Advertising

Nutrition & Health

Evidence from Food Advertisin

1977 - 1997

BUREAU OF ECONOMICS STAFF REPORT

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

Washington, D. C. 20580

September 2002

Pauline M. Ippoli

Janis K. Pappalard
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

Timothy J. Muris Chairman

Sheila F. Anthony Commissioner

Mozelle W. Thompson Commissioner

Orson Swindle Commissioner

Thomas B. Leary Commissioner

BUREAU OF ECONOMICS

David T. Scheffman Director

Paul A. Pautler Deputy Director for Consumer Pro

Mary T. Coleman Deputy Director for Antitrust

Pauline M. Ippolito Associate Director for Special Proj

Mark W . Frankena Associate Director for Competition

Analysis

Michael G. Vita Assistant Director for Antitrust

Louis Silvia, Jr. Assistant Director for Antitrust

Robert D. Brogan Assistant Director for Antitrust

Gerard R. Butters Assistant Director for Consumer

Protection

Denis A. Breen Assistant Director for Economic P

Analysis

The authors are economists with the Bureau of Economics, F

Trade Commission. The views expressed in this study are those 

authors and do not necessarily represent the view of the Federal T

Com mission or any individual Commissioner.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Such a large scale data project could not have been complete

without the support of many individuals. We are particularly gra

our coders, who quickly and conscientiously absorbed a complex 

system and patiently persisted through the coding of hundreds of

advertisements. Our sincere thanks go to Andrew W. Blume, Tif

Cochran, Brandi D. Hackworth Day, Mark N. Hwang, Sean P. Lo

Maren A. Mikkelsen, Nicole L. Piekarski, Victoria R. Roubal, Me

Thomas, and St. John P. Wiles, our talented coders, and most esp

to Elizabeth A. Autry, who helped to train, coach, administer, and 

the coding of our advertisements through the entire data portion o

project.

We are also very grateful to John H. White, our programmer

developed the computerized version of the coding instrument, the

automated verification system, and the data base design. We also 

Debra Jones Ringold of Willamette University, who graciously re

the coding form and technique, and provided advice on improving 

design.

We also owe a debt of gratitude to numerous librarians in th

Washington, D. C. area, who helped us track down magazines for 

study. Most especially, we thank Marcia Dysart at the Periodical

Department at the Enoch Pratt Free Library in Baltimore, and Jos
iv / CONTENTS

Puccio at the Library of Congress, who were of great help to us. 

thank Helen W. Small of our secretarial staff, who assisted in the

copying of so many advertisements. Also, we are grateful to San

a research analyst with the Bureau, who carefully read the entire

manuscript for editorial consistency. The report is much improve

her efforts.

We are also particularly grateful to Paul A. Pautler, who sup

the idea from the beginning, generously provided advice at all sta

the project, and commented on various drafts as the project progr

Finally, we would be remiss in not explicitly recognizing the

substantial support of the Federal Trade Commission. It is a testa

to the agency that it has a long history of supporting data collectio

analyses relevant to its missions, designed to evaluate and inform 

policy decisions.

Pauline M. I

Janis K. Papp
Contents

List of Figures ............ ............ ..........

List of Tables ............ ............ ..........

Executive Summary ............ ............ ..........

Chapter I Introduction ............ ............ ........

Chapter II Methodology and Sample Characteristics ......

Introduction ............ ............ ............ .

Advertising Sample ............ ............ .......

Methodology for Extracting Ad Claims ............ ....

Other Information About the Advertisem ents ...........

Concluding Remarks ............ ............ .....

Chapter III Broad Trends in Food Advertising ............ 

Introduction ............ ............ ............ .

Background ............ ............ ............ 

Evidence on Broad Categories of Ad Claim s ...........

Chapter IV Nutrition Claims in Food Advertising

Introduction ............ ............ ............ .

Nutrient Content Claim s ............ ............ ...

General Nutrition Claims ............ ............ ..

Relative Growth of Specific Nutrition-related Claims 

Marks 1977-1997 Years ............ ............ ...

Chapter V Health Claims in Food Advertising

Introduction ............ ............ ............ .

Definitions and Coding Instructions ............ ......

Evidence on Health Claim s ............ ............ 
vi / CONTENTS

Chapter VI Regulation and Advertising Claims ...........

Introduction ............ ............ ............ ..

