Advertisement

Journal of Consumer Policy

, Volume 42, Issue 3, pp 377–395 | Cite as

Improving Nutritional Quality of Consumers’ Food Purchases With Traffic-Lights Labels: An Experimental Analysis

  • S. MaretteEmail author
  • L. Nabec
  • F. Durieux
Original Paper

Abstract

A laboratory experiment was conducted in France to evaluate the role of colour-coded traffic lights (TLs) in signalling the nutritional quality of food. The experimental protocol focused on participants’ willingness-to-pay (WTP) for breakfast cereals, and it precisely identified the impact of both TL appearance and additional explanations about these TLs. The results of this paper show a significant influence of both TL appearance and additional explanations on consumers’ WTP. Regarding the TL appearance, the red colour associated with a low nutritional quality of foods has a sustained impact compared to the impact of the green and yellow colours. In other words, the placement of TLs on all products mainly leads to a reduction in WTP for products with the red colour, although WTP for other products with the green or yellow colours also changes. Additional explanations about TLs and nutrition also matter because they significantly influence WTP. Based on the participants’ WTP, we estimate the welfare impact of mandatory TLs, suggesting that it would be socially optimal to introduce these mandatory TLs with additional explanations.

Keywords

Experimental economics Consumers’ behaviour Nutrition Traffic lights Regulation 

JEL Classification

C9 D8 I1 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The research leading to these results received a funding from the “appel à projets 2016 de la Maison des Sciences de l’Homme Paris-Saclay.” The authors only are responsible for any omissions or deficiencies.

