June: 17, 1 977.
22
Le Bovit, c.:s. "The Impact of some Demographic Changes
on United States Food Consumption, 1965 - 75 and
1975 - 90, "National Food Situation, Economic
Research Service, U.S.D.A., Hay, 1977.
102
23
Lenahan, R.J., Thomas, J.A., Taylor, D.A., Call, D.L.,
and Padberg, D.I. 11 Consumer Reaction to Nutrition Labels on Food Products," Journal of
Consumer Affairs, 7:1-12, 1972.
24 l·1arston, R. and Friend, B. 11 Nutri tional Revie'ttr,"
National Food Situation, Economic.Research
Service, U.S.D.A., November, 1976.
25
Mendenhall, T. "Food Firms Respond to Issue of
Nutrition," Supermarketing 1;J"ews, 26:30, October
17, 1977.
26
Munro, H.N. "Nutrition U.S.A. ---1977,"
Technology, 27:25, 1977.
27
Norman, R. "Factors Influencing Food Habits,"
Dissertation Abstracts International, 35/06-B:
2869, 1974.
28
Parrish, J.B. "Implications of Changing Food Habits
for 1-Tutrition Educators, n Journal of Nutrition
Education, 2:140, 1971.
29
Pearson, J. "Nutrition-Related Health Practices and
Opinions," Nutrition Program News, Winter:1,
1972.
30
Price, c. "Fabricated Foods - The Consumers View,"
National Food Situation, Economic Research
Service, U.S.D.A., September:20, 1977.
31
Schaffer, s.::s., and Yetley, D. "Social Psychology of
Food Faddism," Journal of the American Dietetic
Association, 66:131, 1975.
32
Schwartz, N.E. "Attitudes and Practices o:f High
School Graduates," Journal of the American
Dietetic Association, 66:170, 1975.
33
Sims,
34
The 1ihite House Conference on Food, Nutrition, and
Health: Summary Report, Washington D.c., u.s.
Government Printing Office, 1970.
~
L.S~
"Demographic and Attitudinal Correlates of
Nutrition Knowledge,n _Journal of Nutrition
Education, 8:122, 1976.
103
35
Ullrich, H.D. "The Consumer's Right to Knm'i, n
Journal of Nutrition Education, 8:4, 1976.
36
United States Department of Agriculture. "Food
Consumption of Households in the United States.
Spring; 1965," Household Food Consumption
Survey, 1965- 1966, Report No. 1, 1968.
37
United States Department of Agriculture-.· "Food
Consumption of Individuals. Spring, 1965,"
Individual Household Study, 1965 - 1966, Report
No. 2, 1968.
38 United States Department of Agricultui:e. "Preliminary
Findings of the First Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey: 1971 - 1972, 11 Public Health
Service, D.H.E.\~r. Pub. No. IffiA 74-1219. 1974.
39
United States Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare. "Health Services and J-1ental Health
Administration Ten.State Nutrition Survey:
1968- 70," D.H.E.vl. Pub. No. HSl-1, 72-8134, 1972.
40
United States Department of Agriculture. "Label
Information Helps Food Shoppers•n The Farm Index,
Economic Research Service, 15:8, November, 1976.
41
United States Department of Agriculture. National
Food Situation, Economic Research Service,
March, 1977.
42
United States Department of Agriculture. National
Food Situation, Economic Resea~ch Service,
June:25, 1977.
43
United States Department of Agriculture. National
Food Situation, Economic Research Service,
September:27, 1977.
44
Walker, J.1.A., and Hill, M.H. "Homemakers' Food and
Nutrition Knowledge, Practices, and Opinions,n
Home Economics Research Report No. 39,
Agricultural Research Service, U.S.D.A.,
November, 1975.
45
vl.h.ite, P.L. "'thy All the Fuss over Nutrition
Education?'.' Journal of' Nutrition Education,
8:54, 1976.
104
46
Young, C.H., Berresford, K., and \ialdner, B.G.
"VJh.at the Homemaker K.nm'ls About Uutri tion, n
Journal of the American Dietetic Association,
32:321, 1956.
APPENDIX A
QUESTIONNAIRE
1.
Please indicate approximately how often you eat the following foods by putting
a check in the column closest to your eating habits.