Key Regulatory Events ............ ............ ....

Health Claims and Regulation ............ ..........

Nutrient Content Claims and Regulation ............ ..

General Nutrition Claims and Regulation ............ ..

Do “Good Foods” Use Health Claims More, 

Advertise More, Post-NLEA? ............ .........

Concluding Remarks ............ ............ .....

Chapter VII Economics of Advertising: Issues and 

Evidence ............ ............ ............ ..

Introduction ............ ............ ............ .

Information in Advertising: Direct Evidence ............ 

Advertising and Unfolding: Does Competition Lead 

to Greater Information Disclosure? ............ ....

Is There Competition Among “Bads?” The Case 

of Fats and Oils ............ ............ .......

Advertising and Broader Audiences: Do Producers 

Reach Out with New Information? ............ .....

Summary and Conclusion ............ ............ .

Chapter VIII Conclusion ............ ............ ......

APPENDIX A Computerized Coding Instrument .........

APPENDIX B Selected Data Tables ............ ........

APPENDIX C FTC Food Advertising Cases ............ .

References ............ ............ ............ .....
Figures

2.1 Illustration of Claim Coding Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

3.1 Cost of Advertising in Magazines and Network TV . . . . . . . 

3.2 Number of Food Ads and Ad Pages in Sample . . . . . . . . . 

3.3 Size Distribution of Ads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

3.4 Magazine Ad Expenditures for Food Advertising: 

Sample Versus Industry Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

3.5 Taste/Aroma/Texture and Convenience Claims . . . . . . . . . 

3.6 New/Introducing/Improved and Variety Claims . . . . . . . . . . 

3.7 Suggestions for Use and Price/Cost/Coupon Claims . . . . . 

3.8 Promotional Offer Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

4.1 Percentage of Ads with Total Fat Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

4.2 Percentage of Ads with Saturated Fat Claims . . . . . . . . . . 

4.3 Percentage of Ads with Cholesterol Content Claims . . . . . 

4.4 Percentage of Ads with Other Fat or Oil Claims and 

Corn Oil and Canola Oil Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

4.5 Percentage of Ads with Any Lipid Claims by Major 

Type: Fat, Saturated Fat, Cholesterol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

4.6 Percentage of Ads with Sodium Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

4.7 Percentage of Ads with Fiber or Bran Claims . . . . . . . . . . . 

4.8 Percentage of Ads with Calcium Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

4.9 Percentage of Ads with Vitamin/Mineral Claims . . . . . . . . . 

4.10 Percentage of Ads with Carbohydrate or Protein

Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
viii / LIST OF FIGURES

4.11 Percentage of Ads with Sugar or Artificial Sweetener 

Claims ............ ............ ............ ...

4.12 Percentage of Ads with Caffeine or Preservative

Claims ............ ............ ............ ...

4.13 Percentage of Ads with Other Nutrient Claims .........

4.14 Percentage of Ads with Calorie, Dieting, or 

Weight Claims ............ ............ ........

4.15 Percentage of Ads with Dieting/W eight Claims .........

4.16 Percentage of Ads with General Nutrition Claims and

Core General Nutrition Claims ............ ........

4.17 Percentage of Ads with Natural, No Artificial, Real, 

Pure Claims and Fresh Claims ............ .......

4.18 Percentage of Ads with Light or Lean Claims ..........

4.19 Percentage of Ads with Healthy Claims or Smart, 

Healthy, or Good for You Claims ............ ......

4.20 Percentage of Ads with Nutritious or Wholesome 

Claims ............ ............ ............ ...

4.21 Percentage of Ads with Enriched, Fortified Claims and

Nutritious, Wholesome, Enriched, Fortified Claims .....

4.22 Percentage of Ads with Specific Health or Nutrient 

Claims Versus General Nutrition Claims ............ .

5.1 Percentage of Ads with Disease and Affiliated Claims

Relative to All Health Claims ............ .........

5.2 Percentage of Ads with Heart/Serum Cholesterol 

Claims Relative to All Disease or Affiliated Claims .....

5.3 Percentage of Ads with Cancer Claims ............ ...

5.4 Percentage of Ads with Osteoporosis or Other 

Bone Claims ............ ............ .........
LIST OF FIGURES 

5.5 Percentage of Ads with Hypertension Claims ..........

5.6 Percentage of Ads with Birth Defect or Diabetes 

Claims ............ ............ ............ ...

