1

Review of Literature on Consumer Use of Label Statements and 

Findings Relevant to Planned Action on Minimum risk Insect Repellents 

US EPA OPP June 2009 

Summary of findings: 

A disclaimer aids a consumer in making an informed purchase decision only if it is read, 

understood, and believed. 

Though most people may read most 

of an insect repellent label, few 

people will read all of it, and many 

will thus not notice a disclaimer. 

Additionally, since an exempted 

product is likely to be perceived as 

non-toxic or safe, people are less 

likely to read all parts of the label – 

and, consequently, are less likely to 

notice a disclaimer. 

Consumers who already are familiar 

with the product are even less likely 

to read the label and notice a 

disclaimer. 

Even if a disclaimer is read, it is likely 

to be misunderstood or discounted, 

since people will use their previous 

information and biases to rationalize 

why the disclaimer is there. 

If the disclaimer contradicts information 

people already believe, they will neither 

understand nor believe it. 

In general, most people do not read, understand, or believe a disclaimer. In the specific case of 

minimum risk insect repellents, this group would include an extremely small subset of all consumers of 

insect repellents, resulting in a majority of consumers who are not making a fully informed purchase 

decision. 
2

Do people read the label? 

Summary of findings: 

• Most people think they read the label. However, actual label reading depends on several 

factors related to the product and the user 

• Label reading is not thorough and not all parts are likely to be read 

Details: 

1) HealthStyles 2008 (EPA 

analysis of Porter Novelli 

national survey data): 

• 24% of people who buy 

insect repellents report that 

they do not read the label. 

• Actual rates of not reading 

the label may be higher than 

this self-reported response. 

2) EPA OPPTS, 1999. (Consumer Labeling Initiative): Inconclusive findings regarding label 

reading. Three factors appeared to influence label usage overall.

1) Familiarity: The more familiar the respondents were with a product, the less likely they 

were to read the label. Consequently, consumers interviewed about household 

cleaners/disinfectants indicated that they rarely read labels for those kinds of products, while 

respondents in the indoor insecticide and outdoor pesticide interviews tended to look at labels 

for those products more often, since it was a product they did not use regularly/ 

2) Risk perception (to the user, children, pets, or the environment): If a product was considered 

to be potentially harmful if used improperly, the respondents were more likely to look at the 

label before using it than if they did not perceive the product to be particularly toxic. 

3) Perceived ease or difficulty of product use: Products available in aerosol cans and trigger 

sprays, for example, as well as enclosed roach baits that the consumer simply sets out, were 

perceived by consumers as easy to use. Consumers, therefore, were less likely to read 

directions when using those products. Labels of products requiring the most preparation - 

indoor fogger products requiring extensive site preparation or outdoor pesticides that 

required dilution or attachment of a nozzle and hose, for example - tended to be read more 

often. 

Information on the label helps you select the best insect repellent 

for you. 

58%

24%

13%

5%

Yes

Don't read the label

No

No answer
3

• Do people read labels? Not completely, and not thoroughly 

- Consumers do not read labels as carefully as they think they do. Respondents said 

they had read the use instructions, but did not remember the ‘it is a violation of 

federal law’ part at the top of all pesticide instructions. 

- Least likely to be read: Precautionary and hazard statements, unless there was a 

preconceived risk of that particular product. 

Potential implications for minimum-risk insect repellents: These are familiar products that 

are perceived as safe or non-toxic and that are easy to apply, so rates of reading labels on these 

products may be among the lowest of all consumer pesticide products. 

Do people read the disclaimer / statement? 

Summary of findings: 

• People believe they read disclaimers, but most actually do not read precautionary 

statements, warnings, or similar information on products 

• They do not read precautionary statements at the time of purchase, or when selecting a 

product 

• They generally believe that they already know the information, they don’t need to know it, 

or they just don’t feel like reading it. The size of the warning has little to do with whether 

they read it or not. 

• Exception: If the product is perceived as very hazardous, they are more likely to read 

directions & cautions before using it. 

Details: 

1) HealthStyles 2008 (EPA analysis of Porter Novelli national survey data): 

• 79% say they would read the disclaimer. 

2) EPA OPPTS, 1999. (Consumer Labeling Initiative): Inconclusive. Most do not pay attention 

to precautionary statements, warnings, or other information on the product. A statement 

regarding EPA review or a disclaimer could be considered a warning or precautionary 

statement. From the CLI literature review: 

• An evaluation of consumer labels on non-pesticide products found that consumers 

do not search out or read precautionary statements before purchasing a 

product. (Marvos, Dean, and Krenzelok, 1986.) (CPSC, 1995. Product Labeling 

Guide, Literature Review, p. 2-13.) 

