When zero is greater than one: Consumer misinterpretations of nutrition labels.

Abstract

Front-of-package (FOP) nutrition labels are increasingly used by food manufacturers. A call to regulate the content and format of these labels resulted in recommendations by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) for standardized FOP labels that clearly communicate packaged foods' healthfulness. It is currently unclear how consumers would interpret and use these proposed labels. This research addresses psychological factors affecting the efficacy of FOP label use. It was hypothesized that IOM's proposed 0- to 3-point rating scale would produce the zero-comparison effect, leading to more favorable evaluations than are warranted for the least healthful products (i.e., those earning zero nutritional points). In two studies (Study 1, n = 68; Study 2, n = 101), participants evaluated products containing FOP labels on the basis of IOM recommendations. Primary outcomes were perceived product healthfulness and purchase intentions. Study 1 demonstrated that less-healthful products were rated by study participants to be equally healthful as more-healthful products. The relationship between FOP rating and purchase intentions was mediated by perceived healthfulness. Biases in product healthfulness ratings were exacerbated for consumers with higher (vs. lower) health concern. Study 2 demonstrated that by changing the rating scale from 0-3 to 1-4, consumers avoid the zero-comparison effect and accurately evaluate products' healthfulness. This research has implications for theory and policy in the domains of nutrition labeling and consumer health. Specifically, FOP labels can help consumers identify healthful options, but products receiving zero nutritional points may be misidentified as healthful; a simple label modification can prevent this confusion.