# Presentation: 116787

## Qualified Health Claims: Food for Thought?

- Neal H. Hooker and Ratapol P. Teratanavat

- Department of Agricultural, Environmental,and Development Economics

- Paper presented at FDA Public Meeting
-  *Assessing Consumers' Perceptions of Health Claims*
- College Park, MD. November 17, 2005

## Qualified Health Claims

*Pearson v. Shalala* led to new FDA food labeling policy
- To provide additional and up-to-date scientific information
- To encourage food producers to make accurate, science-based claim
- Ranked by level of scientific evidence

## Slide 3

## Examples of Visual Aid/Disclaimers 

- Level B: .... Although there is scientific evidence supporting the claim, FDA has determined that the evidence is not conclusive

- Level D: .... Very limited and preliminary scientific research suggests that .... FDA concludes that there is little scientific evidence to support this claim

## Literature Review

- Experimental studies on consumer use of label information
- Ford et al., 1996; Keller et al., 1997; Mitra et al., 1999; Roe, Levy, and Derby, 1999; Garretson and Burton, 2000; Kozup, Creyer, and Burton, 2003
- Independent effect of claims on front label and nutrition information in Nutrition Facts panel
- Consumers rely more on information in the Nutrition Facts panel
- No published study has looked at the new qualified health claim policy

## Related Studies

- IFIC – web based
- Derby and Levy – mall intercept
- France and Bone – dietary supplements
- Murphy – FTC advertising “copy” test

## Students as Subjects?

- General consumers and undergrad. students often used as participants in experimental studies
- No difference between two groups for consumer response to labeling information (Wansink, 2003)
- Two groups react similarly to open-ended willingness to pay questions (Maguire, Taylor, and Gurmu, 2003)

## Study 1: Objectives

- To determine how consumers use health information to form judgments about product quality
- To examine whether consumers can differentiate various levels of qualified health claims

## Methodology

- Controlled randomized experimental design
- 5 levels of claim
- Wheat Crackers Containing Soy Protein
- Dual benefit product
- 168 students participated for extra credit
- 48% Female; 21-22 years old; 66% Caucasian

## 5 Versions of Front Labels with Different Qualified Claims

- Control

- Level D

- Level A

- Level B

- Level C

## Slide 12

## Dependent Measures

- Mean score from multi-items with seven-point scales
_**Attitude**_ toward the product (5 items)
_**Confidence**_ in claim (2 items)
- Perceived _**health benefit**_ of product (2 items)

## Attitude Towards the Product

**Attitude Towards the Product**

## Confidence in Claim Information

**Confidence in Claim Information**

## Perceived Health Benefits

**Perceived Health Benefits**

## Statistical Tests

- All 3 measures have significant multivariate effects (MANOVA)
- Significant main effect for attitude and confidence but not health benefit (ANOVA)
- Attitude lower if D compared to B, confidence lower if D compared to A (HSD)
- No other significantly different pairings

## Thought Listings

- Open-ended opinions
- Grouped into 6 categories
- Product attributes/ingredients
- Label design
- Product appeal
- Health benefits/healthfulness
- Usefulness of information
- Inconsistency of information

## Thought Listings

- Control subjects list thoughts on label design (55%), product appeal (61%), ingredients (39%), and healthfulness (34%)
- “the product looks healthy” or “the product is good for you”
- When health claims are present, many list benefits (>45%)
- “it may reduce the risk of cancer” or “it may reduce the risk of heart disease”

## Thought Listings

- When information is consistent commented that such information is informative
- Focus on **product** being healthy
- Felt that FDA approved the message
- Qualified health claims trigger thoughts of inconsistency of the health and nutrition information (42% for Level D, 35% for Level C, and 29% for Level B)
- “Why do they put the information on the front label if it is inconclusive? This makes me very skeptical.”
- “The report card is confusing seems to contradict itself.”
- “I would never buy something that has a “C” on a scale of how much evidence there is to support the claim.”

## Study 2: Objectives

- To determine how report card influences consumer response to different claim levels
- Comparing A and D

## Methodology

- 2 (claim) X 2 (report card) between-subject design
- Same dependent measures
- 109 students participated for extra credit
- 53% Female; 21-22 years old; 72% Caucasian

## 4 Versions of Front Labels with Different Qualified Claims

- Level D Without Report Card

- Level D with Report Card

- Level A with Report Card

- Level A without Report Card

## Attitude Towards the Product

**Attitude Towards the Product**

## Confidence in Claim Information

**Confidence in Claim Information**

- Mean Score

## Perceived Health Benefits

**Perceived Health Benefits**

- Mean Score

## Statistical Tests

- All 3 measures have significant multivariate effects (MANOVA)
- Significant interaction effect for all measures (ANOVA)
- Simple effects are significant – report card presence makes a difference

## Thought Listings

- Most participants commented on product appeal, health benefit, and health benefits of the product
- Report card reinforced information usefulness
- Participants indicate that “A” is congruent with the health and nutrition information, leading to a strong perception that the product is healthy and good for them
- Report card stands out the most - linked to healthfulness of the product
- ~ 42% of those who saw report card commented on usefulness of the information, compared to 16% of those not seeing a report card

## Thought Listings

- Level D ~ 30% noticed the inconsistency of the health and nutrition information
- Participants skeptical about information when seeing qualified claim level D
- “I am a little disturbed ... promise on the label has very little evidence to back it up.”
- “After reading the FDA part, it seems that the product is not really good as they claim.”
- Many do not believe the information when seeing a “D”
- “The label is covered by messages about the healthy nature of the product, yet the FDA gives a D rating. This made me wonder about the actual health benefits of the product.”
- “Why is there little scientific evidence to support the health benefits of this product? Are they unhealthy although they say that it reduces the risk of ...”

## Conclusions

- Only level D can be differentiated from other levels
- Visual aid (report card) helps consumers distinguish claim levels
- Future studies and other research questions
- Qualitative studies: to find a more distinct disclaimer
- Dual/synergistic health benefits and disclaimers

## Thanks	

- Hooker.27@osu.edu
- fst.osu.edu/ifafs