• It is unlikely that consumers rely on caution labels alone to assist them in making 

decisions about the safety of a product, concluded a study of 720 panelists. The 

study found that 66% of the panelists do not read precautionary information 

I probably would not 

notice the 

disclaimer 

Read disclaimer, 

but buy the 

product anyway 

Read the disclaimer and 

buy something else Total 

n 

respondents 1069 612 3424 5105 

% of all 

surveyed 21% 12% 67% 
4

on product labels. (Kraus and Slovie, 1988. (Consumer Risk Perceptions of 

Household Chemicals, p. 48.) 

• King County ran two sets of consumer focus groups in 1993 on consumer 

“hazardous” household products to determine general public awareness about 

such products. When they asked participants to select one of six bathroom 

cleaning products, almost none of the participants looked beyond the product 

name to make a selection. Participants said they would “look for a product 

they knew, or they would look at the label to see if it was meant to do the 

job.” Participants were not accustomed to reading the labels very thoroughly. 

(Brattesani, 1993. Metro Hazardous Household Products Focus Groups Report, 

p. 8.) 

Findings from CLI surveys: 

• Some people say they ‘never read’ certain parts of the label (storage, disposal, 

ingredients). 

(Table and graphic copied from CLI 1999 Phase II report, p. 59) 
5

Reasons why people never read parts of the label of indoor 

insecticides and household cleaning products

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Just do not Do not

understand

Already

know

Do not need

to know

Do not have

time

Print too

small

% of respondents who never read these parts 

No answer

of the label 

indoor insecticides disposal

indoor insecticides storage

indoor insecticides ingredients

household cleaner disposal

household cleaner storage

household cleaner ingredients

(Data for chart is from CLI 1999 Phase II p. 65) 

• If it’s hazardous, they will read it: 

• Studies showed that consumer perception of product hazardousness is the 

most significant indicator of whether or not they will read the 

precautionary label, followed in significance by the level of familiarity 

with a product. Leonard et al. (1989, 70 undergraduates) found that the 

more hazardous a product was perceived to be, the more willing the 

subjects were to read the warning. 

• Similarly, Godfrey et al. (1983, 32 undergraduates) and Wogalter et al. 

(1986, 70 undergraduates) found that perceived hazardousness was the 

most important determinant of willingness to read a warning label. 

Godfrey et al. found that subjects had a lower perception of hazardousness 

with more familiar products, and Lerner (1985, 80 undergraduates) found 

that individuals with “benign” experiences are often less likely to read and 

comply with warnings. (CPSC. 1995. Product Labeling Guide, Literature 

Review, pp. 6-3 to 6-5.) 

3) Hadden, 1991. (“Regulating Product Risks Through Consumer Information”): 

• “In study after study, people are found to ignore warning labels ... one reason people 

ignore warning labels is that they are familiar with the subject.” (p. 97)

Potential implications for minimum-risk insect repellents: These products will likely be 

perceived as not at all hazardous, and consumers may be unlikely to read any warnings or 

disclaimers on them. 
6

Do people understand the statement / disclaimer? 

Summary of findings: 

• People frequently misunderstand and misremember parts of the label, even if they read it 

several times 

• Even if label format or wording is changed, people continue to misunderstand certain 

things 

• Labels in general and specific statements in particular cannot stand alone: they need to be 

part of a broader campaign to increase information. Otherwise, people understand the 

label statements using their previous knowledge 

• This previous knowledge often includes definitions of terms that vary across contexts 

Details: 

1) EPA OPPTS, 1999. (Consumer Labeling Initiative): Certain sections of the label 

misunderstood by everyone. 

- “Certain sections of the labels were uniformly misunderstood by respondents in all 

categories. Not understood or misunderstood by participants in interviews: 

o Statement of violation of law 

o EPA registration information 

o Chemical names of products” (CLI Phase 1996 Phase I p. 11) 

2) Mason and Scammon, 2000. (“Health Claims and Disclaimers: Extended Boundaries and 

Research Opportunities in Consumer Interpretation”)

- “Disclosures on the product packages may suffer from lack of noticeability. 

