An Analysis of Nutritional Label Use
in the Southern United States
Patricia E. McLean-Meyinsse
Results from a random telephone survey of 1,421 grocery shoppers in the South suggest that 80 percent of
them used food labels when making food purchasing decisions. Overall, shoppers used the information on fat
content more frequently than any other labeling information. Label and attribute use were found to be
statistically significantly associated with age, educational level, gender, household composition, household
income, marital status, and race.
Introduction
Passed in 1990, the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA) mandated that nutrition labels
should be placed on most processed foods by mid
1994. The Act was an attempt to bring greater uniformity to the food labeling system and to give consumers easier access to nutrition information. At the
time of the NLEA's passage, the Food and Drug
Administration estimated that the implementation costs
would range from $1.6 to $2.6 billion, but felt that the
benefits ($4.5 billion) gained from lower medical costs
and lost productivity due to diet-related illnesses far
exceeded the costs. Since the introduction of the new
food labels in 1994, per capita consumption of fat and
calorie-rich foods, and the number of overweight and
obese Americans have been increasing. Given these
statistics, it is necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of
food labels in disseminating nutrition information and
in changing buying and eating habits.
Diet, health, and nutrition awareness are strongly
linked to cultural, psychological behavioral, socioeconomic, and geographical factors (Blisard, Blaylock, and
Smallwood; Frazao, 1993,1994, 1995, and 1996; Lutz,
Blylock, and Smallwood; Shim, Variyam and Blaylock;
Tippet and Goldman; Variyam, Blaylock, and Smallwood, 1995 and 1997). Therefore, food labels will notbe
successfl in changing eating habits and diet quality
unless consumers incorporate the labeling information
into their food purchases, and meal preparation. Given
the time lag between a new product's introduction and
full-scale adoption, researchers may not be able to
accurately measure its market success in a short time
period. Fortunately, this is not the case with the new
food labels. They were introduced more than six years
ago; therefore, researchers can now collect data on
their use and effectiveness in changing food purchasing
and eating decisions.
Because of the regional differences in eating
habits in the United States, smaller regional studies
are sometimes needed to capture subtle differences
in food consumption patterns. Consequently, this
study examines the extent to which consumers use
food labels and labeling information when they
make food purchases. The specific objectives are to
determine (1) the percentage of consumers who are
using labels when making their food purchasing
decisions, (2) the labeling attributes used most
frequently in these decisions, and (3) the extent to
which socioeconomic and geographic factors are
associated with label and attribute use.
Data and Procedure
The study's data were compiled from a random
telephone survey of 1,421 primary grocery shoppers
and/or meal preparers in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida,
Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North
Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee,
Texas, and Virginia during August 1998. The interviewers asked respondents whether they used labels
when making their food purchasing decisions and, if
so, what labeling attributes they used most frequently
in making these decisions. In addition to these responses, the interviewers also collected data on respondents' socioeconomic characteristics (age, education, gender, marital status, household size, household
composition, household income, race, religion, employment status, and food stamp participation). The
study uses the chi-square contingency test to determine
Patricia E. iMcLean-Meyinsse is professor, Division of Agricultural Sciences, Southern University, Baton Rouge, LA. This
project was funded by the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Washington, DC.
whether label and attribute use are independent of
respondents' socioeconomic characteristics (age,
education, employment status, gender, household
composition, household income, household size,
marital status, and race), and geographic location
2McLean-MAeyinsse,
Patricia
... NutritionalLabel Use in the Southern United States
Descriptive Statistics
From table 1, 43 percent of the respondents
were between 36 and 55 years of age; sixty-four
percent had no college diplomas; fifty percent had a
full-time job; eighty percent were women; fifty-three
percent of the households had children; forty-five
percent of the households had incomes below
$35,000; eighty-four percent lived in multipleperson households; sixty percent were married;
eighty percent were Caucasians; and forty-five of the
respondents lived in the South Atlantic Region of
the United States (Florida, Georgia, North Carolina,
South Carolina, and Virginia).
Table 1. Household Characteristics of Survey
Respondents.
Socioeconomic
Characteristics
Percentages
AGE (Years)
18-35
29
36-55
43
>55
28
.
.......