5.7 Percentage of Ads with Tooth Decay/Tooth Health or

Regularity Claims ............ ............ .......

5.8 Percentage of Ads with Any Other Health Claims ........

6.1 Number of Advertisements for the Fruit/Vegetable/

Juice Category ............ ............ ........

6.2 Fruit/Vegetable/Juice Ads As a Percentage of All 

Food Ads ............ ............ ............ . 

6.3 Number of Advertisements for the Dessert/Snack/

Sweet Bread Category ............ ............ ..

6.4 Number of Advertisements for the Soft Drink 

Category ............ ............ ............ 

7.1 Percentage of Advertisements with at Least One 

Specific Nutrition Claim by Type ............ ......

7.2 Mean Num ber of Nutrients per Advertisement by 

Category ............ ............ ............ 

7.3 Mean Num ber of Nutrients per Advertisement for 

Ads with at Least One Nutrient Claim by Category ....

7.4 Percentage of Advertisements with at Least One 

Specific Nutrient Claim by Category ............ ...

7.5 Percentage of Fats and Oils Advertisements with 

Disease or Affiliated Claims ............ ..........

7.6 Projections from Probit-2 Model for Probability of 

Disease or Affiliated Claim in Fats and Oils 

Advertising, Monthly Data ............ ...........

7.7 Percentage of Fats and Oils Advertisements with 

Saturated Fat Claims ............ ............ ...
x / LIST OF FIGURES

7.8 Num ber of Fats and Oils Advertisements per Year 

and Number with Saturated Fat, Cholesterol, or 

Disease and Affiliated Claims ............ ........

7.9 Percentage of Food Ads with Disease and Affiliated 

Claims by Magazine Type ............ ...........

7.10 Number of Food Ads by Magazine Type as a 

Percent of 1977 Level ............ ............ ...

7.11 Percentage of Ads with Total Fat Claims by 

Magazine Type ............ ............ .......

7.12 Percentage of Ads with Saturated Fat Claims by 

Magazine Type ............ ............ .......

A.1 Computerized Coding Instrument ............ .......
Tables

2.1 Summary of Advertising Sample Characteristics .......

2.2 Major Categories of Coded Claims ............ ......

3.1 Advertising Expenditures for Food Products By Media ...

3.2 Description of Food Categories ............ ........

3.3 Percentage of Advertising by Food Category ..........

3.4 Linear Trend Regressions for Broad Classes of 

Other Claim s ............ ............ .........

5.1 Percentage of Ads with Heart/Serum Cholesterol 

Claims for Select Product Categories ............ ..

5.2 Percentage of Ads with Cancer Claims for Select 

Product Categories ............ ............ ....

5.3 Percentage of Ads with Osteoporosis/Other Bone 

Claims for Select Product Categories ............ ..

6.1 Key Regulatory Events Regarding Nutrition and 

Health Claim s ............ ............ ........

6.2 Regression Results for Disease and Affiliated Claims 

Across Regulatory Periods ............ ..........

6.3 Regression Results for Nutrient Content Claims

Across Regulatory Periods ............ ..........

6.4 Regression Results for Nutrient Comparison Claims

Across Regulatory Periods ............ ..........

6.5 Regression Results for General Nutrition Claims

Across Regulatory Periods ............ ..........
xii / LIST OF TABLES

6.6 Regression Results for Disease and Affiliated Claims 

Across Regulatory Periods by Food Category ........

6.7 Regression Results for Number of Ads per Month 

Across Regulatory Periods ............ ..........

6.8 Number of Advertisements with Disease and 

Affiliated Claims for Desserts/Snacks and Drink 

Categories ............ ............ ...........

7.1 Indices for Lipid and Nutrient Claim s ............ ....

7.2 Percentage of Food Ads with Specific Information 

Claims by Type ............ ............ .......

7.3 Percentage of Advertisements with Claims for One 

or More Lipid Dimensions ............ ...........

7.4 Percentage of Advertisements with Claims for One 

or More Main Nutrient Dimensions ............ ....

7.5 Disease and Affiliated Claim Regression Results for 

Fats and Oils ............ ............ .........

B.1 Percentage of Ads with Nutrient Content Claims

By Type ............ ............ ............ .