Consumers who notice disclosures may have little recall of the information. Even 

after repeated exposure and careful reading of the disclaimer, consumers’ 

comprehension of the message may differ with indirect or awkward wording or 

simply different wording.” (p. 146) 

3) EPA OPPT, 1994. (Determinants of Effectiveness for Environmental Certification and 

Labeling Plan): 

• “This report analyzes factors related to the effectiveness of environmental 

labeling in the U.S., to ascertain whether additional information about the 

environmental burdens of a product’s manufacture, use, and disposal can 

effectively shift consumer choices” (p. i) 

• “The general public’s awareness of the underlying issues is an important 

determinant of success for a labeling program” (p. ii) 

• “A labeling program will be most readily understood when it is part of a 

broader public information campaign” (p. ii)

• “Studies have shown that labels of any format have the potential to be poorly 

understood by consumers” (p. ii) 

• “Changing the behavior of a significant portion of consumers requires an 

integrated campaign to increase awareness, understanding and provide incentives 

for individuals to make the desired changes” (p. iii) 

• Summary of conclusions on p. iii: Without accurate, consistent information, 

people make up their own mind. 
7

4) National Consumers League. Naturally Misleading. 

• There is an abundance of claims regarding ‘natural’ in products, with different standards 

for different types of products. (p. 5) 

• “The FDA does not define or regulate the use of the word ‘natural’ on personal care or 

cosmetic products” (p.8) (Consumers may consider insect repellents to be a personal care 

product, and not realize that it is a pesticide.) 

5) GAO Report to Congress, 2009. (Dietary Supplements): 

• “Consumers are not well-informed about the safety, efficacy, and labeling of 

dietary supplements. ... a majority of adults are misinformed about the extent to 

which government regulates the safety of vitamins, minerals, and food 

supplements. According to [a 2002 Harris Poll], over half of respondents believed 

that dietary supplements are approved by a government agency.” (p. 32) 

• Labels as a whole are misunderstood: “In 2003, an analysis of 100 dietary 

supplement labels by the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of 

Inspector General found that the dietary supplement labels were limited in 

their ability to guide the informed and appropriate use of dietary 

supplements among consumers and often did not present information in a 

manner that facilitates consumer understanding.” (p. 32)

• Putting information on a labels ≠ informed use: “Weaknesses in the regulatory 

system may increase the likelihood of unsafe products reaching the market, and a 

lack of consumer knowledge increases the potential health risks associated with 

uninformed consumption.” (p. 34)

Potential implications for minimum-risk insect repellents: A disclaimer statement, 

particularly one that is not part of a broader information and education campaign, probably 

would not be understood even if noticed and remembered. 

Do people believe the statement / disclaimer? 

Summary of findings: 

• People arrive at a decision to purchase a product with certain beliefs. A disclaimer cannot 

change those beliefs 

• People believe labels when they confirm what they already know, not when they present 

new information 

o There are inherent beliefs regarding “natural”: positive, good, beneficial, safe. 

• When there are contradictory statements on a label, people believe the one that they want 

to believe 

o The source of the information may play a part in this 

• There are 5 probable reactions to reading a disclaimer on a product someone intends to 

purchase. None of these probable reactions includes believing the disclaimer 

Details: 

1) Mason, Scammon, and Fang, 2007. (“The Impact of Warnings, Disclaimers, and Product 

Experience on Consumers' Perceptions of Dietary Supplements”):

• “Two experiments explored the impact of disclosures (warning and disclaimer) and 

product experience (heavy, light, and nonusers) on consumers' perceptions of dietary 
8

supplements. In general, the government-mandated disclaimer did not impact 

consumers' beliefs about either the efficacy or the safety of dietary supplements; for 

most consumers, the disclaimer is unlikely to achieve its intended results. However, 

when product experience was examined, analyses show that heavy product users 

responded differently to the disclosures than did light product users and nonusers. Results 

point to the importance of understanding the influence of individual differences on the 

interpretation of product disclosures by specific consumer segments.” (p. 74)

2) FDA, 2005 (Working Paper, Strength of Science Disclaimers): 

• What do they already know? There is a “need to better understand the operating 

assumptions that influence consumers’ reactions to health claim statements and the way 

consumers’ assumptions and knowledge may affect their perceptions in this 

communication situation” (p. 34)

• People do not automatically believe label statements. 

o “The first task of the label reader is to judge whether a claim deserves trust.” 

