当前位置: X-MOL 学术Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Nutritional and economic impact of five alternative front-of-pack nutritional labels: experimental evidence
European Review of Agricultural Economics ( IF 3.3 ) Pub Date : 2019-08-21 , DOI: 10.1093/erae/jbz037
Paolo Crosetto 1 , Anne Lacroix 1 , Laurent Muller 1 , Bernard Ruffieux 1
Affiliation  

We study in a laboratory framed field experiment the impact of five Front of Pack labels (FOPL) on the nutritional quality and cost of a daily consumption basket. We employ a difference in difference experimental design, between subjects, to cleanly identify the impact of FOPL. 691 subjects issued from the general population shop twice within a catalog of 290 products: a first time without and a second unan-nounced time with labels. Purchases are real. We test five different labels and compare result against a benchmark treatment in which subjects shop twice with no labels. Labels include the existing Multiple Traffic Lights, Reference Intakes and Health Star Rating, and two newly proposed designs: NutriScore, a 5-color synthetic label, and SENS, a frequency-based recommendation label. We measure nutritional quality using the FSA score. All labels but Reference Intakes significantly improve nutritional quality. NutriScore is significantly more effective than all other labels, followed by the Australian Health Star and Multiple Traffic Lights. The nutritional improvements due to the labeling come at an economic cost, as the average cost of 2000Kcal increases for all labels. Nonetheless, we show that the extra cost for a unit nutritional improvement is borne mainly by richer households. Behaviorally, change is concentrated in the extremal categories of each label. Easier to understand labels have a higher impact and crowd out more successfully other information cues like ingredients lists and nutritional tables.

中文翻译:

五种替代包装正面营养标签的营养和经济影响:实验证据

我们在实验室框架现场实验中研究了五个正面包装标签 (FOPL) 对日常消费篮子的营养质量和成本的影响。我们采用不同实验设计的差异,在受试者之间,清楚地识别 FOPL 的影响。在 290 种产品的目录中,来自普通人群商店的 691 名受试者两次发出:第一次没有标签,第二次未经通知有标签。购买是真实的。我们测试了五种不同的标签,并将结果与​​基准处理进行比较,其中受试者在没有标签的情况下购物两次。标签包括现有的多个交通灯、参考摄入量和健康星级评级,以及两个新提出的设计:NutriScore,一种 5 色合成标签,和 SENS,一种基于频率的推荐标签。我们使用 FSA 评分来衡量营养质量。除参考摄入量外的所有标签都显着提高了营养质量。NutriScore 明显比所有其他标签更有效,其次是澳大利亚健康之星和多重交通灯。标签带来的营养改善是以经济成本为代价的,因为所有标签的平均成本增加了 2000 大卡。尽管如此,我们表明单位营养改善的额外成本主要由较富裕的家庭承担。在行为上,变化集中在每个标签的极值类别中。更容易理解的标签具有更高的影响力,并能更成功地排除其他信息线索,如成分列表和营养表。其次是澳大利亚健康之星和多个红绿灯。标签带来的营养改善是以经济成本为代价的,因为所有标签的平均成本增加了 2000 大卡。尽管如此,我们表明单位营养改善的额外成本主要由较富裕的家庭承担。在行为上,变化集中在每个标签的极值类别中。更容易理解的标签具有更高的影响力,并能更成功地排除其他信息线索,如成分列表和营养表。其次是澳大利亚健康之星和多个红绿灯。标签带来的营养改善是以经济成本为代价的,因为所有标签的平均成本增加了 2000 大卡。尽管如此,我们表明单位营养改善的额外成本主要由较富裕的家庭承担。在行为上,变化集中在每个标签的极值类别中。更容易理解的标签具有更高的影响力,并能更成功地排除其他信息线索,如成分列表和营养表。变化集中在每个标签的极值类别中。更容易理解的标签具有更高的影响力,并能更成功地排除其他信息线索,如成分列表和营养表。变化集中在每个标签的极值类别中。更容易理解的标签具有更高的影响力,并能更成功地排除其他信息线索,如成分列表和营养表。
更新日期:2019-08-21
down
wechat
bug