Jessica E. Todd 

Jayachandran N. Variyam

Economic

Research

Report

Number 63

August 2008

United States 

Department

of Agriculture

Economic

Research

Service

Jessica E. Todd 

Jayachandran N Variyam

The Decline in Consumer Use

of Food Nutrition Labels,

1995-2006
www.ers.usda.gov

You can find additional information about ERS publications, 

databases, and other products at our website.

Visit Our Website To Learn More!

National Agricultural Library

Cataloging Record:

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs 

and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and, where 

applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual 

orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an 

individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited 

bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means 

for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should 

contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). 

To file a complaint of discrimination write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 

Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 

(voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

www.ers.usda.gov

Photo credit: © 2008 Jupiterimages Corporation.

Use of commerical and trade names does not imply approval or constitute 

endorsement by USDA.

Recommended format for citation:

Todd, Jessica E., and Jayachandran N. Variyam. The Decline in Consumer Use of Food 

Nutrition Labels, 1995-2006, Economic Research Report No. 63, Economic Research 

Service, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, August 2008.

Todd, Jessica E.

 The decline in consumer use of food nutrition labels, 1995-

2006. 

 (Economic research report (United States. Dept. of Agriculture. Economic Research Service); no. 63)

 1. Food—Labeling—United States. 

 2. Consumer behavior—United States.

 3. Young consumers—United States. 

I. Variyam, Jayachandran N. II. United States. Dept. of Agriculture. Economic Research Service. III. Title.

TP374.5
United States

Department

of Agriculture

www.ers.usda.gov

A Report from the Economic Research Service

Abstract

This report examines changes in consumers’ use of nutrition labels on food packages between 1995-96 and 2005-06. The analysis fi nds that, although a majority of consumers 

report using nutrition labels when buying food, use has declined for most label components, including the Nutrition Facts panel and information about calories, fats, cholesterol, and sodium. By contrast, use of fi ber information has increased. The decline in label 

use is particularly marked for the cohort of adults less than 30 years old.

Keywords: Nutrition Facts panel, Nutrition Labeling and Education Act, nutrition label 

use, Diet and Health Knowledge Survey, National Health and Nutrition Examination 

Survey 

Acknowledgments

The authors appreciate reviewer comments received from Fred Kuchler, Economic Research Service (ERS); Conrad J. Choiniere, Food and Drug Administration (FDA); Lisa 

Szykman, College of William and Mary; and Mario F. Teisl, University of Maine. The 

authors also thank colleagues at ERS for their helpful comments and suggestions and 

Angela Anderson for editorial assistance and design.

Jessica E. Todd and Jayachandran N. Variyam

The Decline in Consumer Use

of Food Nutrition Labels, 

1995–2006

Economic

Research

Report

Number 63

August 2008
ii

The Decline in Consumer Use of Food Nutrition Labels, 1995–2006 / ERR-63

Economic Research Service/USDA

Contents

Summary .........................................................................................................iii

Introduction ......................................................................................................1

Economics of Label Use ..................................................................................3

Data ..................................................................................................................5

The Sample ..................................................................................................5

Measuring Label Use ...................................................................................7

Use of Nutrition Labels Is Changing Signifi cantly ..........................................8

Accounting for Demographic Changes ..........................................................11

Label Use Declining Among Young Adults ...................................................13

Discussion ......................................................................................................19

References ......................................................................................................22

Appendix tables .............................................................................................25
iii

The Decline in Consumer Use of Food Nutrition Labels, 1995–2006 / ERR-63 

Economic Research Service/USDA

Summary

Packaged and processed foods sold in the United States began carrying standardized nutrition labels in 1994 when the Nutrition Labeling and Education 

Act (NLEA) took effect. In addition to a standardized Nutrition Facts panel, 

the NLEA standardized serving sizes and placed limits on the content and 

format of health and nutrition claims on the front of packages. A major goal 

of the new labeling requirement was to increase access to nutrition information and improve consumers’ ability to make healthful food choices. 

What Is the Issue?

The current format of food 

nutrition labels and the 

informational campaign designed to educate consumers 

on their use are now over 

10 years old. Since NLEA 

took effect, technological 

change has introduced new 

sources of nutrition information and the consumption of 

food away from home has 

continued to increase. Such 

changes may have affected 

the usefulness to consumers 

of standardized nutrition information on food packages. The Food and Drug Administration is currently 

considering changes to the format and content of food nutrition labels to 

encourage increased use. This report examines how consumer use of nutrition labels changed over the decade following the standardization by looking 

at the trend in use of various nutrition label components as well as how the 

trend in use differs across a number of demographic groups. Understanding 

the changing pattern of nutrition label use in the United States 10 years after 

NLEA can help inform changes to nutrition labels and interventions aimed 

at increasing use. Insight from the U.S. experience may also be helpful to 

policymakers in other countries considering mandatory nutrition labeling to 

achieve public health goals. 

What Did the Study Find?

The study reveals that from 1995-96 to 2005-06, consumer use of nutrition 

labels when making food purchases declined. Consumer use decreased for 

most label components: it declined approximately 3 percentage points for the 

Nutrition Facts panel, 11 percentage points for the ingredient list, and 10 percentage points for the panel’s information about calories, fat, cholesterol, and 

sodium. Only the use of information about fi ber and sugars did not decline 

over the 10-year period. Use of fi ber information increased by 2 percentage 

points, while that for sugars held steady.

The change in use of the Nutrition Facts panel varied by population groups 

over the 10-year period. The decrease in use was greatest for individuals 

Source: USDA photo, Ken Hammond.
iv

The Decline in Consumer Use of Food Nutrition Labels, 1995–2006 / ERR-63

Economic Research Service/USDA

20-29 years old, those with no education beyond high school, and those who 

spoke primarily Spanish, a group that increased from 2 to 6 percent of the 

population over the 10-year period. 

Younger adults and new residents in the country were least likely to have 

benefi ted from the public awareness campaigns conducted just after the new 

labels were introduced, suggesting that decline in use by those cohorts could 

be due, in part, to a relative lack of knowledge or awareness. The decline in 

use observed among the rest of the population suggests some depreciation in 

the value of the information conveyed since the initial awareness campaigns 

occurred. 

The 2-percentage point increase in use of information about dietary fi ber was 

led by an increase among individuals over age 30. This increase in use may 

be the result of the increasing popularity of low-carb diets, interest in identifying whole grain foods, or an aging population that is more aware of dietary 

fi ber’s health benefi ts. 

How Was the Study Conducted?

Data from the Diet and Health Knowledge Survey, a supplement to the 

1994-1996 Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals, as well as 

from the Diet Behavior and Nutrition module of the 2005-2006 National 

Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, were used to examine the change 

in label use over time. Although questions related to nutrition label use were 

similar in the two surveys, care was taken to ensure that the data were comparable for the analysis. 

Probit regression techniques were used, as appropriate, for binary outcome 

variables to test whether the observed changes in use remained signifi cant 

once the changes in the demographic composition of the United States over 

the 10-year period were accounted for and to test for differences in the 

change in use across population groups defi ned by characteristics such as 

age, gender, race, and education. The results from the probit regressions were 

also used to estimate mean changes in label use, as well as for different population subgroups, when controlling for demographic characteristics.
1

The Decline in Consumer Use of Food Nutrition Labels, 1995–2006 / ERR-63 

Economic Research Service/USDA

Introduction

Since May 1994, most packaged and processed foods sold in the United 

States have displayed a standard Nutrition Facts label. The label provides 

information on the amount and percent of daily value per serving of calories, 

saturated fat, dietary fi ber, and other major nutrients, vitamins, and minerals. Providing nutrition information in a standardized format was triggered 

by the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA), which was signed into 

law in November 1990. The act authorized the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to regulate nutrition labeling, health claims, and nutrient content 

claims for most packaged foods, fi sh, and fresh fruits and vegetables. While 

not covered by the NLEA, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) 

Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) instituted a parallel set of regulations for the labeling of meat and poultry products. Under FSIS’s regulations, 

all multi-ingredient and processed meat and poultry products must carry the 

Nutrition Facts panel. For single-ingredient raw meat and poultry products, a 

voluntary labeling program is in effect.

A major goal of the new nutrition labeling regulations was to help consumers 

make more healthful food choices through better access to credible nutrition information (Taylor and Wilkening, 2008). The standardized nutrition 

information displayed in the Nutrition Facts label was expected to enable 

consumers to fi nd information quickly, compare products, and to choose 

healthful foods. By many measures, the new labeling rules enforced by the 

FDA and FSIS have been successful in providing credible and consistent nutrition information to consumers. While only 60 percent of FDA-regulated 

food products carried some type of food label in 1990, 96 percent carried the 

Nutrition Facts panel in 1996 (Brecher et al., 2000). FDA’s 2002 Health and 

Diet Survey showed that nearly 70 percent of adults used the nutrition label 

when shopping for food (FDA, 2004). According to USDA’s Diet and Health 

Knowledge Survey, nearly 81 percent of consumers who used labels in 

1995-96 reported that they made better food choices as a result. Using data 

gathered before and after NLEA’s implementation, Moorman (1996) found 

that the new labels helped consumers acquire and comprehend more nutrition 

information. 

While nutrition labels are ubiquitous and widely used today, there are good 

reasons to assess whether or not mandatory nutrition labeling is meeting a 

central goal of helping consumers to improve their diet and health outcomes. 