(p. 38)

o People pay attention to and understand and believe labels when they confirm what 

they know – not when they present new information. 

o “Even when strength of science disclaimers were easier to comprehend (with the 

familiar communication device of report card grade) they did not show the 

intended effects. ... This communication failure would follow from 

consumers’ inaccurate prior assumptions about the scientific support for 

unqualified health claims.” (p. 34) 

o “These findings suggest that consumers’ prior beliefs about the certainty of 

science for a health claim are not easily supplanted by new information in the 

claim. These prior beliefs apparently play an important role in determining how 

consumers understand and respond to health claims.” (p. 36)

3) FDA, 1999. (Sunblock Final Monograph, FR Notice): 

• “When consumers see the term ‘sunscreen’ or similar sun protection terminology in the 

labeling of a product, they expect the product to protect them in some way from the 

harmful effects of the sun, irrespective of other labeling statements.” (p. 28204)

4) France and Bone, 2005. (“Policy makers' paradigms and evidence from consumer 

interpretations of dietary supplement labels”): 

• “The regulation of marketplace information regarding health and nutrition is in flux. 

Nowhere, perhaps, is this more evident than in the dietary supplement industry.... Our 

study suggests that a direct-effects consumer decision-making model does not apply in 

this context; instead, consumers process label claims through various biasing filters.”

(p. 27)

5) Redmond and Griffith, 2005. (“Consumer perceptions of food safety education sources: 

Implications for effective strategy development”): 

• “The public does not equally trust all sources of information about food safety and trust 

of information about food-related hazards may be an important determinant of public 

reaction to risk information. Indeed, it is considered that trust of information may be as 

an important determinant for effectiveness of information as the content of 

information itself.” (p. 467) 
9

What assumptions are people bringing to natural insect repellent labels? 

6) National Consumers League. Naturally Misleading. 

• Natural has the presumption of safe. Natural is attractive. 

o “In a January 2002 survey recently commissioned by NCL, 86 percent of the 

participants believed that products advertised or labeled as ‘natural’ were safe. 

Three out of four of those surveyed expected these ‘natural’ products to contain at 

least 90 percent natural ingredients.” (p. 4) 

o “In the focus groups, most respondents were positively predisposed to products 

with the ‘natural’ claim” (p. 5) 

o “When the focus groups were questioned about a ‘natural’ labeled product, many 

participants persisted in attributing safety benefits based on the natural claim. 

‘If it’s natural, it must be good,’ stated one participant.” (p. 5) 

• “The NCL survey revealed that the majority of the participants (64 percent) are very or 

somewhat confident that the claim of ‘natural’ accurately describes the ingredients and 

processes for that product.” (p. 5) 

6) GAO Report to Congress, 2009 (Dietary Supplements): 

• “Furthermore, during the course of our review, most experts we spoke with noted that, 

generally, consumers are not well-informed about the safety and efficacy of dietary 

supplements. These experts explained that many consumers believe various myths 

about dietary supplements. For example, consumers may believe that if a product is 

natural, it must be safe; if a little is good, than more must be better.” (p. 33)

People tend to understand what they want to, and may not believe label statements 

or disclaimers they disagree with. 

7) Mason and Scammon, 2000. (“Consumer perceptions of food safety education sources: 

Implications for effective strategy development”): 

• Different parts of the label have different effects on people: “Ford and colleagues 

(1996), when investigating the interaction of health claims and nutrition facts panels, 

found that the health claims and nutrition information on labeling had independent effects 

and that the claims affected consumers’ beliefs. The health claims significantly affected 

consumers’ health beliefs, even when contradicted by unfavorable or ambiguous 

nutrition information.” (p. 146)

• There are five common ways to interpret the FDA disclaimer on supplements (p. 147): 

1. Misread or misunderstand the disclaimer – sometimes understanding the opposite 

2. Rationalize or explain why it is there (“legal reasons,” “bureaucracy”) rather than 

think about what it means. 

3. Glad that the FDA is not involved (because of negative perception of the govt/FDA) 

4. Use it to make brand comparisons. Belief that disclaimer = more thorough company. 

5. Disregard it completely and assume that all products must meet a minimum standard 

or be checked (“the truth is anything that’s on the shelf has been checked by the FDA. 

