The impact of nutritional labeling on adult snack choices: A controlled field experiment in a non-commercial professional setting.

Each year, 2.8 million people die because of comorbidities associated with being overweight. Snacking substantially contributes to people's calorie intake. One way to nudge consumers towards healthier alternatives is the implementation of nutritional labeling. This study reports on a controlled field experiment that evaluates the effect of two nutritional labels on free snack choices (n = 739). Participants at a conference could choose between nuts, cookies, and candy bars as a snack, presented at the bar at six different locations across 2 bar counters. The labels were set up in front of each snack in three conditions: no labeling (control), a calorie label, or a traffic light label (i.e., the Nutri-Score). The location of the snacks on the counter (Either side of the counter; Center, Right, Left) and the time-of-day (Morning (=reference) vs Afternoon) were statistically controlled for. The results show that calorie labels could not successfully nudge consumers toward healthier snack choices (nuts instead of candy bars or cookies). In contrast, the Nutri-Score label significantly increased the probability of choosing nuts over candy bars. The Nutri-Score also increased the chance of choosing nuts over cookies, but the difference was not significant. No prior studies to our knowledge have directly compared calorie labels to the Nutri-Score. This study suggests that the Nutri-Score label can be a more successful intervention than calorie labels to nudge consumers towards healthier choices in situations were free snacks are offered, like many modern workplaces. Changing snacking behavior is challenging and naturalistic field experiments like this one are needed to translate the theory from previous laboratory studies to real-life settings.

High hopes for front-of-pack (FOP) nutrition labels? A conjoint analysis on the trade-offs between a FOP label, nutrition claims, brand and price for different consumer segments.

An increasing number of studies investigate the effect of front-of-pack (FOP) nutrition labels on consumer choice without considering differences in consumer preferences for product attributes. This study used a choice-based conjoint analysis to test consumers' preferences for four product attributes (5 levels of a FOP nutrition label, absence/presence of a nutrition claim, brand (unfamiliar, private label or premium) and 5 levels of price) when they coexist (n = 1156). As the consumer preferences showed distinct patterns (multimodality), consumers were subsequently clustered based on how a FOP nutrition label (Nutri-Score) influenced their food choices. Three consumer segments were identified, each valuing the Nutri-Score label differently. The label effectively seems to nudge one segment toward healthier choices (n = 456), while in contrast, another segment is unexpectedly steered toward unhealthier food choices by the label (n = 343). The third segment is only consistently nudged by the FOP label's extremes (n = 357). The segments also differ in their preferences for other product attributes (brand and price), health involvement, and self-reported understanding and use of the Nutri-Score, but not in the measured socio-demographic variables (age, sex, education, social class), dieting or smoking habits. In summary, consumers vary in their food label preferences, and studies that pool consumers may fail to capture these nuances, leading to biased results. This study shows that FOP labels do not steer all consumers toward healthier choices and may even have adverse effects for some. This suggests combining different policies and marketing strategies to reach all consumer segments.