B.2 Percentage of Ads with General Nutrition Claims

By Type ............ ............ ............ .

B.3 Percentage of Ads with Health Claims By Type ........
Executive Summary

This study examines new data on the types of claims made in 

advertising during the years 1977 to 1997. The study’s primary f

the use of nutrition-related claims. Besides providing a wealth of 

on the basic content of food advertising over time, we have two

additional goals: first, to better understand the economic forces a

the flow of nutrition information to consumers in marketing, and 

to examine firms’ incentives to focus on nutrition in advertising u

the various policies adopted during these years, including those a

after the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990 (NLEA).

In the latter half of the twentieth century, dietary research ha

focused on the role of diet in the major chronic diseases, includin

disease and cancer. Since consumers choose their own diets, this 

lead to a debate about when and how to bring this growing body o

knowledge to consumers, and of particular relevance for this stud

role food marketing might play through claims about nutrients, di

health.

As this debate played out in policy circles, the regulation and

enforcement policies governing nutrition-related claims in advert

and labeling changed several times, culminating in the current po

NLEA environment. These regulatory shifts provide the opportu

test various hypotheses about firm behavior under different enfor

policies. In a series of earlier studies, we examined consumers’ d
E - 2 / ADVERTISING NUTRITION AND HEALTH

Magazines

Better Homes and

Gardens

Good Housekeeping

Ladies Home Journal

McCall’s

Women’s Day

Reader’s Digest

Newsweek

Time

Months

February

June

October

Years

1977 - 1997

choices during the different regimes, but with one exception, our 

efforts contained no data on the claims actually made in marketin

information about the policies governing those claims. This study

attempts to fill this void by creating and analyzing a large, system

database of advertising content for the years 1977 to 1997.

Methodology and Advertising Sample

Television is the medium used

most intensively for food advertising,

but unfortunately, no archives exist

that allow us to create a systematic

sample for study. Magazine

advertising is the second largest

category of food advertising. We

compile a large, systematic sample of

food advertising from 5 of the leading

women’s magazines and 3 of the most

popular general readership magazines. 

Claims are extracted from the

advertisements using state-of-the-art

techniques for reliability, as described

in Chapter 2. The sample has 11,647

food advertisements.

To our knowledge, these data provide the most comprehensi

examination of magazine advertising in a particular market ever

undertaken. We believe that the data developed for this project p

very accurate and complete picture of the types of nutrition-relate

claims made in magazine food advertising over the years 1977 to 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Broad Trends in Food Advertising

Magazine Advertising Grows Relative to TV; Numb

Ads Falls As shown in Chapter 3, the price of advertising to 10

households for both television and magazines has grown faster th

other producer prices since the early 1980s, and the price of telev

advertising has grown relative to magazines. The proportion of f

advertising dollars spent in magazines has increased relative to

television during the same period, from approximately 9 percent 

spending in the late 1970s to 13.6 percent in 1997. The number o

advertisements in our sample has fallen consistently since the mid

1980s, from approximately 600 ads in 1977 and in 1986, to 400 a

1997, a reduction that matches trends in comparable industry data

Nonnutritive Claims Are Common in Food Advertis

Most of These Claims Fall Over Time Claims about food

characteristics other than nutrients have always been prominent in 

advertising. We collect information on claims about taste, aroma

texture, convenience, whether the product is new or improved, its

varieties, suggestions for use, price or coupons, and promotional 

In each of these categories, except the new/improved categor

percent of ads with claims trends downward. The largest trend is 

taste/aroma/texture category, where claims are steady at approxim

85 percent of food ads until the mid-1980s, but then fall by about 

percent to 67 percent of ads by 1997. New/improved claims are t

category with a significant upward trend, and this is the category 

might be related to the development of nutritionally improved pro

Approximately 15 percent of ads in 1977 have a new/improved cl

compared to more than 25 percent in 1984 and 1997.
E - 4 / ADVERTISING NUTRITION AND HEALTH

Nutrient Content Claims in Food Ads

Nutrient content claims are statements or terms referring to a

specific nutritional characteristic of a food, e.g., low fat, more fib

contains vitamin E. As described in Chapter 4, the study collects 

for all the major nutrients, as well as other miscellaneous specific

nutrition-related claims. For each nutrient, claims are coded in tw

subcategories, level claims, that describe the absolute amount of a

nutrient, such as low fat or high fiber, and comparative claims, th

compare the amount of a nutrient in a food to something else (eve

unstated), such as less fat or more fiber.