The diets of most Americans continue to fall short of dietary recommendations, and obesity has been increasing among all segments of the U.S. population. Moreover, the percentage of label users stagnated between 65 and 70 

percent in the years immediately following NLEA (Variyam and Cawley, 

2006). These concerns are discussed in a 2004 report from the FDA’s Obesity 

Working Group, which recommended a variety of steps to encourage more 

individuals to use nutrition labels when making food purchases (FDA, 2004). 

In response to the Obesity Working Group’s recommendations, FDA requested public comments on whether giving more prominence to the declaration of calories per serving would increase consumer awareness of the caloric 

content of packaged food and whether providing a percent daily value for 

total calories would help consumers understand caloric content in the context 

of a 2,000-calorie diet (FDA, 2005).
2

The Decline in Consumer Use of Food Nutrition Labels, 1995–2006 / ERR-63

Economic Research Service/USDA

In September 2007, the FDA held a public hearing to assess the use of symbols on the front of food packages to better communicate nutrition information. Consumer studies in the United Kingdom found that color-coded “traffi c 

light” symbols on packaged processed foods that indicated high, medium, 

or low levels for a few specifi c nutrients, such as sugars, fat, and sodium, 

helped consumers make more healthful food choices (Hignett, 2007). In addition, FSIS proposed new rules requiring nutrition labeling for raw, ground, 

or chopped meat and poultry products, which are presently under a voluntary 

labeling regime (USDA, 2001).

This report examines nutrition label use in 2005-2006 and how it has 

changed since standardized labels were introduced in 1994. The report also 

examines how use of specifi c elements, such as the Nutrition Facts panel, 

health claims, serving size, and nutrient information, such as calories, fat, 

and fi ber, has changed over time. Further, the report provides a detailed look 

at sociodemographic factors associated with the changing patterns of label 

use. By identifying overall and group trends in nutrition label use, this study 

will inform policymakers and program developers currently working on interventions to increase label use by highlighting groups that may benefi t most 

from targeted programs. There is widespread interest in the formulation of 

nutrition labeling strategies at the international level as well. Following the 

release of the World Health Organization’s Global Strategy on Diet, Physical 

Activity and Health, a growing number of countries are implementing nutrition labeling regulations to achieve a public health goal to improve diets and 

reduce obesity (Hawkes, 2004). Insight from the U.S. experience may help 

other countries plan strategies to encourage nutrition label use. 
3

The Decline in Consumer Use of Food Nutrition Labels, 1995–2006 / ERR-63 

Economic Research Service/USDA

Economics of Label Use

Food labels provide information about the nutrient content of foods and the 

ingredients used for preparation. Labels may also include additional information in the form of qualifi ed claims about the nutrient content, such as 

“low-fat” or the relationship between a nutrient (or the food) and a disease 

or health-related condition (e.g., fat and heart health). This information can 

make it easier for consumers to improve the nutritional quality of their diet 

by identifying foods low in calories, fat, and sodium or rich in dietary fi ber, 

vitamins, and minerals. Investigation of the determinants of label use often 

starts with Stigler’s (1961) model of information search as a framework. The 

basic premise of Stigler’s model is that individuals choose how much information to obtain (and process) based on the costs and expected benefi ts of the 

information search and processing. 

Many factors specifi c to the individual may infl uence both the costs and 

benefi ts of nutrition information search. Time is the main cost of obtaining 

and processing a food’s nutritional information. Individuals face varying opportunity costs of time, which are determined by the individual’s wage and 

employment status, education and nutrition knowledge, and family structure. 

The benefi ts of nutrition information, which come in the form of improved 

diet quality and better health outcomes, also vary across individuals depending on how much they value their health, their current health status, and their 

ability to process the information obtained. 

In contrast to time costs, the benefi ts are often not fully realized until well 

into the future, as it is not the single poor food choice that results in nutritionrelated morbidities, but a long history of poor food choices. Thus, the benefi ts 

of nutrition information will vary as the discount rate for future benefi ts varies across individuals. Moreover, the benefi ts of obtaining information about 

any particular food within a specifi c food group/type are greater when the 

variability in nutrient content is high among the choice set.1 In sum, label use 

is determined by the expected net benefi t, which is likely a function of age, 

gender, education, employment status, current health status, knowledge about 

nutrition and health, as well as other factors that affect an individual’s value 

of time, rate of discount of future health, and ability to process and use nutrition information to make healthful food choices. 

Many studies have examined the sociodemographic determinants of label use 

in the United States, fi nding that age, gender, and education are important 

factors. Specifi cally, women and more educated individuals, as well as those 

with special diet concerns or a high awareness of the relationship between 

diet and health, are most likely to use nutrition labels. The infl uence of other 

factors such as income, employment, and household size is less clear, as both 

positive and negative effects have been found in the literature (see Drichoutis 

et al. (2006) for a review of studies examining the determinants of label use). 

Other studies have examined how label use affects food purchases and overall diet quality (Hawkes, 2004). While a positive relationship between a more 

healthful diet and label use is often found, it is diffi cult to separate the effect 

of label use from an individual’s motivation for choosing a more healthful 

diet, because individuals with special dietary needs or health and nutrition 

concerns (and thus, better diets in general) are more likely to use nutrition 

labels. In the present study, we use a detailed set of sociodemographic char1Stigler (1961) makes this point about 

the search for the lowest selling price 

for a particular good.
4

The Decline in Consumer Use of Food Nutrition Labels, 1995–2006 / ERR-63

Economic Research Service/USDA

acteristics to capture the different incentives that people face in their decision 

to use labels. We then examine how the effects of these factors on label use 

have changed over the 10 years following the introduction of mandatory nutrition labels.
5

The Decline in Consumer Use of Food Nutrition Labels, 1995–2006 / ERR-63 

Economic Research Service/USDA

Data

Our label use data come from USDA’s 1994-96 Diet and Health Knowledge Survey (DHKS) and the Diet Behavior and Nutrition module of the 

2005-2006 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). 

The DHKS was a supplementary survey administered to one adult over 20 

years of age from each household, who also responded to the 1994-96 Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals. The DHKS gathered information on the respondents’ nutrition knowledge and attitudes, as well as their 

use of nutrition labels. The NHANES is conducted by the National Center 

for Health Statistics (NCHS) and, in 2005-06, included questions on dietary 

behavior and nutrition label use. Both the 1994-96 DHKS and the 2005-06 

NHANES collected information about how often an individual used the Nutrition Facts panel, the ingredient list, serving size information, and health 

claims on food packages when purchasing food, as well as use of specifi c 

components on the Nutrition Facts panel (e.g., calories, fat, and fi ber) among 

label users. The surveys also collected comparable information on family 

and sociodemographic characteristics of the respondents. Public-use fi les 

provide detailed documentation of these surveys (Tippett and Cypel, 1998; 

NCHS, 2007).

The Sample

NHANES collected label use information from individuals age 16 and above, 

but we limit our sample to individuals 20 and older because the DHKS was 

administered only to adults 20 and older. Since standardized labels became 

mandatory in the middle of 1994, we include only the DHKS respondents 

from 1995 and 1996 in our study. Some observations were dropped from 

each sample because the individual’s education level was missing or unknown (35 from DHKS and 8 from NHANES), while an additional 54 individuals were dropped from NHANES because the interview was conducted 

via proxy and information on label use was not collected. The resulting fi nal 

sample includes a total of 8,768 individuals: 3,851 from the DHKS (will be 

referred to hereafter as 1995-96) and 4,917 from the NHANES (will be referred to hereafter as 2005-06). 

Changes in demographic characteristics of the U.S. population may contribute to observed differences in label use if those characteristics are important 

determinants of label use. We therefore begin by comparing individual characteristics across the two surveys. Our comparison is limited to individual 

and household characteristics that appear in both surveys: 

• Age (measured in years with a maximum recorded value of 85)

• Gender

• Race (categorized as non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, and Other)

• Education (categorized as less than a high school diploma, high 

school graduate, 1-3 years of college, and 4 years or more of college)

• Survey language (an indicator for whether the interview was conducted in Spanish instead of English)

• Household size (the only household characteristic commonly available is household size, which has a maximum recorded value of 

seven members)2

2 Income is another commonly included 

variable in studies on label use. Both 

surveys include a variable that measures the poverty-to-income ratio (PIR), 

but the two measures are not consistent 

across both surveys. The 1995-96 survey includes the household PIR while 

the 2005-06 survey includes the family 

PIR. A family is a subset of the entire 

household when nonrelated individuals 

also reside in the household. Approximately 11 percent of individuals in the 

sample live in households that include 

nonrelated individuals. Thus, to make 

the PIRs comparable, these individuals would need to be dropped from the 

sample. Approximately 5 percent of the 

2005-06 sample has missing values for 

the family PIR as respondents refused 

to report family income, requiring that 

either these observations be dropped or 

the PIR be imputed. Our main fi ndings, 

however, do not change when the PIR 

is included as a control variable (not 

reported). 
6

The Decline in Consumer Use of Food Nutrition Labels, 1995–2006 / ERR-63

Economic Research Service/USDA

Table 1 presents summary statistics for these demographic characteristics 

separately for each survey, as well as p-values from tests of the difference in 

means between the two surveys. The comparison suggests that some shifts 

in the demographic characteristics of the U.S. population occurred over the 

10-year period. Average age increased by approximately a year, resulting 

from an increase in the share of the population over age 40. Education levels 

also appear to have increased slightly; a larger proportion of the population 

obtained at least some college education after completing high school. The 

proportion that was interviewed in Spanish tripled, from 2 percent in 1995-96 

to 6 percent in 2005-06. Despite these changes in individual characteristics, 

the average household size remained constant, at just under three members. 