References

  1. Allais, O., Albuquerque, P., Bonnet, C., & Dubois, P. (2017). Évaluation Expérimentation Logos Nutritionnels. Rapport pour le FFAS. (Fonds Français pour l’Alimentation et la Santé, March 14, 2017). Paris: France.Google Scholar
  2. Alliance7. (2016). Syndicat Français des Céréales du Petit Déjeuner. Chiffres clés 2015. Paris: France.Google Scholar
  3. ANSES (2017). AVIS de l’Agence nationale de sécurité sanitaire de l’alimentation, de l’environnement et du travail relatif à « l’analyse de la pertinence en matière de nutrition de systèmes d’information nutritionnelle destinés au consommateur. (Rapport N° 2016-SA-0017). Maison Alfort.Google Scholar
  4. Ay, J.-S., Chakir, R., & Marette, S. (2017). Distance decay in the willingness to pay for wine: Disentangling local and organic attributes. Environmental and Resource Economics, 68(4), 997–1019.Google Scholar
  5. Balcombe, K., Fraser, I., & Falco, S. D. (2010). Traffic lights and food choice: A choice experiment examining the relationship between nutritional food labels and price. Food Policy, 38, 211–220.Google Scholar
  6. Becker, G. M., DeGroot, M. H., & Marschak, J. (1964). Measuring utility by a single-response sequential method. Behavioural Science, 9, 226–232.Google Scholar
  7. Becker, M., Bello, N., Sundar, R. P., Peltier, C., & Bix, L. (2015). Front of pack labels enhance attention to nutrition information in novel and commercial brands. Food Policy, 56, 76–86.Google Scholar
  8. Bialkova, S., Grunert, K. G., & van Trijp, H. (2013). Standing out in the crowd: The effect of information clutter on consumer attention for front-of-pack nutrition labels. Food Policy, 41, 65–74.Google Scholar
  9. Bohm, P., Linden, J., & Sonnergard, J. (1997). Eliciting reservation prices: Becker-DeGroot-Marschack mechanisms vs. markets. Economic Journal, 107(443), 1079–1089.Google Scholar
  10. Bonanno, A., Huang, R., & Liu, Y. (2015). Simulating welfare effects of the European nutrition and health claims’ regulation: The Italian yogurt market. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 42(3), 499–533.Google Scholar
  11. Bonnet, C., & Réquillart, V. (2013). Impact of cost shocks on consumer prices in vertically-related markets: The case of the French soft drink market. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 95(5), 1088–1108.Google Scholar
  12. Bonroy, O., & Constantatos, C. (2015). On the economics of labels: How their introduction affects the functioning of markets and the welfare of all participants. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 97(1), 239–259.Google Scholar
  13. Christen P. (2017). Auchan, Intermarché, Leclerc et Fleury-Michon adoptent le Nutri-Score. Process Alimentaire. Retrieved from: http://www.processalimentaire.com/A-la-une/Auchan-Intermarche-Leclerc-et-Fleury-Michon-adoptent-le-Nutri-Score-31136. Accessed 1 Oct 2017.
  14. Consumers International. (2015). World consumer rights day 2015: Consumers rights to healthy food: Nutrition labelling on pre-packaged foods. Retrieved from: http://www.consumersinternational.org/media/1547602/wcrd-2015-ci-brief-4-labelling_eng.pdf. Accessed 1 March 2019.
  15. Crespi, J., & Marette, S. (2001). How should food safety certification be financed? American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 83(4), 852–861.Google Scholar
  16. Crosetto, P., Muller, L., & Ruffieux, B. (2015). Helping consumers with a front-of-pack label: Numbers or colors? Experimental comparison between guideline daily amount and traffic light in a diet-building exercise. Journal of Economic Psychology, 55, 30–50.Google Scholar
  17. Disdier, A. C., & Marette, S. (2012). Taxes, minimum-quality standards and/or product labeling to improve environmental quality and welfare: Experiments can provide answers. Journal of Regulatory Economics, 41, 337–357.Google Scholar
  18. Drescher, L., Roosen, J., & Marette, S. (2014). The effects of traffic light labels and involvement on consumer choices for food and financial products. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 38, 217–227.Google Scholar
  19. Drichoutis, A. C., Lazaridis, P., & Nayga, R. M. (2009). Would consumers value food-away-from-home products with nutritional labels? Agribusiness, 4, 550–575.Google Scholar
  20. Ellison, B., Lusk, J. L., & Davis, D. (2014). The impact of restaurant calorie labels on food choice: Results from a field experiment. Economic Inquiry, 2, 666–681.Google Scholar
  21. Falk, A., & Heckman, J. J. (2009). Lab experiments are a major source of knowledge in the social sciences. Science, 326(5952), 535–538.Google Scholar
  22. Ford, G. T., Hastak, M., Mitra, A., & Ringold, D. J. (1996). Can consumers interpret nutrition information in the presence of a health claim? A laboratory investigation. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 15(1), 16–27.Google Scholar