EDUCATION
< College
College
64
36
EMPLOYMENT STATUS
Part-Time Employment
Full-Time Employment
50
50
GENDER
Men
Women
28
80
HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION
No Children
Children 18
47
53
HOUSEHOLD INCOME
< $35,000
$35,000-$74,999
> $75,000
45
41
14
HOUSEHOLD SIZE
One Member
> One
16
84
MARITAL STATUS
Unmarried
Married
40
60
RACE
African Americans
Other Races
Caucasians
14
6
80
GEOGRAPHIC AREA
East South Central Region
West South Central
South Atlantic Region
20
35
45
111
Table 2 shows the levels of label use and the labeling attributes used mostly frequently by respondents. Based on these results, 80 percent of the
respondents used labels in making their shopping
decisions. Among the most frequently used attributes were calories (11 percent), fat (29 percent), list
of ingredients (7) percent, sodium (6 percent), protein (2 percent), serving size (3 percent), vitamins (2
percent), expiration dates (3 percent), price (4 percent), brand (5 percent), nothing in particular (28
percent). For the chi-square analysis, protein, serving
size, vitamins, expiration dates, price, brand, and
nothing in particular were classified into a new
category: other.
Table 2. Use of Nutrition Facts Labels
and Labeling Attributes.
Response Categories
Percentages
..........
LABELS
Users
Non-Users
80
20
ATTRIBUTES
Calories
Fat
List of Ingredients
Sodium
Protein
Serving Size
Vitamins
Expiration Dates
Price
Brand
Nothing in Particular
--
11
29
7
6
2
3
2
3
4
5
28 --
Empirical Results
The relationships between label use and the
selected socioeconomic characteristics are shown in
table 3. The results suggest that there are statistically
significant associations between label use and
household characteristics. Specifically, label use is
significantly associated with education, gender,
household income, and marital status, but is invariant to age, employment status, household composition and size, race, and geographic location. Households with college-educated food shoppers and/or
meal preparers are more likely to use labels than
their lesser-educated counterparts. Women are more
likely to be label users than men are. Respondents
with household income levels of at least $35,000
and married consumers are more likely to be label
users than are lower-income households and unmarried consumers.
112
March 2001
Journalof FoodDistributionResearch
Table 3. Label Use by Socioeconomic Characteristics,
Variable
Non-Label Users
Label Users
X2
P-Value
3.60
0.1655
Percentages
TOTAL
20
80
AGE
18-35 Years
36-55
> 55
22
18
20
78
82
80
EDUCATION
< College
College
23
15
77
85
EMPLOYMENT STATUS
Part-Time
Full-Time
20
20
80
80
0.003
0.9591
GENDER
Men
Women
23
18
77
82
4.25**
0.0393
HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION
No Children
Children < 18
20
20
80
80
0.01
0.9309
HOUSEHOLD INCOME
< $35,000
> $35,000
23
17
77
83
7.90***
0.0050
20
9
80
81
0.02
0.8818
22
18 -
78
82
4.22**
0.0399
22
19
78
81
0.88
0.3473
0.14
0.7119
HOUSEHOLD SIZE
One Member
> One
MARITAL STATUS
Unmarried
Married
RACE
Non-whites
Whites
GEOGRAPHIC AREA
South Atlantic
20
80
Other
19
81
a (**) and (**) indicate statistical significance at the 0.05 and 0.01 levels, respectively.
13.24***a
0.0003
McLean-Meyinsse, Patricia
... NutritionalLabel Use in the Southern United States
Table 4. Labeling Attributes by Socioeconomic Characteristics.
Variable
Other
Calories
Fat
List of
Ingredients
Sodium
X2
P-Value
Percentagesa
TOTAL
47
11
29
50
45
49
11
9
14
29
31
23
8
8
6
2
7
9
51
40
9
13
25
35
8
7
7
5
EMPLOYMENT STATUS
Part-Time
49
Full-Time
46
12
10
27
31
7
7
6
6
GENDER
Men
Women
10
11
2
31
8
7
4
7
18.05***
0.0012
HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION
No Children
48
Children < 18
47
12
k9
28
29
5
10
7
5
18.12***
0.0011
HOUSEHOLD INCOME
< $35,000
53
> $35,000
43
10
11
22
34
8
6
7
5
32.18***
0.0000
HOUSEHOLD SIZE
One Member
> One
53
47
12
10
25
29
5
8
6
6
4.53
0.3389
MARITAL STATUS
Unmarried
Married
51
45
11
10
26
31
7
8
5
6
7.87*
0.0964
RACE
Non-whites
Whites
57
45
12
10
16
32
7
7
7
6
29.34***
0.0001
GEOGRAPHIC AREA
South Atlantic
Other
47
48
11
11
29
28
7
8
7
5
AGE
18-35 Years
36-55
>55
EDUCATION
< College
College
55
44
aPercentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding.
b(*), (**),
and (***) indicate statistical significance at the 0.10, 0.05, and 0.01 levels, respectively.