Table 1

Sample means of individual and household characteristics, by survey

Characteristic 1995–96 2005–06 Test 

 of difference 

 (p-value)

Age 45.26 46.39 0.172

20–29 years old 20% 19% 0.292

30–39 years old 23% 19% 0.007

40–49 years old 19% 21% 0.094

50–59 years old 15% 18% 0.007

60 + years old 22% 23% 0.864

Born 1976–1985 0% 19% 0.000

Born 1966–1975 20% 19% 0.354

Born 1956–1965 23% 21% 0.211

Born 1945–1946 19% 18% 0.266

Born 1936–1945 15% 11% 0.000

Born prior to 1936 22% 12% 0.000

Male 48% 48% 0.879

White 76% 72% 0.286

Black 11% 11% 0.980

Hispanic 9% 11% 0.311

Less than HS diploma 15% 18% 0.142

HS graduate 33% 25% 0.000

Some college 25% 31% 0.000

4+ years college 27% 26% 0.850

Interviewed in Spanish 2% 6% 0.004

Household size 2.93 2.94 0.863

Observations 3,851 4,917

 

Notes: HS=high school; weighted means; annual weights used for 1995-96, 2-year 

weights for 2005-06; p-values account for survey design.

Source: ERS calculations using data from the 1995-96 Diet and Health Knowledge 

Survey and 2005-06 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.
7

The Decline in Consumer Use of Food Nutrition Labels, 1995–2006 / ERR-63 

Economic Research Service/USDA

Measuring Label Use

In this section, we defi ne the measures of nutrition label use that we analyzed 

and document adjustments that we made to ensure that those measures were 

consistent across the two surveys. Although the 2005-06 survey asked questions about label use that were similar to those in the 1995-96 survey, there 

are a few differences in the way the questions were posed, the order of the 

questions, or the allowed response categories. Both surveys asked how frequently the individual used the Nutrition Facts panel, the ingredient list, the 

serving size information, or health claims on food packages when making 

food purchases. However, there were slight differences in how the question about the Nutrition Facts panel was posed. In 1995-96, the question 

was worded, “When you buy foods, do you use the nutrition panel that tells 

the amount of calories, protein, fat, and such in a serving of the food often, 

sometimes, rarely, or never?” In 2005-06, however, the individual was shown 

an example of the Nutrition Facts panel and then asked, “How often do you 

use the Nutrition Facts panel when deciding to buy a food product? Would 

you say always, most of the time, sometimes, rarely, or never?” Individuals 

were also shown an example of a health claim on a food package when asked 

about frequency of use in 2005-06, but not in 1995-96. Given that the questions were similar, but not identical, differences in the use of the Nutrition 

Facts panel and health claims on packages should be interpreted cautiously. 

Another difference in the two surveys is the response categories for the frequency of label use; in 2005-06, respondents had an additional allowable 

response. In our analysis, “Always” and “Often” responses are combined 

in the 2005-06 data for comparability to the 1995-96 response category of 

“Always/Often.” We also created a binary “Regular Label Use” variable by 

combining the “Always/Often” and “Sometimes” categories to identify label 

users and the “Rarely” and “Never” categories to identify label nonusers. 

“Never Seen” and “Don’t Know” responses were coded as “Never”; less than 

2 percent of the population reported having never seen nutrition labels in 

both 1995-96 and 2005-06. Such a “Regular Label Use” binary indicator is 

consistent with many other studies on label use (Guthrie et al., 1995; Kristal 

et al., 1998; Neuhouser et al., 1999; Pérez-Escamilla and Haldeman, 2002; 

Variyam and Cawley, 2006).3

A fi nal point concerns differences in the way the two surveys were administered. The 1995-96 survey was administered via telephone, while the 

2005-06 was conducted in person with mockup cards as prompts. The visual 

clues and prompting used in the 2005-06 survey may affect reported use, thus 

the estimated change in use may be biased by this difference. This needs to 

be kept in mind when interpreting the results. We do not, however, expect 

any bias introduced by the change in survey format to vary across population 

subgroups.

3An alternative approach would be to 

look at any use by counting only those 

who reported never having used a label 

or nutrient information as nonusers, 

similar to Kim et al. (2000). We also 

constructed indicators of “any use”; 

these are summarized and compared 

in appendix table 1. Differences in use 

across time are generally larger, as suggested by the tabulations of frequency 

of use (tables 2 and 3). Studies have 

also used the ordinal measure of frequency of label use (see Nayga, 1996, 

2000; Nayga et al., 1998). 
8

The Decline in Consumer Use of Food Nutrition Labels, 1995–2006 / ERR-63

Economic Research Service/USDA

Use of Nutrition Labels 

Is Changing Signifi cantly

A decade has passed since standardized nutrition labels were introduced, and 

there have been marked changes in their use. Table 2 summarizes the responses for each of the four major label components along with the F statistic testing the null hypotheses that the distributions of responses are equal in the two 

periods.4 In all cases, the differences in the distributions are statistically signifi cant (p<0.01), suggesting that there has been a shift in the pattern of label 

use between 1995-96 and 2005-06. Most notably, the percentage of consumers 

who reported never using the label increased between 1995-96 and 2005-06 for 

the four major label components: Nutrition Facts panel by 5 percentage points, 

serving size by 9 percentage points, and both ingredient list and health claims 

by 11 percentage points. The share of the population that reported using these 

label components “sometimes” decreased between 1995-96 and 2005-06. The 

proportion reporting frequent use (always/often) increased for the Nutrition 

Facts panel and serving size, decreased for health claims, and remained constant for the ingredient list. 

Individuals who reported using some type of nutrition information when 

making food purchases, even if rarely, were asked how frequently they 

looked for information about certain nutrients: calories, total fat, saturated 

fat, cholesterol, sodium, fi ber, and sugars.5 Table 3 presents tabulations of 

the proportion reporting the use of information on these seven nutrients. All 

distributions are signifi cantly different between 1995-96 and 2005-06 (p < 

0.001). For each nutrient, the proportion that reported never using increased 

and, except for fi ber and sugar, the proportion that reported frequent use decreased between 1995-96 and 2005-06.

Figure 1 consolidates the information in tables 2 and 3 by presenting the 

proportion reporting regular use (always/often/sometimes) of the different 

5 Use of label information on other 

types of nutrients was also collected, 

but not in both surveys. The 1995-96 

survey also asked about vitamins and 

minerals, while the 2005-06 survey also 

asked about calories from fat, trans fat, 

and carbohydrates.

4 The Chi-squared statistic is converted 

to an F statistic to correct for the survey 

design using a second-order Rao and 

Scott (1981, 1984) correction (StataCorp, 2007).

Table 2

Frequency of use of nutrition labels, by survey (weighted) 

Nutrition Facts panel Ingredient list 

F(2.77, 160.48) = 12.7986 P = 0.0000 F(2.89, 167.60) = 25.4006 P = 0.0000

 1995–96 2005–06 1995–96 2005–06

Never 22% 27% Never 21% 32%

Rarely 13% 10% Rarely 16% 16%

Sometimes 30% 23% Sometimes 35% 25%

Always/often 35% 39% Always/often 27% 27%

Serving size Health claims 

F(2.73, 158.39) = 22.9368 P = 0.0000 F(2.83, 164.32) = 20.9801 P = 0.0000

Never 29% 38% Never 26% 37%

Rarely 20% 14% Rarely 20% 18%

Sometimes 28% 21% Sometimes 33% 28%

Always/often 23% 27% Always/often 21% 17%

Note: F statistic converted from the Chi-squared statistic to correct for the survey design using a second-order Rao and Scott 

(1981, 1984) correction (StataCorp 2007).

Source: ERS calculations using data from the 1995-96 Diet and Health Knowledge Survey and 2005-06 National Health and 

Nutrition Examination Survey.
9

The Decline in Consumer Use of Food Nutrition Labels, 1995–2006 / ERR-63 

Economic Research Service/USDA

types of label information in 1995-96 and 2005-06. The asterisk in the chart 

shows whether the differences in the responses between the two periods are 

statistically signifi cant. Sixty-two percent of adults reported regular use of 

the Nutrition Facts panel when shopping for food in 2005-06. This is a decline of about 3 percentage points from 1995-96, although the change is not 

statistically signifi cant (p = 0.168). By comparison, Variyam and Cawley 

(2006) reported 67 percent regular label use in 1998. FDA’s estimates suggest a slight decline in regular use from 70 percent in 1994 to 69 percent in 

2002 (FDA, 2004). 

Figure 1 also shows that regular label use has signifi cantly declined for the 

ingredient list, health claims, and all nutrients (p < 0.05) except for fi ber and 

sugars. The decline in regular use is as high as 10 percentage points (ingredient list), although the percent decrease is greatest for health claims (17.2 

percent). One positive fi nding is that, among those who use nutrition label 

information at all when shopping, regular use of fi ber content information 

increased 4 percentage points (an increase of 7.3 percent from 1995-96). 