  23. Foster, W., & Just, R. (1989). Measuring welfare effects of product contamination with consumer uncertainty. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 17(3), 266–283.Google Scholar
  24. Garretson, J. A., & Burton, S. (2000). Effects of nutrition facts panel values, nutrition claims, and health claims on consumer attitudes, perceptions of disease-related risks, and trust. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 12(2), 213–227.Google Scholar
  25. Golan, E., Kuchler, F., Mitchell, L., Greene, C., & Jessup, A. (2001). Economics of food labeling. Journal of Consumer Policy, 24(2), 117–184.Google Scholar
  26. Grankvist, G., Dahlstrand, U., & Biel, A. (2004). The impact of environmental labelling on consumer preference: Negative vs. positive labels. Journal of Consumer Policy, 27, 213–230.Google Scholar
  27. Grunert, K. G., & Wills, J. M. (2007). A review of European research on consumer response to nutrition information on food labels. Journal of Public Health, 15(5), 385–399.Google Scholar
  28. Hallstein, E., & Villas-Boas, S. B. (2013). Are consumers color blind? An empirical investigation of a traffic light advisory for sustainable seafood. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 66, 52–71.Google Scholar
  29. Hawley, K. L., Roberto, C. A., Bragg, M. A., Liu, P. J., Schwartz, M. B., & Brownell, K. D. (2013). The science on front-of-package food labels. Public Health Nutrition, 16, 430–439.Google Scholar
  30. Institute of Medicine. (2012). Front-of-package nutrition rating systems and symbols: Promoting healthier choices. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  31. Ippolito, P. M., & Mathios, A. D. (1991). Health claims in food marketing: Evidence on knowledge and behavior in the cereal market. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 10(1), 15–32.Google Scholar
  32. Ippolito, P. M., & Mathios, A. D. (1993). New food labeling regulations and the flow of nutrition information to consumers. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 12(2), 188–205.Google Scholar
  33. Keller, K. L., & Staelin, R. (1989). Assessing biases in measuring decision effectiveness and information overload. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 504–508.Google Scholar
  34. Kiesel, K., & Villas-Boas, S. B. (2013). Another nutritional label: Experimenting with grocery store labels and consumer choice. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 31, 153–163.Google Scholar
  35. Kirca, A. H., Jayachandran, S., & Bearden, W. O. (2005). Market orientation: A meta-analysis review and assessment on its antecedents and impact on performance. Journal of Marketing, 69(2), 24–41.Google Scholar
  36. Lahteenmaki, L. (2013). Claiming health in food products. Food Quality and Preference, 27, 196–201.Google Scholar
  37. Larceneux, F., Benoit-Moreau, F., & Renaudin, V. (2012). Why organic labels do not always promote sustainable consumption? Marginal labelling and brand equity effects. Journal of Consumer Policy, 35, 85–104.Google Scholar
  38. Lusk, J. L., & Marette, S. (2010). Welfare effects of food labels and bans with alternative willingness to pay measures. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 32(2), 319–337.Google Scholar
  39. Machín, L., Aschemann-Witzel, J., Curutchetc, M., Giménezd, A., & Ares, G. (2018). Does front-of-pack nutrition information improve consumer ability to make healthful choices? Performance of warnings and the traffic light system in a simulated shopping experiment. Appetite, 121, 55–62.Google Scholar
  40. Marette, S. (2010). Consumer confusion and multiple equilibria. Economics Bulletin, 30, 1120–1128.Google Scholar
  41. Marette. (2019). The ambiguous impact of information related to fish sustainability. Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, 17, 1–12.Google Scholar
  42. Marette, S., Roosen, J., & Blanchemanche, S. (2008). Taxes and subsidies to change eating habits when information is not enough: An application to fish consumption. Journal of Regulatory Economics, 34, 119–143.Google Scholar
  43. Marette, S., Roosen, J., & Blanchemanche, S. (2011). The combination of lab and field experiments for benefit–cost analysis. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 2(1), 1–35.Google Scholar
  44. Mari E. & F. Méréo (2017). Marisol Touraine dévoile le nouveau logo nutritionnel. Le Parisien. Retrieved from: http://www.leparisien.fr/societe/marisol-touraine-annonce-pour-avril-le-logo-qui-classe-les-aliments-par-couleur-15-03-2017-6762966.php. Accessed 1 March 2019.