-,~
times
daily
fresh or fnozen broccoli or spinach
green pepper, brussel sprouts
carrots, yellow squash
sweet potatoes, yams
white potatoes {fresh)
fresh apples, bananas, pears
melons, papaya, mango (in season)
orange, grapefruit, tomato
beans, lentils, peas, corn
nuts, seeds, peanut butter
rice, grits, barley, oats, etc.
milk
cheese, yogurt, other milk products
eggs {1 per serving)
red meat {beef, pork, vealt lamb)
poultry (chicken or turkey)
fish (inc~ude fresh, frozen, canned) 1
whole gra~n bread or cereal
sweet rolls, donuts, cakes, pies
snack foods (chips, candy, cookies)
sweetened soft drinks
sugar free, low calorie soft drinks
Coff~e:g te8:, J._or a .!'3Ub~ll~ut~l
. f ::::
~~~mes
once
daily
daily
1
==·
I
I weekly
3 times
once
twl.ce
weekly monthl;y
f
1
1
1
1
.
.
.
.
.
-\.
0
\:J1
106
2.
3.
4.
Do you eat a morning meal between the hours from
6 A.M. to 11 A.M?
5 to 7 times weekly
---3 to 4 times weekly
~ess than 3 times weekly
-
Do you eat sugar-coated or add sugar to your cereal?
Yes
No
--
Do you think your eating habits have changed compared
to the way you were eating 5 years ago? Yes
No
If yes, please indicate the types of diet changes you
have made. See the list below and check all that apply.
decreased intake of salt
-shifted from whole milk to lowfat or nonfat
---eat more fish and poultry in place of red meat
---oecame a vegetarian
---eat more salads, fresh and frozen vegetables
---decreased intake of sweets and snacks
---use less processed foods and eat more fresh foods
---use more sweets, snacks, convenience foods
---eat more meat (all kinds)
---other diet change:
----------------------------------
The following personal information is necessary to
facilitate evaluation of the questionnaire.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
-
Age:
-
-
under 20
26-36__ 36-50_ 51-65
21-25
over 65
Male
Female
Please circle the highest grade of schooling you have
completed.
Elementary 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
High School 9 10 11 12
College or Technical 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 or more
-
-
-
Please check the type of work you do.
Housewife
Professional/technical
---student
~agers/officers
---Other white collar
~etired
~lue collar
Approximately, what is your total yearly family income?
$10,000 to $14,999
$20,000 or more
under $10,000
$15,000 to $19,999
-
-
--
-
107
QUESTIONNAIRE - PART II
1.
In the square below is an example OI nutrition labeling
oi a Iood. Were you aware that iniormation such as
this appears on many Iood packages and cans in the
supermarket? Yes
No
-
-
NUTRITION INFORMATION
Per Serving
SERVING SIZE------------O~IE CUP
SERVINGS PER CONTAINER---4
CALORIES---------------·1 50
PROTEIN------------------8 grams
CARBOHYDRATE------------11 grams
FAT---~---------------~--8 grams
Percentage oi u.s.
Recommended Daily Allowances (U.S.RDA)
PROTEIN-----20
RIBOFLAVIN---25
VITAMIN A----4
NIACIN--------*
VITAMIN C----2
CALCIUM------30
THIAMINE-----6
IRON----------*
VITAMIN D----25
*Contains less than 2% oi the u.s. RDA
OI these nutrients.
2.
When you do your grocery shopping, do you look for
iniormation on labels concerning the nutritive content
OI the Iood product?
Seldom
Occasionally
F-requently_
-
3.
-
When you purchase such Ioods as meat, butter, bread,
cheese, and canned and Irozen vegetables and Iruits,
do you read the label to determine the pureness (no
artiiicial additives or preservatives) oi the product?
Frequently_
Occasionally___
Seldom___
108
i.
~I
4.
Using the following numbered scale, rate each statement
below with the number that best describes your opinion
toward that statement.
1
2
3
4
5
strongly
disagree
neutral
agree
strongly
disagree
agree
A.
B.
c.
D.
E.
F.
G.
5.
Nutrition labeling on food products is not
---really needed.
I feel more confident in food shopping just
---xnowing that nutrition labels are available.