Table 3 

Frequency of use of specifi c nutrient information, by survey 

Calories Salt/sodium 

F(2.70, 156.86) = 15.4649 P = 0.0000 F(2.94, 170.68) = 23.2938 P = 0.0000

 1995–96 2005–06 1995–96 2005–06

Never 9% 17% Never 12% 22%

Rarely 15% 14% Rarely 22% 19%

Sometimes 33% 28% Sometimes 30% 25%

Always/often 43% 41% Always/often 36% 34%

 

Total fat Fiber 

F(2.79, 161.61) = 15.9375 P = 0.0000 F(2.91, 168.94) = 50.8353 P = 0.0000

Never 8% 15% Never 16% 24%

Rarely 13% 13% Rarely 30% 19%

Sometimes 29% 26% Sometimes 34% 27%

Always/often 50% 46% Always/often 19% 31%

 

Saturated fat Sugars 

F(2.91, 168.61) = 21.5692 P = 0.0000 F(2.84, 164.54) = 27.2145 P = 0.0000

Never 12% 21% Never 12% 18%

Rarely 18% 17% Rarely 24% 17%

Sometimes 29% 24% Sometimes 33% 27%

Always/often 41% 38% Always/often 31% 38%

Cholesterol 

F(2.84, 164.96) = 24.3712 P = 0.0000 

Never 12% 23% 

Rarely 20% 18% 

Sometimes 30% 24% 

Always/often 37% 35% 

Note: F statistic converted from the Chi-squared statistic to correct for the survey 

design using a second-order Rao and Scott (1981, 1984) correction (StataCorp 

2007).

Source: ERS calculations using data from the 1995-96 Diet and Health Knowledge 

Survey and 2005-06 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.
10

The Decline in Consumer Use of Food Nutrition Labels, 1995–2006 / ERR-63

Economic Research Service/USDA

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Nutrition 

Facts panel

Serving 

size

Ingredients

Health 

claims

Calories

Total fat

Saturated 

fat

Cholesterol

Sodium

Fiber

Sugars

Figure 1

Regular use of nutrition label has declined for many types of label information

Notes: For nutrients, the proportions were calculated on a subset of individuals that report any use of the Nutrition Facts panel, the serving size 

information, ingredient list, and/or health claims. *indicates statistically significant change at the 5-percent level in the proportion reporting regular 

label use from 1995-96 to 2005-06.

Source: ERS calculations using data from the 1995-96 Diet and Health Knowledge Survey and 2005-06 National Health and Nutrition

and Examination Survey.

Adults over age 20 reporting regular use

1995-96 2005-06

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*
11

The Decline in Consumer Use of Food Nutrition Labels, 1995–2006 / ERR-63 

Economic Research Service/USDA

Accounting for Demographic Changes

While our results indicate that use of nutrition information on food packages has decreased over the 10 years after standardized nutrition labels became mandatory, some of the decline may have been driven by demographic 

changes. As indicated in table 1, the demographic composition of the United 

States underwent some signifi cant changes over the 10-year period. To test 

whether these demographic changes explain the observed changes in use, 

we estimate probit models for each of the binary indicators of regular label 

use described previously using pooled data from 1995-96 and 2005-06 of the 

form:

Pr(y = 1) = Φ (Xβ + γT) (1)

In equation 1, T is a dummy variable indicating whether the observation was 

from the 2005-06 period and X is a set of controls listed in table 1 comprised 

of gender, age/birth cohort dummies, education, ethnicity, survey language, 

and household size. A statistically signifi cant coeffi cient on T (γ) indicates 

that, even after controlling for demographic characteristics, there was a 

signifi cant change in label use over the 10-year period. The estimated coeffi cients, however, cannot be directly interpreted in terms of the magnitude 

of the change in use. For ease of interpretation, we use the coeffi cients from 

equation 1 to calculate the marginal effect, which estimates the magnitude of 

change in the probability of use over time. 

Since the population’s age is likely to be an important factor affecting overall 

label use, we control for age in two ways. First, we use 10-year age group 

dummies, which models the probability of use in terms of an individual’s 

age at the time of the survey.6 Secondly, we replace age group dummies with 

10-year birth year cohort dummies and drop those born between 1976 and 

1985 (20-29 years old in 2005) from the analysis. By excluding adults born 

after 1975, we isolate the population surveyed in 1995-96 and most likely 

to be directly exposed to the awareness and education campaign at the time 

the new labels were introduced. If the campaign had any lasting effects on 

use, we would expect the change in use over the period for this subsample to 

differ from that of the entire population which includes the youngest adult 

cohort. 

Equation 1 allows for an estimate of the mean change in the probability of 

use between 1995-96 and 2005-06, controlling for demographic changes. 

We also test whether changes in label use vary across population subgroups 

by expanding equation 1 to include interactions of each set of characteristics 

(e.g., age groups, education, ethnicity, and gender) with T:

Pr(y = 1) = Φ (Xβ + γT + (T * X)φ (2)

We refer to equation 2 as the full interaction model. In this model, the signifi -

cance of γ indicates whether there was a change in use over the survey period 

for the individuals represented by the omitted categories in the demographic 

controls. For the full sample, the omitted categories include individuals age 

20-29, females, those with a high school diploma, self-identifi ed as White, 

and those surveyed in English. The estimated coeffi cients on the interaction terms (φ) indicate whether the change in use differed for individuals 

6Specifi cations were also run with age 

in years and its square; the estimated 

coeffi cients on the 2005-06 indicator 

were similar to those estimated with the 

age-group dummy variables. 
12

The Decline in Consumer Use of Food Nutrition Labels, 1995–2006 / ERR-63

Economic Research Service/USDA

with other characteristics. This is equivalent to testing whether the effects 

of demographic characteristics that predict label use have changed over the 

10-year period. Identifying whether changes in label use vary across population groups can help policymakers design and implement interventions and 

education campaigns to increase label use and nutrition awareness. From the 

results of this expanded model, we estimate the change in label use for different age groups, education levels, race, and other characteristics. 
13

The Decline in Consumer Use of Food Nutrition Labels, 1995–2006 / ERR-63 

Economic Research Service/USDA

Label Use Declining Among Young Adults

Table 4 reports the coeffi cients for equation 1 estimated for regular use of 

the Nutrition Facts panel, the serving size information, the ingredient list, 

and health claims. Column (a) reports results for the full sample when age 

is controlled for with age group dummy variables, while column (b) reports 

results for the subset of individuals born prior to 1976 when age is controlled 

for with birth year cohort indicators. In the fi rst specifi cation (column a), the 

coeffi cient on the 2005-06 indicator is negative and signifi cant for all four 

outcomes, suggesting that label use declined over the period. The signifi -

cance level is much lower for the Nutrition Facts panel and the serving size 

information (p<0.10) than for the ingredient list and health claims (p<0.001). 

When the sample is restricted to those born prior to 1976 and age group dummy variables are replaced with birth year cohort dummy variables, no signifi -

cant difference is found for regular use of the Nutrition Facts panel and the 

serving size information. This suggests that the decrease in use of these two 

label components observed in the full sample may be driven by a decrease in 

use among individuals in the 20- to 29-year age group.

The results confi rm that label use varies across individuals. Older individuals 

are more likely to use food labels regularly, especially the ingredient list and 

health claims. This fi nding is consistent with the hypothesis that older individuals have the potential to gain more from the health benefi ts of nutritional 

information. Other researchers, however, have found a negative association 

between age and label use (Drichoutis et al., 2006). Consistent with previous 

research (Guthrie et al., 1995; Nayga, 1996), our results indicate that men are 

less likely to use food labels, while individuals with more education are more 

likely to use them regularly. Race/ethnicity does not infl uence the probability 

of regular use of food labels, with the exception that Blacks and Hispanics 

are more likely to refer to health claims than Whites. The results suggest 

that there is no difference in the probability of regular use among individuals 

for whom the survey was conducted in Spanish, while individuals in larger 

households are less likely to refer to the ingredient list regularly (a result also 

found by Drichoutis et al., 2005). 

Our fi ndings are similar when we re-estimate equation 1 for regular use of information about fi ve nutritional components (calories, total fat, saturated fat, 

cholesterol, and sodium), although the coeffi cient on the 2005-06 indicator is 

insignifi cant in the (b) specifi cation for sodium (results reported in appendix 

tables 2 and 3). Interestingly, use of fi ber and sugar information is estimated 

to have increased among individuals born prior to 1976, while no change is 

estimated for the full sample (app. table 3). 