Fat Claims Fat claims include all claims about unspecifie

of fat. This category does not include claims about specific types 

such as saturated fat, or other specific fat claims, such as, made w
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

In 1997 fat claims

are the most

frequent nutrient

content claim by far.

canola oil, which are coded separately. Both fat level and fat

comparative claims are included in the overall fat claim category

ad can have both types of claims.

As shown in the graphic, the domina

fat claims is a relatively recent pheno

fat claims are made in less than 5 per

ads before 1987. Comparative fat cla

grow in parallel to level claims until 

when approximately 10 percent of ads use them and where they r

in 1997.

Saturated Fat and Cholesterol Claims Saturated fat a

cholesterol are the lipids most clearly identified with the risk of h

disease. The pattern of use of saturated fat and cholesterol claim
E - 6 / ADVERTISING NUTRITION AND HEALTH

Saturated fat and

cholesterol claims

fall after 1990. Focus

shifts to total fat.

time is distinctly different than for fat c

Both are used increasingly through 199

before falling substantially after 1990. 

Comparative claims follow the same pa

and are essentially eliminated by 1997.

Other Nutrient Content Claims Advertising for other major

nutrients, such as calcium, fiber, and sodium, are described in Ch

Most generally follow the pattern of rising prior to 1990 and falli

remaining relatively stable in the post-1990 period. Comparative 

generally rise prior to 1990 and fall after 1990 to very low levels.

Calorie and Dieting Claims Claims about calories or w

control, including diet claims, are a significant feature of food

advertising throughout the period. Calorie claims are approximat
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

General Nutrition Claim

Subcategories

health/healthy

smart/right choice

good/better for you

nutritious/nutrients

wholesome

enriched/fortified

light/lighter

lean/leaner

guilt free/no guilt/cheati

fresh

energy

natural/no artificial/real

youth/fitness/well-being

other general nutrition t

evenly split between level and comparative claims until the early 

when comparative claims fall faster than level claims.

General Nutrition Claims

General nutrition claims are statements or terms, other than 

content claims or health claims, that indicate a potential health or

nutrient advantage of an advertised food.

General nutrition claims are

quite common in food advertising. 

In 1977, 50 percent of all ads have a

general nutrition claim. Their use

rises to nearly 70 percent of ads by

1983 and is steady through 1990,

before falling back to 56 percent of

advertisements in 1997. Data on

subcategories of claims are

described in Chapter 4.

General nutrition claims are

more common than specific nutrient

or health claims throughout the

period, but the gap between them

narrows dramatically over time. In

the broadest sense, the data indicate a sustained movement towar

greater use of specific nutrition claims in place of, or in addition 

general nutrition claims during the years 1977 to 1997.
E - 8 / ADVERTISING NUTRITION AND HEALTH

Health Claims in Food Advertising

Health claims are statements about specific health effects of

nutrients or foods. Within health claims, we focus on three

subcategories of claims: disease claims, which explicitly refer to 

disease; affiliated claims, which refer to conditions closely affilia

with disease, namely, serum cholesterol levels, high blood pressu

heart claims that are not specific to disease, as in heart smart; and 

nondisease health claims, which are health claims that do not fit i

of the previous categories. These other nondisease health claims

as builds strong bones, would often be considered structure-funct

claims in FDA terminology. Note that serum cholesterol claims d

include cholesterol content claims, such as no cholesterol.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Disease and affilia

claims are the maj

of health claims. 

claims peak in 198

Heart and serum

cholesterol claims 

the most common h

claims by far.

Explicit disease claims are not the majority of health claims 

this period. Disease claims are made in less than one percent of a

prior to 1984, and in less than 4.6 percent of ads per year through

When affiliated claims are considered

with disease claims, the picture changes. 

Disease and affiliated claims do constitute

the majority of health claims from 1983 to

1992, and again after 1995. The percentage of ads with a disease 

affiliated claim is well under 2 percent through 1982 and peaks at 

percent in 1989. The use of disease and affiliated claims falls

precipitously after 1990 and begins rising again only in 1995. By 

6.3 percent of advertisements include a disease or affiliated claim

percent of the 1989 peak.