___I would be willing to pay 50 cents more each
week on my grocery bill to have nutrition
labels available.
Nutrition labeling should be dropped if it ends
---up costing the consumer more money.
Compulsory nutrition labeling will lead food
---manufacturers to make their products more
nutritious.
Nutrition labeling will make people more a\'lare
---of the importance of good nutrition.
More information indicates a greater concern
---for consumer welfare
If you do use nutrition labeling when you do your grocery shopping, please check your reasons. Check all
that apply.
To determine the overall nutrient content of the foo~
___To find out how many calories the food contains.
To determine protein content.
___For ingredient content regarding the special diet
I am on.
Other reason
6.
---
----------------------------------------
If you do not use nutrition labels when you do your
grocery shopping, please check your reasons.
It is inconvenient. I do not have the time.
Don't know enough about nutrition to use the labels.
I am more concerned with price.
Don't have any special dietary needs.
Can get balanced meals without nutrition information.
-
-
--
___Other reason·----------------------------------------
'
109·
7.
Other methods have been suggested as a means of providing nutrition information for food products in the
supermarket. In your opinion, which one of the
following methods would you prefer to see used? Please
check only one.
List other foods to serve with the one in the pack---age in order to make a well-balanced meal.
___Simplify the label by only showing a single composite
value representing the total nutritional contribution
of the product.
___Preserve the present nutrition labeling method but
limit the amount of other non-nutritional information appearing on the package.
___Give nutritious recipes for using the food inside
the package.
Have "unit nutrient labeling" (similar to the
---existing "unit pricing" system). The supermarket
shelves would list information comparing nutrient
content among the different brands.
The existing nutrition labeling method is the most
---satisfactory.
___Other method. Please describe ____________________
-
No opinion.
The label example shown in the square on page three of
this questionnaire is the nutrition information that
actually appears on a carton of milk. The nutrient
values shown are provided on a per servin~ basiso
Refer to this nutrition label example on page three to
answer the final nine questions of this survey.
8.
How many grams of protein are found in the entire
carton of milk? _________
9.
How many grams of protein do you need in your daily
diet? ______
10. What percent of the Recommended Daily Allowance for
Vitamin D is supplied by one serving of thi.s product?
11. About how many cups of this product would supply the
total Recommended Daily Allowro1ce of Vitamin D?
110
12.
\1.hich one o~ the nutrients listed is needed by the
body to build and repair all o~ its tissues?
13.
Three o~ the nutrients listed can provide energy
the body. Can you name one o~ them?
14.
Vfuich nutrient is essential
15.
Vfuich mineral is essential
growth o~ bones and teeth?
16.
Which mineral is needed
part o~ the blood?
~or
~or
~or
the
~or
vision in dim light?
the structure and
~ormation o~
the red
APPENDIX B
Item
Chi
square
r
df
Sig.
Do you think your eating habits
have changed compared to the way
you were eating five years ago?
Age
Education
0.398
1.519
4
2
.9826
.4678
Decreased intake of salt
Age
Education
.2981
5.8405
2
3
.8615
.1196
Shifted from whole milk to
lowfat or nonfat
Age
Education
9.0221
.7307
2
3
.0110
.8660
10.8137
1.1261
2
3
.0045
.7708
Become a vegetarian
Age
Education
1.1887
1.3671
3
.7133
Eat more salads, fresh and
frozen vegetables
Age
Education
5.5546
1.0432
3
2
.1354
.5936
Decreased intake of sweets and
snacks
Age
Education
.2696
4.0271
2
3
.8738
.2586
Use less processed foods and
eat more fresh foods
Age
Education
3.0598
5.0069
2
3
.2166
.1713
Use more convenience foods
Age
Education
1.8947
.9027
2
3
.3878
.8248
Eat more fish and poultry in
place of red meat
Age
Education
111
2
• 5519
112
APPE~TDIX
B CONTINUED
Item
Chi
square
r
Nutrition labeling on food products is not really needed.
Age
7.1449
Education
14.6886
Income
12.0475
df
Sig.
6
9
9
.3076
.0999
.2106
I feel more confident in food
shopping just knowing that
nutrition labels are available.
Age
Education
Income
6.2140
13.3214
7.0077
8
12
12
.6233
.3461
.8571
I would be willing to pay 50¢
more each \'leek on my grocery
bill to have nutrition labels
available.