The probit coeffi cient estimates in table 4 cannot be directly interpreted in 

terms of the magnitude of the change in label use over the period. For this, 

we turn to the estimated changes in the probability of use (or the marginal 

effects) computed using the probit coeffi cients. Table 5 reports the change in 

probability of label use in 2005-06 compared with 1995-96 after controlling 

for demographic characteristics. Estimates for both (a) and (b) specifi cations, 

along with the unconditional differences in use observed across the period, 

are reported. One striking result that emerges from table 5 is that, except for 

fi ber and sugars, the marginal effects calculated from the specifi cation estimated on the full sample with age group controls (a) are larger in magnitude 
14

The Decline in Consumer Use of Food Nutrition Labels, 1995–2006 / ERR-63

Economic Research Service/USDA

Table 4

Probit results for regular use of Nutrition Facts panel, serving size, ingredient list, 

and health claims (coeffi cients reported)

 Nutrition Facts Serving size Ingredient list Health claims

 (a) (b) (a) (b) (a) (b) (a) (b)

T (2005–06) -0.0771* -0.0000 -0.0895* -0.0342 0.2861*** 0.1664*** 0.2487*** 0.1994***

 (0.0436) (0.0457) (0.0476) (0.0517) (0.0440) (0.0456) (0.0437) (0.0463)

30–39 years old 0.1240 0.0978 0.3743*** 0.0736 

 (0.0932) (0.0861) (0.0833) (0.0805) 

40–49 years old 0.1715** 0.1789** 0.4398*** 0.1391* 

 (0.0846) (0.0686) (0.0757) (0.0782) 

50–59 years old 0.3369*** 0.1767** 0.5482*** 0.1834** 

 (0.0752) (0.0765) (0.0702) (0.0737) 

60 + years old 0.1509 0.1347 0.4495*** 0.1990*** 

 (0.0986) (0.0839) (0.0762) (0.0724) 

Born 1956–1965 0.0978 0.0960 0.3172*** 0.1041

 (0.0917) (0.0872) (0.0834) (0.0814)

Born 1946–1955 0.1059 0.0907 0.3171*** 0.1251

 (0.0860) (0.0721) (0.0771) (0.0837)

Born 1936–1945 0.2705*** 0.1839** 0.4591*** 0.2496***

 (0.0815) (0.0814) (0.0750) (0.0726)

Born prior to 1936 0.0154 0.0327 0.2943*** 0.1434*

 (0.1115) (0.0954) (0.0876) (0.0814)

Male 0.6465*** 0.6607*** 0.4866*** 0.4873*** 0.4870*** 0.4999*** 0.4412*** 0.4329***

 (0.0468) (0.0509) (0.0352) (0.0378) (0.0390) (0.0410) (0.0469) (0.0499)

Black -0.0841 -0.0883 0.0659 0.0587 0.0965 0.0906 0.1283** 0.1260*

 (0.0554) (0.0594) (0.0708) (0.0761) (0.0672) (0.0716) (0.0614) (0.0666)

Hispanic -0.0501 -0.0928 -0.0232 -0.0471 0.0853 0.0363 0.2002** 0.1805**

 (0.0715) (0.0781) (0.0778) (0.0840) (0.0769) (0.0789) (0.0843) (0.0899)

Other -0.1044 -0.1340 -0.1296 -0.1554 -0.0015 -0.0374 -0.1671 -0.1574

 (0.1230) (0.1273) (0.1034) (0.1086) (0.1372) (0.1439) (0.1088) (0.1130)

9–11 grade 0.3805*** 0.3764*** 0.2772*** 0.2678*** 0.2193*** 0.2166*** 0.3632*** 0.3617***

 (0.0674) (0.0705) (0.0516) (0.0540) (0.0666) (0.0721) (0.0781) (0.0827)

Less than 

 4 years college 0.3099*** 0.2974*** 0.1685*** 0.1554*** 0.2324*** 0.2253*** 0.1559** 0.1542**

 (0.0428) (0.0463) (0.0443) (0.0465) (0.0567) (0.0611) (0.0599) (0.0625)

4+ years college 0.5250*** 0.5038*** 0.3046*** 0.2996*** 0.3901*** 0.3895*** 0.1903*** 0.1744**

 (0.0581) (0.0624) (0.0538) (0.0581) (0.0668) (0.0692) (0.0633) (0.0662)

Questionnaire 

 in Spanish 0.0640 0.0714 0.0678 0.0833 -0.0103 0.0237 -0.0640 -0.0144

 (0.1286) (0.1442) (0.1317) (0.1481) (0.1293) (0.1348) (0.1180) (0.1260)

Household size -0.0222 -0.0231 -0.0072 -0.0070 -0.0350** -0.0372** -0.0013 0.0007

 (0.0162) (0.0176) (0.0158) (0.0167) (0.0146) (0.0158) (0.0150) (0.0153)

Constant 0.4340*** 0.5133*** 0.0535 0.0995 0.0652 0.1623** 0.1296 0.1287

 (0.1096) (0.1169) (0.0987) (0.1043) (0.0761) (0.0790) (0.0942) (0.0986)

Observations 8,768 7,704 8,768 7,704 8,768 7,704 8,768 7,704

Notes: *** indicates signifi cant at 99 percent confi dence; ** indicates signifi cant at 95 percent confi dence; * indicates signifi cant at 

90 percent confi dence; standard errors computed using the Taylor linearized variance estimation; (a) sample includes all adults

in both time periods; (b) sample excludes adults 20-29 in 2005-06; blank indicates no coeffi cients reported when variables not 

included in the model.

Source: ERS calculations using data from the 1995-96 Diet and Health Knowledge Survey and 2005-06 National Health and 

Nutrition Examination Survey.
15

The Decline in Consumer Use of Food Nutrition Labels, 1995–2006 / ERR-63 

Economic Research Service/USDA

than with the birth year controls (b). This suggests that the decline in label 

use is greater when the youngest birth cohort is included in the analysis. In 

fact, when the youngest birth cohort is excluded, the use of Nutrition Facts 

panel, serving size, and sodium information do not decline signifi cantly between 1995-96 and 2005-06. The opposite is true for the change in use of 

fi ber information; the estimated marginal effect suggests that a smaller increase in use occurred over the period than is actually observed in the unconditional population point estimates.

We turn next to the results of the full interaction model, which explores differences in the change in use. We present both the overall mean marginal 

effects from specifi cation (a), fi rst presented in table 5, in the fi rst row of 

tables 6 and 7. The remaining rows give the marginal change in label use for 

each characteristic while holding other characteristics constant. We see that 

the overall marginal change in label use in 2005-06 reported in the fi rst row 

masks many differences in the change in use across population groups. 

The estimates of the change in use of the Nutrition Facts panel by age group 

(table 6) reveal that the decrease in use is much larger among adults age 

20-29 years. In addition, we see that the change across education groups 

varies considerably, ranging from a decline of about 6-7 percentage points 

among those with only a high school diploma to an increase in use of 3.8 

percentage points among those who completed at least 4 years of college. 

Table 5 

Observed and estimated changes in probability 

of label information use (marginal effects), estimated from equation 1

 Observed Estimated Observed Estimated

 change) change change change

 (a) (a) (b) (b)

Nutrition facts -0.024 -0.029* -0.003 -0.000

Serving size -0.031 -0.036* -0.011 -0.014

Ingredient list -0.098*** -0.112*** -0.060*** -0.064***

Health claims -0.092*** -0.099*** -0.079*** -0.079***

Calories -0.064*** -0.075*** -0.040** -0.048***

Total fat -0.080*** -0.092*** -0.059*** -0.066***

Saturated fat -0.086*** -0.102*** -0.062*** -0.062***

Cholesterol -0.088*** -0.104*** -0.055*** -0.045***

Sodium -0.058*** -0.074*** -0.032** -0.018

Fiber 0.039** 0.022 0.066*** 0.074***

Sugars 0.014 0.002 0.034** 0.040**

Notes: (a) sample includes all adults in both time periods (estimation conducted 

using age group control); (b) sample excludes adults 20-29 in 2005-06 (estimation 

conducted using birth cohort controls). *** indicates signifi cant at 99 percent confi -

dence; ** indicates signifi cant at 95 percent confi dence; * indicates signifi cant at 90 

percent confi dence; standard errors computed using the Taylor linearized variance 

estimation. Marginal effects calculated at the sample mean. Marginal effects were 

also calculated by taking the mean of the individual marginal effects, however, only 

slight differences were observed; those reported are slightly larger than those estimated in the alternate, but the qualitative comparison to the unconditional difference 

across the surveys is unaffected by the calculation method for the marginal effects.

Source: ERS calculations using data from the 1995-96 Diet and Health Knowledge 

Survey and 2005-06 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.
16

The Decline in Consumer Use of Food Nutrition Labels, 1995–2006 / ERR-63

Economic Research Service/USDA

Furthermore, we see that the decrease in use among those interviewed in 

Spanish is the largest at -25.3 percentage points. This result also holds when 

we look at use of serving size information, the ingredient list, and health 

claims. The decline in the use of the Nutrition Facts is also greater in larger 

households, but household size does not affect the change in use of any other 

label element (results not reported).