  45. Mathios, A. D. (2000). The impact of mandatory disclosure laws on product choices: An analysis of the salad dressing market. Journal of Law and Economics, 43(2), 651–678.Google Scholar
  46. Maubach, N., Hoek, J., & Mather, D. (2014). Interpretive front-of-pack nutrition labels. Comparing competing recommendations. Appetite, 82, 67–77.Google Scholar
  47. Mitra, A., Hastak, M., Ford, G. T., & Ringold, D. J. (1999). Can the educationally disadvantaged interpret the FDA-mandated nutrition facts panel in the presence of an implied health claim? Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 18(1), 106–117.Google Scholar
  48. Moorman, C., Ferraro, R., & Huber, J. (2012). Unintended nutrition consequences: Firm responses to the nutrition labeling and education act. Marketing Science, 31(5), 717–737.Google Scholar
  49. Muller, L., Lacroix, A., Lusk, J. L., & Ruffieux, B. (2017). Distributional impacts of fat taxes and thin subsidies. Economic Journal, 127, 2066–2092.Google Scholar
  50. Ölander, F., & Thøgersen, J. (2014). Informing versus nudging in environmental policy. Journal of Consumer Policy, 37, 341–356.Google Scholar
  51. Open Food Facts (2017). Nutri-score ranking of cereals for the French market in 2017. Retrieved from: https://fr.openfoodfacts.org/categorie/cereales-pour-petit-dejeuner/notes-nutritionnelles. Accessed 1 October 2017.
  52. Reisch, L., Sunstein, C., & Gwozdz, W. (2017). Viewpoint: Beyond carrots and sticks: Europeans support health nudges. Food Policy, 69, 1–10.Google Scholar
  53. Roe, B. E., Teisl, M. F., & Deans, C. R. (2014). The economics of voluntary versus mandatory labels. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 6(1), 407–427.Google Scholar
  54. Roosen, J., & Marette, S. (2011). Making the ‘right’ choice based on experiments: Regulatory decisions for food and health. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 38(3), 361–381.Google Scholar
  55. Rousu, M. C., Huffman, W. E., Shogren, J. F., & Tegene, A. (2004). Estimating the public value of conflicting information: The case of genetically modified foods. Land Economics, 80, 125–135.Google Scholar
  56. Rousu, M. C., Huffman, W. E., Shogren, J. F., & Tegene, A. (2007). Effects and value of verifiable information in a controversial market: Evidence from lab auctions of genetically modified food. Economic Inquiry, 45, 409–432.Google Scholar
  57. Rousu, M. C., Marette, S., Thrasher, J. F., & Lusk, J. L. (2014). The economic value to smokers of graphic warning labels on cigarettes: Evidence from combining market and experimental auction data. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 108, 123–134.Google Scholar
  58. Stranieri, S., Baldi, L., & Banterle, A. (2010). Do nutrition claims matter to consumers? An empirical analysis considering European requirements. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 45, 15–33.Google Scholar
  59. Sunstein, C., & Thaler, R. H. (2003). Libertarian paternalism is not an oxymoron. The University of Chicago Law Review, 70(4), 1159–1202.Google Scholar
  60. Talati, Z., Pettigrew, S., Neal, B., Dixon, H., Hughes, C., Kelly, B., & Miller, C. (2017). Consumers’ responses to health claims in the context of other on-pack nutrition information: A systematic review. Nutrition Reviews, 75(4), 260–273.Google Scholar
  61. Teisl, M. F., Bockstael, N. E., & Levy, A. (2001). Measuring the welfare effects of nutrition information. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 83(1), 133–149.Google Scholar
  62. Thøgersen, J., & Nielsen, K. (2016). A better carbon footprint label. Journal of Cleaner Production, 125, 86–94.Google Scholar
  63. Van Dam, Y., & De Jonge, J. (2015). The positive side of negative labelling. Journal of Consumer Policy, 38, 19–38.Google Scholar
  64. Wansink, B., Sonka, S., & Hasler, C. (2004). Front-label health claims: When less is more. Food Policy, 29, 659–667.Google Scholar
  65. Williams R., Marlow, M. L., & Archer, E. (2016). Retrospective analysis of the regulations implementing the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990. Public Interest Comment. Mercatus Center, George Mason University.Google Scholar
  66. World Cancer Research Fund International (2019). Building momentum: Lessons on implementing a robust front-of-pack food label. Retrieved from: https://www.wcrf.org/sites/default/files/PPA-Building-Momentum-Report-2-WEB.pdf. Accessed 1 March 2019.
  67. Yokessa, M., & Marette, S. (2019). A review of eco-labels and their economic impact. International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, 13, 1–45.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.UMR Économie Publique, INRAUniversité Paris-SaclayGrignonFrance
  2. 2.Université Paris-SudParis-SaclayFrance

Personalised recommendations