It wouldn’t be there if it weren’t safe.”) 
10

o “First, several informants were unaware of the lack of substantiation of the 

health claims because they either had never read the disclaimer when 

purchasing supplements or had simply misread it and thought that the FDA 

had evaluated the health claims.” (p. 147) 

o “Second, when asked about the disclaimer, several informants appeared confused 

by it and tended to disregard or rationalize its meaning, explaining that it was 

just a bureaucratic or legal thing. For example, one 65-year-old male informant 

indicated that the disclaimer was there just because the FDA was too slow and 

had not yet had the opportunity to evaluate the claims. These informants only 

considered why the disclaimer might be on the label but not what it meant or 

its possible implications.” (p. 147)

o “Third, several informants were glad that the FDA was not involved. Rather than 

question what it meant that the health claims had not been evaluated, they saw it 

as a good thing that the FDA did not regulate supplements, because they feared 

that the agency would restrict access to such products.” (p. 147)

o “Fourth, some informants, recognizing that only some brands carried the label 

disclaimer, used its presence or absence to make brand comparisons. Because the 

disclosure is triggered by an affirmative claim, those supplements not making a 

claim do not need to carry the disclaimer.” (p. 147)

o “Last, even though our informants had read the disclaimer and we had explained 

its meaning, they still believed that the FDA evaluated supplements. For example, 

a 43-year-old female informant explained that though the disclaimer states the 

product has not been tested: ‘The truth is anything that’s on the shelf has been 

checked by the FDA. It wouldn’t be there if it weren’t safe.’” (p. 147)

Potential implications for minimum-risk insect repellents: People will likely use the context 

of a positive opinion of natural products when evaluating any disclaimer, and, thus, may not 

believe any claims that imply the product has not been tested, may not work, has limited utility, 

or may be harmful. 

Making an informed purchase decision 

Summary of findings: 

• Disclaimers on labels are not an effective way to influence consumers to use products more 

safely or in more appropriate ways 

• People will act only if they have serious concerns. A disclaimer provides information that 

may or may not become part of their risk-assessment decision, and may or may not lead 

them to informed action. 

Details: 

1) EPA OPPT, 1994 (Determinants of Effectiveness for Environmental Certification and Labeling 

Plan): 

• “Research suggests that a significant portion of consumers tend to ignore warning labels, 

and the consumers who do read labels often misinterpret their meanings. Other studies 

suggest that “few warning labels lead to appropriate responses by consumers” and 

“people act to mitigate a risk only if they think the risk is high enough to merit concern” 

(p. 28) (cited in Hadden 1991). 
11

2) Hadden, 1991 (“Regulating Product Risks Through Consumer Information”): 

• “Information policies have unconsidered side effects. First, their effectiveness rests on 

assumptions that people will read labels, understand them, and act on them. These 

assumptions are called into question by a wide range of experimental and field data. Second, 

information policies are generally regressive in impact. Consumers with fewer monetary 

resources typically also have fewer of the kind of resources needed to understand and use 

information” (p. 93) 

• “Understanding is only the prelude to acting. ... A small set of empirical studies support 

the inference that few warning labels lead to appropriate responses by consumers.” (p. 

99)

• A study of a nutrition label program “found that the program greatly increased people’s 

knowledge but scarcely affected their purchases. ... A large study in which additional risk 

information was provided to patients already taking prescription drugs for several different 

conditions showed that new information hardly changed patients; compliance with the drugtaking regiment ... these results demonstrate that people act to mitigate a risk only if they 

think the risk is high enough to merit concern.” (p. 99) 

• “Both research and cognitive theory call into question the accuracy of the assumption 

that people will read, understand, and act upon product warning information” (p. 100) 

• Groups disproportionately at risk: “People may trade time or money to reduce or avoid a risk 

of properly informed about it. However, if certain groups cannot use the information, they 

are systematically placed at higher risk” (p. 101). 

3) Eggers and Fischhoff, 2004. (“Setting Policies for Consumer Communications: A Behavioral 

Decision Research Approach”): 

• There is a difference between presenting clear instructions vs. additional 

information. Instructions may be followed, but additional information may not have 

an impact: “Most researchers believe that there is value in well-designed labels that 

concisely communicate a potential hazard. Studies of warnings focus on situations that 

have one correct response (e.g., not using hair dryers in the bathtub) rather than situations 

in which different choices might be best for different people (e.g., whether to use a 

supplement, whether to accept the risk of a beneficial product).” (p. 16) 

Successful statements / disclaimers have yet to be found: 

4) FDA 2009 (Public Hearing / Request for Comments on Use of Symbols to Communicate Nutrition 

Information): 

• FDA wants to know: “What is consumer interpretation of the co-existence of front-label 

nutrition symbols and nutrition symbols present on the tags of supermarket shelves, when 

available? When do consumers use symbols and what do they use them for? Do nutrition 

symbols on food labels direct consumers toward purchase of foods that bear them and, if 

so, to what extent?” (2007 request for comments) 

• What they found out (2009 memo summarizing comments): 

o Contradictory. 