Differences in the change are also evident for use of information about specifi c nutrients (table 7). For calories, fat, and cholesterol, the decrease in 

use is greatest among individuals 20-29 years old (nearly double the mean 

decrease) and, in the case of fat, also among those in the 50- to 59-year age 

group. The change across education levels, however, appears not to vary with 

regard to specifi c nutrients, suggesting that education mainly affects whether 

individuals use nutrition labels at all, but not the type of information used 

among label users. 
17

The Decline in Consumer Use of Food Nutrition Labels, 1995–2006 / ERR-63 

Economic Research Service/USDA

Table 6

Estimated change in probability of regular use 

of Nutrition Facts panel, serving size, ingredient list, 

and health claims between 1995-96 and 2005-06 surveys, 

by characteristic

 Nutrition facts Serving size Ingredient list Health claims

Mean marginal effect -0.029* -0.036* -0.112*** -0.099***

 

Age * 

20–29 -0.099 -0.086 -0.130 -0.113

 30–39 -0.039 -0.053 -0.143 -0.127

 40–49 0.023** -0.005 -0.068 -0.085

 50–59 -0.025 -0.055 -0.118 -0.110

 60+ -0.001 0.013* -0.073 -0.049

 

Gender *** **

Female -0.020 0.012 -0.089 -0.061

 Male -0.037 -0.087 -0.124 -0.133

 

Education ** * 

 No HS diploma -0.053 -0.068 -0.120 -0.083

HS diploma -0.066 -0.076 -0.133 -0.122

 Some college -0.035 -0.010 -0.096 -0.107

 4+ years college 0.038 0.004 -0.076 -0.062

 

Race 

White -0.010 -0.024 -0.094 -0.083

 Black -0.060 -0.059 -0.101 -0.123

 Hispanic -0.092 -0.117 -0.177 -0.173

 Other -0.100 0.006 -0.147 -0.064

 

Survey language *** *** *** ***

English -0.020 -0.027 -0.098 -0.088

 Spanish -0.253 -0.270 -0.319 -0.311

Notes: HS=high school; bold indicates omitted category; *** indicates signifi cant at 

99 percent confi dence; ** indicates signifi cant at 95 percent confi dence; * indicates 

signifi cant at 90 percent confi dence; standard errors computed using the Taylor 

linearized variance estimation; signifi cance reported in group category heading row 

represents joint signifi cance over multiple categories and for a single dummy when 

indicator is binary (such as male); when categories are not jointly signifi cant, signifi -

cance of single interactions reported.

Source: ERS calculations using data from the 1995-96 Diet and Health Knowledge 

Survey and 2005-06 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.
18

The Decline in Consumer Use of Food Nutrition Labels, 1995–2006 / ERR-63

Economic Research Service/USDA

Table 7

Estimated change in probability of regular nutrient information use on food labels 

between 1995-96 and 2005-06, by demographic characteristic

 Calories Total fat Saturated fat Cholesterol Sodium Fiber Sugars

Pooled mean 

marginal effect -0.075*** -0.092*** -0.102*** -0.104*** -0.074*** 0.022 0.002

 

Age ** *** *** 

20–29 -0.169 -0.155 -0.162 -0.169 -0.095 0.018 0.020

 30–39 -0.051 -0.049 -0.036 -0.105 -0.054 0.031 0.023

 40–49 -0.035 -0.017 -0.067 -0.059*** -0.048 0.040 0.003

 50–59 -0.084 -0.156 -0.199 -0.116 -0.106 -0.009 0.001

 60+ -0.037 -0.089 -0.061 -0.068 -0.062 0.020 -0.031

 

Gender ***   ** * **

Female -0.043 -0.071 -0.079 -0.071 -0.044 0.053 0.025

 Male -0.112 -0.112 -0.124 -0.142 -0.107 -0.020 -0.025

Education 

 No HS diploma -0.076 -0.108 -0.098 -0.061 -0.115 -0.013 -0.042

HS diploma -0.070 -0.101 -0.130 -0.100 -0.078 0.007 -0.015

 Some college -0.103 -0.110 -0.117 -0.089 -0.046 0.040 0.023

 4+ years college -0.046 -0.050 -0.050* -0.133 -0.070 0.032 0.021

 

Race **  

White -0.081 -0.082 -0.089 -0.105 -0.060 0.033 0.015

 Black -0.050 -0.100 -0.142 -0.077 -0.074 -0.030 0.018

 Hispanic 0.018 -0.086 -0.056 -0.063 -0.089 0.094 -0.022

 Other -0.194 -0.187 -0.244**  -0.206 -0.223** -0.211 -0.197

 

Survey language * 

English -0.075 -0.087 -0.100 -0.100 -0.067 0.020 0.008

 Spanish -0.025 -0.169 -0.067 -0.162 -0.197 0.053 -0.161

Notes: HS=high school; bold indicates omitted category; *** indicates signifi cant at 99 percent confi dence; ** indicates signifi cant 

at 95 percent confi dence; * indicates signifi cant at 90 percent confi dence; standard errors computed using the Taylor linearized 

variance estimation; signifi cance reported in category heading row represents joint signifi cance over multiple categories and for 

a single dummy when indicator is binary (such as male); when categories are not jointly signifi cant, signifi cance of single interactions reported.

Source: ERS calculations using data from the 1995-96 Diet and Health Knowledge Survey and 2005-06 National Health and 

Nutrition Examination Survey.
19

The Decline in Consumer Use of Food Nutrition Labels, 1995–2006 / ERR-63 

Economic Research Service/USDA

Discussion

Since 1994, food shoppers have had access to standardized nutrition information for most foods sold in the United States. Today’s food labels offer consistent and reliable information that can help consumers decide what to buy 

as part of a healthful diet. Although most adults report using nutrition labels 

regularly when shopping for food, the proportion declined between 1995-96 

and 2005-06. At the same time, overall diet quality remains below healthful levels for most Americans (Guenther et al., 2007), and obesity and other 

diet-related health conditions, such as diabetes, are on the rise. The decline 

in label use detected in this study and the increase in adults that never use 

nutrition labels may have several implications for Federal nutrition labeling 

policy. 

The general decline in label use and, specifi cally, the decline in the use of 

calorie information among label users lend support for the FDA’s proposals 

to give more prominence to calorie information on the Nutrition Facts panel 

and to include a percent daily value for calories (FDA, 2005). The increase 

in the proportion of individuals who report never using nutrition labels when 

purchasing food suggests that new public awareness campaigns may be 

warranted. The new Web-based learning tool developed by the FDA to help 

consumers use calorie information and manage caloric intake may increase 

use of food labels and calorie information.7 Similar steps may be needed to 

increase consumer use of ingredient information, which has declined by 11 

percentage points between 1995-96 and 2005-06. This drop in use of ingredient information is a concern because the 2005 Dietary Guidelines emphasize the consumption of whole grains. The ingredient list is the only way to 

identify foods with a signifi cant amount of whole grains; claims on the front 

of the package do not always identify when a whole grain is a main ingredient in a food.

The slight increase in the use of fi ber information (and to a lesser extent, 

sugar) among label users, especially older adults, is a notable exception. The 

role of adequate fi ber in promoting good health has received much attention 

in the press recently. The popularity of low-carb diets has also emphasized 

fi ber content in foods. Thus, it appears that Americans are responsive to information linking diet, fi ber, and health. Perhaps similar exposure to information about other nutrients in food will lead to increased label use, as well 

as increases in the use of information about specifi c nutrients such as calories, fat, and sodium.

The differences in the decline in use across age groups suggest that future 

policies or informational campaigns should target younger adults and adolescents. In June 2007, FDA unveiled the new “Spot the Block” program aimed 

at educating adolescents about the Nutrition Facts panel which appears to be 

a step in this direction (FDA, 2007). Other population groups that may also 

benefi t from new informational campaigns include those who decreased their 

use the most over the 10-year period, specifi cally those with a high school 

education or less and predominantly Spanish-speaking residents. The reasons 

for the decline in use may differ across the two groups, so information directed to these groups may need to be adjusted accordingly.

7 This tool can be downloaded at 

 http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~ear/hwm/

labelman.html.
20

The Decline in Consumer Use of Food Nutrition Labels, 1995–2006 / ERR-63

Economic Research Service/USDA

It is important to note that we were unable to determine why label use has 

declined over the period. One possibility is that some population groups fi nd 

nutrition information diffi cult to use or that the time and cognitive costs of 

using the information do not outweigh the perceived benefi ts. A recent study 

of patients with chronic illnesses, 89 percent of whom reported using food 

labels, found that many were unable to use the Nutrition Facts panel correctly 

(Rothman et al., 2006). Less than a third were able to correctly calculate 

the total carbohydrates in the various foods hypothetically consumed. While 

higher literacy and numeracy improved a patient’s ability to use the labels 

correctly, many errors were still observed among even the most literate and 

numerate. This suggests that consumers may benefi t from a change in the format of nutrition information on labels, particularly one that brings the format 

more in line with specifi c USDA dietary guidelines. 

Other possible reasons behind the decline in use include an increase in the 

consumption of food away from home and an increase in the availability of 

nutrition information from other sources (e.g., the Internet, store shelf labels). 

The Consumer Expenditure Survey shows that the share of expenditures on 

food away from home increased from 38 percent in 1995 to 44 percent in 

2005 (U.S. Department of Labor, 2007). Currently, nutrition information 

is not required or commonly available at restaurants or on prepared foods. 

Thus, nutrition labels mandated by NLEA provide information on a decreasing share of total food for the average consumer, which may decrease the 

benefi t of reading labels. 

The Pew Internet and American Life Project reports that between 1995 and 

2005, the share of adults who use the Internet increased from 15 to 70 percent.8 Numerous free and fee-based Internet sites currently provide nutrition 

information for specifi c foods, including many restaurant foods. Moreover, 

many Web sites pair the nutrition information with suggested menus and recipes; calorie consumption and exercise tracking capabilities; and discussion 

groups or chat rooms. Thus, consumers, particularly young adults, may fi nd it 

more useful to access information on the Internet, where nutritional information on both food at home and food away from home is readily available and 

linked directly to support, daily dietary guidance, and planning tools. 