0.0004
25.82***
3.57
1.85
0.0003
0.4676
0.7632
113
114
Journalof FoodDistributionResearch
March 2001
Table 4 shows the cross tabulations of labeling
attributes with the selected socioeconomic characteristics. From the table, respondents' age, educational levels, gender, household composition,
household income levels, marital status, and race
affect their attribute selections in making food purchase decisions. Older consumers are more likely to
examine the sodium content of food products when
making purchasing decisions; those between 18 and
35 years of age are more likely not to pay much
attention to the nutritional attributes on food labels.
College-educated consumers show more concerns
about the fat content of food products than noncollege graduates. The results also suggest that
women, households with children 18 years old and
under, households with incomes in excess of
$35,000, married consumers, and Caucasians are
more likely to use labels to determine the fat content
of foods than their corresponding counterparts.
Younger respondents, those without a college diploma, men, those without children and living in
households with income levels below $35,000,
unmarried consumers, and nonwhites are more likely
to use attributes besides calories, fat, list of ingredients, and sodium when making their food purchasing
decisions. Overall, when purchasing food products,
consumers read the information on fat content more
frequently than any other single attribute.
Concluding Remarks
The study's primary goal was to examine whether
consumers in the Southern United States were using
the Nutritional Facts labels to make healthier food
choices. The specific objectives were to determine (1)
the percentage of consumers who were using labels
when making their food purchasing decisions, (2) the
labeling attributes used most frequently in these decisions, and (3) the extent to which socioeconomic and
geographic factors were associated with label and
attribute use. From the results, 80 percent of the respondents reported using food labels. In general, label
users assessed the fat content of the foods they purchased more than other nutritional attribute, such as
calories, list of ingredients, and sodium content. Respondents also used attributes such as serving size,
price, and brands in making their food purchasing
decisions. Twenty-eight percent of users said they did
not use any particular labeling attribute when making
their decisions.
Nutrition Facts labels were introduced on most
processed food products since mid 1994. Yet, sta-
tistics continue to show that per capita consumption
of fat and calorie-rich foods, and the number of
overweight and obese Americans is rising (Kantor;
Lin, Guthrie, and Frazao). The study's results suggest that some consumers are assessing the fat content of the foods they buy for at-home consumption.
However, because of the increased consumption of
foods outside the home, consumers must continue to
monitor their consumption of calories and fat in all
the foods they buy.
References
Blisard, N., J. Blaylock, and D. Smallwood. 1994. Dietary
Fiber: Effects of Socioeconomic Characteristicsand
Knowledge. TB-1840, Economic Research Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture. December.
Frazao, E. 1993. "Female-Headed Households Spend Less on
Food." FoodReview. 16:6-11.
Frazao, E. 1994. Consumer Concerns About Nutrition:
Opportunitiesfor the Food Sector. AIB-705. Eco-
nomic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. October.
Frazao, E. 1995. The American Diet: Health and Economic
Consequences. AIB-711, Economic Research Service,
U.S. Department of Agriculture. February.
Frazao, E. 1996. "The American Diet: A Costly Health Problem." FoodReview. 19,1:2-6.
Kantor, L. 1998. A Dietary Assessment of the U.S. Food
Supply: ComparingPer CapitaFood Consumption with
the Food Guide Pyramid Serving Recommendations.
AER 772, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department
of Agriculture. December.
Lin, B-H., J. Guthrie, and E. Frazao. 1999. Away-From-Home
Foods Increasingly Important to Quality of American
Diet. AIB 749, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. January.
Lutz,S. M. J.R. Blaylock, and D.M. Smallwood 1993. "Household Characteristics Affect Food Choices." FoodReview.
16,2 :12-17.
Shim, Y., J. N. Variyam, and J. Blaylock. 2000. "Many Americans Falsely Optimistic about Their Diets." FoodReview.
23,1:44-50.
Tippet, K.S. and J.D. Goldman. 1994. "Diets More Healthful,
But Still Fall Short of Dietary Guidelines." FoodReview.
17, 1:8-14.
Variyam, J.N., J. Blaylock, and D. Smallwood. 1995. Modeling
Nutrient Intake: The Role of Dietary Information. TB-
1842, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture. May.
Variyam, J.N., J. Blaylock, and D. Smallwood. 1997. DietHealthInformation and Nutrition:The Intake of Dietary
Fats and Cholesterol. TB-1865, Economic Research
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. February.