 “As for possible influences of nutrition symbols on product choices, some 

comments observed increases in sales of products carrying symbols relative to 

sales of products carrying no symbols. Meanwhile, other comments cited research 

suggesting that nutrition symbols have only a limited influence on the frequency 

and quantity of consumption of products carrying such symbols. Comments also 

provided some information suggesting an association between the presence of 
12

nutrition symbols on food products, or purchase of symbol-carrying 

products, and higher intakes of certain nutrients or products. Yet other 

comments raised the possibility that nutrition symbols may have an 

insignificant role in actual purchase decisions.” (p. 3) 

o Two years after requesting comments, FDA still needs more information: 

 “Though the public hearing generated some information on consumer issues 

related to nutrition symbols, the public hearing produced little usable research or 

other information on the majority of consumer issues listed in the public hearing 

notice. Many of the questions asked in the public hearing notice remain 

unanswered ...While we do have a clearer understanding of the nutritional basis 

for many existing nutrition symbol programs and of the types of foods that bear 

nutrition symbols, there are many gaps in our understanding of consumer 

interpretation and use of such symbols.”

Potential implications for minimum-risk insect repellents: It is unlikely that a disclaimer on a 

minimum risk insect repellent product would bring about informed consumer decisions on how 

well such a product would meet each consumer’s needs. 

Sources: 

Eggers, Sara L. and Baruch Fischhoff. 2004. “Setting Policies for Consumer Communications: A 

Behavioral Decision Research Approach.” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 23(1): 14-27. 

EPA OPPT, 1994. Determinants of Effectiveness for Environmental Certification and Labeling Plan. 

April 1, 1994. EPA-742-R-94-001. Online through National Service Center for Environmental 

Publications (NSCEP): http://nepis.epa.gov 

EPA OPPTS, 1999. Consumer Labeling Initiative, 1996 – 1999. EPA 742-R-99-004. Online at 

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/labels/cli-research.htm 

FDA, 1999. Sunblock FR Notice: May 21, 1999: “Sunscreen Drug Products for Over-The-Counter 

Human Use; Final Monograph” Online at 

http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/DevelopmentResources/Over-theCounterOTCDrugs/StatusofOTCRulemakings/ucm072134.htm

FDA. 2005. Working Paper: Effects of Strength of Science Disclaimers on the Communication Impacts 

of Health Claims. Brenda Derby and Alan Levy. Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. 

September 2005. Online at: http://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/dockets/dockets/03N0496/03N-0496-

rpt0001.pdf 

FDA. 2009. Public Hearing / Request for Comments: Use of Symbols to Communicate Nutrition 

Information. July 19, 2007 and 2009. Online at www.regulations.gov Docket FDA-2007-N-0198 

(formerly Docket No. 2007N-0277) 

France, Karen Russo and Paula Fitzgerald Bone. 2005. “Policy makers' paradigms and evidence from 

consumer interpretations of dietary supplement labels” Journal of Consumer Affairs 39(1): 27-

51. 2005. 
13

GAO 2009. Report to Congress - Dietary Supplements: FDA Should Take Further Actions to Improve 

Oversight and Consumer Understanding on Dietary Supplements. 2009. GAO-09-250

Hadden, Susan G. 1991. “Regulating Product Risks Through Consumer Information.” Journal of Social 

Issues 47(1): 1991. p. 93-105 

HealthStyles 2008 (Porter Novelli Company. Data analysis available from EPA OPP) 

Mason, Marlys J. and Debra L. Scammon (2000), “Health Claims and Disclaimers: Extended 

Boundaries and Research Opportunities in Consumer Interpretation,” Journal of Public Policy & 

Marketing, 19 (Spring), 144-150. 

Mason, Marlys, Debra Scammon, and Xiang Fang. 2007. “The Impact of Warnings, Disclaimers, and 

Product Experience on Consumers' Perceptions of Dietary Supplements” Journal of Consumer 

Affairs, 41(1): 74-99. 2007. 

National Consumers League. Naturally Misleading. Online at: www.nclnet.org/naturalsreport.pdf 

Redmond, Elizabeth C. and Christopher J. Griffith. 2005. “Consumer perceptions of food safety 

education sources: Implications for effective strategy development.” British Food Journal, 

107(7): 467-483.