While an increase in product familiarity may decrease use of nutrition labels, 

since the early 1990s the number of new product introductions has doubled 

each year (Martinez, 2007), resulting in a larger array of products from 

which consumers can choose. Consequently, one would expect use to have 

increased rather than decreased. In light of this, the decline in use observed 

between 1995-96 and 2005-06 is even more curious. One explanation is that 

consumers are paying more attention to other product information on labels, 

such as organic certifi cation, country of origin, or welfare issues (e.g., production processes such as free range or fair trade) at the expense of nutrition 

labels. 

We fi nd that use of nutrition labels has declined, but the reasons are unclear. 

Future research should aim to develop a better understanding of the consumer’s search for nutritional information and the factors affecting choices that 

improve diet quality. Redesigning nutrition labels to make information more 

8See published chart at 

http://www.pewinternet.org/trends/

Internet_Adoption_3.18.08.pdf.
21

The Decline in Consumer Use of Food Nutrition Labels, 1995–2006 / ERR-63 

Economic Research Service/USDA

accessible may increase use. Increasing access to and quality of information, 

however, can only go so far in achieving improvements in diet quality and 

public health. Achieving long-term changes also requires that consumers are 

motivated to use the information.
22

The Decline in Consumer Use of Food Nutrition Labels, 1995–2006 / ERR-63

Economic Research Service/USDA

References

Brecher, Susan J., Mary M. Bender, Virginia L. Wilkening, Nancie M. McCabe, and Ellen M. Anderson. “Status of Nutrition Labeling, Health 

Claims, and Nutrient Content Claims for Processed Foods: 1997 

Food Label and Package Survey,” Journal of the American Dietetic 

Association, Vol. 100(9): pp. 1057-1062, 2000.

Drichoutis, Andreas C., Panagiotis Lazaridis, and Rodolfo M. Nayga, Jr. 

“Nutrition Knowledge and Consumer Use of Nutritional Food Labels,” European Review of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 32(1): pp. 

93-118, 2005.

——. “Consumers’ Use of Nutritional Labels: A Review of Research Studies 

and Issues,” Academy of Marketing Science Review, Vol. 10(9), 2006.

Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Counting Calories: Report of the 

Working Group on Obesity, March 2004. Available at 

http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/owg-toc.html.

——. “Food Labeling; Prominence of Calories,” Federal Register, Vol. 70, 

No. 63, April 4, 2005. Available at 

http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/fr05404b.html.

——. Spot the Block, Using the Nutrition Facts Label to Make Healthy Food 

Choices—A Program for Tweens, 2007. Available at 

http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/spotov.html.

Guenther, Patricia M., WenYen Juan, Jill Reedy, Patricia Britten, Mark Lino, 

Andrea Carlson, Hazel H. Hiza, and Susan M. Krebs-Smith. “Diet 

Quality of Americans in 1994-96 and 2001-02 as Measured by the 

Healthy Eating Index-2005,” Nutrition Insight 37, U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, Alexandria, VA, 2007.

Guthrie, Joanne F., Jonathan J. Fox, Linda E. Cleveland, and Susan Welsh. 

“Who Uses Nutrition Labeling, and What Effects Does Label Use 

Have on Diet Quality?” Journal of Nutrition Education, Vol. 27(4): 

pp. 163-172, 1995.

Hawkes, C. Nutrition Labels and Health Claims: The Global Regulatory Environment, World Health Organization, 2004. Available at 

http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2004/9241591714.pdf.

Hignett, Rosemary. “Traffi c Light Labeling,” Public Service Review: Central 

Government, Issue 14: May 9, 2007, accessed on April 25, 2008 at 

http://www.publicservice.co.uk/feature_story.asp?id=7686&topic=Education.

Kim, Sung-Yong, Rodolfo M. Nayga, Jr., and Oral Capps, Jr. “The Effect of 

Food Label Use on Nutrient Intakes: An Endogenous Switching Regression Analysis,” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics,

Vol. 25(1): pp. 215-231, 2000.
23

The Decline in Consumer Use of Food Nutrition Labels, 1995–2006 / ERR-63 

Economic Research Service/USDA

Kristal, Alan R., Lisa Levy, Ruth E. Patterson, Sue S. Li, and Emily White. 

“Trends in Food Label Use Associated with New Nutrition Labeling Regulations,” American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 88(8): pp. 

1212-1215, 1998.

Martinez, Steve. “Food Product Introductions Continue to Set Records,” Amber Waves, Vol. 5(5), 2007.

Moorman, Christine. “A Quasi Experiment to Assess the Consumer and Informational Determinants of Nutrition Information Processing Activities: The Case of the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act,” Journal 

of Public Policy & Marketing, Vol. 15(1): pp. 28-44, 1996.

National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). National Health and Nutrition 

Examination Survey 2005-2006 Documentation, Codebook, and Frequencies: Diet Behavior and Nutrition, 2007. Available at 

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhanes/nhanes_05_06/dbq_d.pdf.

Nayga, Rodolfo M., Jr. “Determinants of Consumers’ Use of Nutrition Information on Food Packages,” Journal of Agricultural and Applied 

Economics, Vol. 28(2): pp. 303-312, 1996.

——. “Nutrition Knowledge, Gender, and Food Label Use,” Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 34(1): pp. 97-112, 2000.

Nayga, Rodolfo M., Jr., Daria Lipinski, and Nitin Savur. “Consumers’ Use of 

Nutrition Labels While Food Shopping and At Home,” The Journal 

of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 32(1): pp.106-120, 1998.

Neuhouser, Marian, Alan R. Kristal, and Ruth E. Patterson. “Use of Food 

Nutrition Labels Is Associated with Lower Fat Intake,” Journal of the 

American Dietetic Association, Vol. 99(1): pp. 45-53, 1999.

Pérez-Escamilla, Rafael, and Lauren Haldeman. “Food Label Use Modifi es 

Association of Income with Dietary Quality,” The Journal of Nutrition, Vol. 132: pp. 768-772, 2002. 

Rao, J.N.K., and A.J. Scott. “On Chi-Squared Tests for Multiway Contingency Tables with Cell Proportions Estimated from Survey Data,” The 

Annals of Statistics, Vol. 12(1): pp. 46-60, 1984. 

——. “The Analysis of Categorical Data From Complex Sample Surveys: 

Chi-Squared Tests for Goodness of Fit and Independence in TwoWay Tables,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 

76(374): pp. 221-230, 1981. 

Rothman, Russell L., Ryan Housam, Hilary Weiss, Dianne Davis, Rebecca 

Gregory, Tebeb Gebretsakik, Ayumi Shintani, and Tom A. Elasy. 

“Patient Understanding of Food Labels: The Role of Literacy and 

Numeracy,” American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Vol. 31(5): 

pp.391-398, 2006. 
24

The Decline in Consumer Use of Food Nutrition Labels, 1995–2006 / ERR-63

Economic Research Service/USDA

StataCorp LP. Stata Survey Data Reference Manual: Release 10, College Station, TX: Stata Press, 2007.

Stigler, George J. “The Economics of Information,” The Journal of Political 

Economy, Vol. 69(3): pp. 213-225, 1961.

Taylor, Christine Lewis, and Virginia L. Wilkening. “How the Nutrition Food 

Label Was Developed, Part 1: The Nutrition Facts Panel,” Journal of 

the American Dietetic Association, Vol. 108(3): pp. 437-442, 2008.

Tippett, K.S., and Cypel, Y.S. (Eds.). Design and Operation: The Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals and the Diet and Health 

Knowledge Survey, 1994-96, NFS Rep. No. 96-1, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, 1998.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Food Safety and Inspection Service 

(FSIS). “Nutrition Labeling of Ground or Chopped Meat and Poultry Products and Single-Ingredient Products,” Federal Register, Vol. 

66 (12): pp. 4970-4999, 2001.

U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), Bureau of Labor Statistics. Multiyear 

Tables, 1992-1999 and 2000-2006, last updated October 26, 2007.

Variyam, Jayachandran N., and John Cawley. Nutrition Labels and Obesity, 

Working Paper No. 11956, National Bureau of Economic Research: 

Cambridge, MA, 2006.
25

The Decline in Consumer Use of Food Nutrition Labels, 1995–2006 / ERR-63 

Economic Research Service/USDA

Appendix table 1

Binary measures of any label use, by survey

 1995–96 2005–06 Difference p-value

Nutrition Facts panel 0.78 0.73 -0.06 0.00

Serving size 0.71 0.62 -0.09 0.00

Ingredients 0.79 0.68 -0.10 0.00

Health claims 0.74 0.63 -0.11 0.00

Calories* 0.91 0.83 -0.08 0.00

Total fat* 0.92 0.85 -0.08 0.00

Saturated fat* 0.88 0.79 -0.10 0.00

Cholesterol* 0.88 0.77 -0.10 0.00

Salt/sodium* 0.88 0.78 -0.10 0.00

Fiber* 0.84 0.76 -0.07 0.00

Sugars* 0.88 0.82 -0.06 0.00

Notes: Proportions estimated using survey weights; *proportion calculated on subset 

of individuals that report using the Nutrition Facts panel, the serving size information, 

ingredient list, and/or health claims (3,134 observations in the 1995-96 survey and 

3,668 observations in the 2005-06 survey).