Age
Education
5.3228
25.2953
16.0973
8
12
98
12
.7226
.0135
.032
.1868
Nutrition labeling should be
dropped if it ends up costing
the consumer more money.
Age
Education
Income
6.4905
25.8570
11.4286
8
12
12
.5925
.0102
.4926
Compulsory nutrition labeling
will lead food manufacturers to
make their products more
nutritious.
Age
13.2730
8
98
12
12
.1028
.034
.5384
.6211
Income
Education
Income
10~8894
9.9410
.1861
-.1839
11'3
APPENDIX B CONTINUED
Item
Nutrition labeling will make
people more aware of the imp ortance of good nutrition.
Age
Education
Income
More information indicates a
greater concern for consumer
'\'lelfare.
Age
Education
Income
When you do your grocery
shopping, do you look for
information on labels concerning the nutritive content of
the food product?
Age
Sex
Education
Type of work
Family income
Eat a morning meal
Eat sugar-coated cereal
Basic four
"Basic four plus"
Snack foods
Total eating habit score
Chi
square
r
df
Sig.
-.2729
8
98
12
12
.1178
.003
.5495
.4276
4.2218
27.2272
9.1642
8
12
12
.8366
.0072
.6888
0.398
1 .519
11.608
5.413
8.121
3.1543
8.4569
5.9289
6.6580
15.8294
.4318
4
2
6
6
6
4
2
4
4
8
97
.9826
.4678
.0713
.4919
.2298
.5323
.0146
.2045
.1551
.0449
.001
.4197
.2518
4
6
2
98
85
.7270
.0122
.0025
.oo1
.009
12.8314
10.7615
12.2271
Do you read the label to determine the pureness (no artificial
additives or preservatives) of
the product?
2-~0476
Age
16.3060
Education
Eat sugar-coated cereal
11.9788
Total eating habit score
Decreased intake of salt
Shifted from whole milk to
lowfat or nonfat
Decreased intake of sweets
-.1546 85
.1924 85
.076
.037
114,
APPENDIX B CONTINUED
Item
Chi
square
Use less processed foods
Total test score
r
.4705
.2937
df
85
98
Sig.
.001
.002
How many grams of protein are
found in the entire carton of
milk?
Age
Education
Type of work
10.5001
7.8800
3.5883
How many grams of protein do
you need in your daily diet?
Age
Education
Type of work
1.6666
15.5806
5.4589
What percent of the RDA for
Vitamin D is supplied by one
serving of this product?
Age
Education
Type of '\'rork
4.4264
13.8898
4.6558
2
.3
4.4517
9.8052
1.5274
2
3
3
Which one of the nutrients listed
is needed by the body to build
and repair all of its tissues?
1 .4481
Age
Education
21.8957
Type of work
7.7588
3
3
.4848
.0001
.0513
Three of the nutrients listed
can provide energy for the body.
Can you name one of them?
6.0863
Age
13.9278
Education
3.6491
Type of work
4
6
6
.1928
.0305
.7240
About how many cups of this
product would supply the total
RDA of Vitamin D?
Age
Education
Type of work
2
3
3
2
3
3
3
2
.0052
.0486
.3094
.4346
.0014
.1411
.1094
.0031
.1988
.1080
.0203
.6760
115
APPENDIX B CONTINUED
Item
Chi
square
r
df'
Sig.
vlliich nutrient is essential for
vision in dim light?
Age
Education
Type of work
6.0894
12.1260
10.2112
2
3
3
.0476
.0070
.0169
\Y.hich mineral is essential for
the structure and growth of
bones and teeth?
Age
Education
Type of work
.5163
11.9703
.4333
2
3
3
.7725
.0075
.9333
Which mineral is needed for
the formation of the red part
of the blood?
Age
Education
Type of toTOrk
6.7357
13.8702
3.6787
2
3
3
.0345
.0031
.3032
98
98
98
6
6
12
.022
.001
.287
.0076
.2167
.4143
Total score on nutrition label
test
Age
Education
Total eating habit score
Basic four foods
"Basic Four plus" foods
Snack foods
17.5009
8.3041
12.3971
.2020
.5131
.0570
(