Source: ERS calculations using data from the 1995-96 Diet and Health Knowledge 

Survey and 2005-06 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.
26

The Decline in Consumer Use of Food Nutrition Labels, 1995–2006 / ERR-63

Economic Research Service/USDA

Appendix table 2

Probit results for regular use of calories, total fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol; 

individuals who report using the Nutrient Facts panel, serving size, ingredient list, 

or health claims (coeffi cients)

 Calories Total fat Saturated fat Cholesterol

 (a) (b) (a) (b) (a) (b) (a) (b)

T (2005–06) -0.2279*** -0.1498*** -0.2980*** -0.2183*** -0.2823*** -0.1730*** -0.2792*** -0.1222**

 (0.0544) (0.0525) (0.0570) (0.0579) (0.0468) (0.0465) (0.0469) (0.0466)

30–39 years old 0.0445 0.0931 -0.0277 0.0517 

 (0.0828) (0.0761) (0.0918) (0.0842) 

40–49 years old 0.1271* 0.1364* 0.1683** 0.2254*** 

 (0.0743) (0.0774) (0.0810) (0.0690) 

50–59 years old 0.2450*** 0.2984*** 0.3663*** 0.5184*** 

 (0.0812) (0.0667) (0.0767) (0.0771) 

60 + years old 0.1526* 0.2187** 0.3844*** 0.6298*** 

 (0.0810) (0.0839) (0.0841) (0.0788) 

Born 1956–1965 -0.0108 0.0254 -0.0493 0.0804

 (0.0810) (0.0757) (0.0890) (0.0811)

Born 1946–1955 0.0308 -0.0244 0.0849 0.2254***

 (0.0817) (0.0817) (0.0837) (0.0754)

Born 1936–1945 0.1950** 0.3055*** 0.4686*** 0.5655***

 (0.0935) (0.0718) (0.0783) (0.0836)

Born prior to 1936 0.0140 0.0724 0.2856*** 0.5472***

 (0.0926) (0.0969) (0.0906) (0.0843)

Male -0.4158*** -0.4207*** -0.3768*** -0.3863*** -0.2405*** -0.2535*** -0.1368*** -0.1406***

 (0.0363) (0.0391) (0.0502) (0.0526) (0.0404) (0.0415) (0.0492) (0.0522)

Black -0.0996 -0.1185 -0.0666 -0.0798 0.0650 0.0579 0.1804** 0.1708**

 (0.0825) (0.0886) (0.0659) (0.0715) (0.0716) (0.0778) (0.0738) (0.0803)

Hispanic -0.0104 -0.0578 0.1116 0.0764 0.0369 0.0093 0.0831 0.0452

 (0.1212) (0.1272) (0.1425) (0.1546) (0.0990) (0.1072) (0.1109) (0.1176)

Other -0.0550 -0.0515 0.1048 0.1004 0.1655 0.1666 0.2541* 0.2645*

 (0.1446) (0.1487) (0.1240) (0.1264) (0.1184) (0.1343) (0.1416) (0.1555)

9–11 grade -0.1234 -0.0904 -0.1489* -0.1194 -0.1390** -0.1074* -0.0951 -0.0776

 (0.0852) (0.0891) (0.0769) (0.0809) (0.0590) (0.0612) (0.0691) (0.0711)

Less than 

4 years college 0.1731*** 0.1659*** 0.1830*** 0.1743*** 0.1378*** 0.1469*** 0.0234 0.0093

 (0.0493) (0.0535) (0.0517) (0.0549) (0.0509) (0.0524) (0.0547) (0.0596)

4+ years college 0.3083*** 0.3209*** 0.4266*** 0.4336*** 0.3145*** 0.3289*** 0.1284** 0.1354**

 (0.0672) (0.0700) (0.0626) (0.0658) (0.0582) (0.0627) (0.0580) (0.0610)

Questionnaire 

in Spanish -0.1347 -0.1356 -0.1287 -0.1106 -0.2766** -0.2743* 0.1668 0.2376*

 (0.1649) (0.1849) (0.1230) (0.1290) (0.1380) (0.1514) (0.1263) (0.1361)

Household size -0.0311** -0.0330** -0.0158 -0.0171 -0.0010 0.0029 0.0136 0.0097

 (0.0151) (0.0163) (0.0203) (0.0210) (0.0191) (0.0201) (0.0170) (0.0178)

Constant 0.7018*** 0.7735*** 0.7173*** 0.8010*** 0.3841*** 0.4115*** 0.1999** 0.2050**

 (0.0797) (0.0850) (0.0806) (0.0831) (0.0874) (0.0876) (0.0817) (0.0838)

Observations 6,802 6,020 6,802 6,020 6,802 6,020 6,802 6,020

Notes: *** indicates signifi cant at 99 percent confi dence; ** indicates signifi cant at 95 percent confi dence; * indicates signifi cant 

at 90 percent confi dence; standard errors in parentheses, computed using the Taylor linearized variance estimation; (a) sample 

includes all adults in both time periods; (b) sample excludes adults 20-29 in 2005-06; blank indicates no coeffi cients reported

when variables not included in the model; blank indicates no coeffi cients repoted when variables not included in the mode.

Source: ERS calculations using data from the 1995-96 Diet and Health Knowledge Survey and 2005-06 National Health and 

Nutrition Examination Survey.
27

The Decline in Consumer Use of Food Nutrition Labels, 1995–2006 / ERR-63 

Economic Research Service/USDA

Appendix table 3 

Probit results for regular use of salt/sodium, fi ber, and sugars; 

individuals that report using the Nutrient Facts panel, serving size, 

ingredient list, or health claims (coeffi cients)

 Sodium Fiber Sugars

 (a) (b) (a) (b) (a) (b)

T (2005-06) -0.1962*** -0.0490 0.0559 0.1887*** 0.0057 0.1096**

 (0.0432) (0.0479) (0.0422) (0.0461) (0.0446) (0.0482)

30–39 years old 0.0545 0.0718 0.2105** 

 (0.0800) (0.0752) (0.0792) 

40–49 years old 0.2508*** 0.3404*** 0.2475*** 

 (0.0785) (0.0685) (0.0878) 

50–59 years old 0.4641*** 0.5107*** 0.4068*** 

 (0.0811) (0.0836) (0.0806) 

60+ years old 0.6686*** 0.5752*** 0.5395*** 

 (0.0687) (0.0777) (0.0770) 

Born 1956–1965 0.0789 0.1364* 0.1416*

 (0.0731) (0.0750) (0.0764)

Born 1946–1955 0.2478*** 0.3450*** 0.2334**

 (0.0810) (0.0677) (0.0914)

Born 1936–1945 0.5395*** 0.5579*** 0.3992***

 (0.0816) (0.0862) (0.0826)

Born prior to 1936 0.6266*** 0.5387*** 0.4706***

 (0.0752) (0.0830) (0.0836)

Male -0.2742*** -0.2841*** -0.2083*** -0.2040*** -0.3075*** -0.3085***

 (0.0375) (0.0400) (0.0378) (0.0404) (0.0427) (0.0449)

Black 0.3114*** 0.3188*** 0.1663** 0.1722** 0.0918 0.0903

 (0.0839) (0.0919) (0.0712) (0.0757) (0.0619) (0.0660)

Hispanic 0.2047 0.1858 0.1971* 0.1774 0.0524 0.0475

 (0.1533) (0.1650) (0.1161) (0.1236) (0.1206) (0.1291)

Other 0.1031 0.1175 0.2266* 0.2600* 0.2908** 0.3126**

 (0.1107) (0.1161) (0.1337) (0.1342) (0.1341) (0.1431)

9 –11 grade -0.0519 -0.0304 -0.0207 0.0189 -0.0613 -0.0432

 (0.0758) (0.0818) (0.0809) (0.0866) (0.0804) (0.0854)

Less than 

4 years college 0.0323 0.0185 0.1313** 0.1273** 0.1137* 0.0998

 (0.0538) (0.0578) (0.0529) (0.0565) (0.0594) (0.0618)

4+ years college 0.1406*** 0.1403** 0.2759*** 0.2880*** 0.1772** 0.1798**

 (0.0528) (0.0570) (0.0549) (0.0580) (0.0696) (0.0721)

Questionnaire 

in Spanish -0.0312 0.0187 -0.1184 -0.1092 0.1333 0.1908

 (0.1287) (0.1418) (0.1549) (0.1671) (0.1938) (0.2146)

Household size 0.0095 0.0129 0.0074 0.0101 0.0378** 0.0422**

 (0.0173) (0.0181) (0.0180) (0.0180) (0.0157) (0.0172)

Constant 0.1670** 0.1635** -0.2464*** -0.2722*** 0.1309 0.1654*

 (0.0783) (0.0785) (0.0700) (0.0713) (0.0914) (0.0938)

Observations 6,802 6,020 6,802 6,020 6,802 6,020

Notes: *** indicates signifi cant at 99 percent confi dence; ** indicates signifi cant at 95 

percent confi dence; * indicates signifi cant at 90 percent confi dence; standard errors 

in parentheses, computed using the Taylor linearized variance estimation; (a) sample 

includes all adults in both time periods; (b) sample excludes adults 20-29 in 2005-06; 

blank indicates no coeffi cients reported when variables not included in the model.

Source: ERS calculations using data from the 1995-96 Diet and Health Knowledge 

Survey and 2005-06 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.