In the early years of the sample, most health claims are other

nondisease health claims, often dealing with bones, teeth, digestib

or regularity. Similarly, in the early 1990s, when disease and affi

claim use is very low, use of other nondisease health claims grow

When explicit disease and affiliated claims are not used, produce

appear to shift to less explicit health claims where possible.

Heart and Serum Cholesterol Claims Heart-related cl

are the most common health claims by far. Heart or serum choles

claims are used a bit in the late 1970s, and then begin again in 19

rising substantially to a peak use of 8.2 percent of all ads in 1989

falling dramatically in the early 1990s. 

In 1997, 3.4 percent of ads include a

heart or serum cholesterol claim, 41

percent of the peak use.
E - 10 / ADVERTISING NUTRITION AND HEALTH

Cancer Claims Cancer claims are much less frequent tha

claims throughout the years 1977 to 1997. Cancer claims essenti

begin in 1984 highlighting fiber content for cereals. Fruit and jui

producers joined the cereal producers in the 1980s, but cancer ad

rise above one percent of all food ads during this period. Cancer 

begin again in 1994 and rise to 2 percent of ads in 1997. The pos

claims are primarily from juice producers, with cereal producers j

again in 1997 following the FDA approval of a new oat-heart clai

triggered increased health claim competition among cereals.

Other Health Claims The evidence indicates that other h

claims are used less frequently. Chapter 5 presents evidence on c

dealing with osteoporosis and bones, hypertension, birth defects,

diabetes, cell damage, oxidization, free radicals, tooth decay, and
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY / 

regularity, as well as a residual category of all other health claims

Regulation and Advertising Claims

Nutrition-related claims have been the subject of considerabl

regulatory and enforcement scrutiny during the years 1977 to 199

Advertising claims are under the primary jurisdiction of the Feder

Trade Commission (FTC) and food label claims are regulated by t

Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Both agencies initiate maj

rulemakings during the years of our sample. The study examines 

timing of changes in the use of nutrition and health claims relative 

regulatory and enforcement events.

Key Regulatory Events For the statistical analysis, we fo

five key events:

‘ FTC Food Rule Decisions: April 1980 and Decembe

1982 The first two events are associated with the FTC’s Food

Rulemaking of the late 1970s and early 1980s. The first event oc

April 1980, when the FTC ends Part II of the Food Rule, which w

have regulated general nutrition claims, such as health food claim

emphatic nutrition claims, such as lots of fiber. The Commission 

directs the staff to continue with an effort to define conditions for 

acid and calorie claims, heart-related health claims, and some othe

nutrient and general claims. On December 17, 1982, the Commis

votes to end the remaining portions of the Food Rule, opting inste

proceed on a case-by-case basis under its general deception autho

Thus, by early 1983 it is clear that nondeceptive claims about nutr

issues, including explicit health claims, will be considered favorab

the FTC. It is in this environment that Kellogg initiates planning 

fiber-cancer advertising campaign that first airs in October 1984.
E - 12 / ADVERTISING NUTRITION AND HEALTH

‘ FDA Health Claim Proposal: August 1987 Health cla

also raise the risk of legal action at the FDA, which prior to 1987

essentially bans all diet-disease claims for foods. After much pub

discussion, in August 1987 the FDA proposes a rule that would al

nondeceptive health claims on labels under a less restrictive stand

This proposal is widely viewed as reducing firms’ legal risk in ma

certain health claims.

‘ FDA Rescinds 1987 Proposal: February 1990 After

considerable public debate, FDA rescinds the 1987 proposal in Fe

1990. This is followed in July 1990 by publication of a more rest

FDA proposal for food claims, and in November 1990 by the Nut

Labeling and Education Act of 1990 (NLEA), legislation which la

standards for revising food labeling rules. The events of 1990 are

broadly perceived to restrict producers’ use of health and other nu

claims and to set the stage for a revision of labeling rules under th

NLEA.

‘ Final NLEA Rules Effective; FTC Food Policy Statem

May 1994 Following the enactment of the NLEA, the FDA dev

extensive regulations covering all aspects of the food label. This 

period of considerable uncertainty as rules are proposed and finali

The major proposal is issued in November 1991. Label regulation

governing health claims are effective in May 1993 and nutrition c

in May 1994. Also in May 1994, the FTC issues a policy stateme

harmonizing advertising policy with the new food labeling rules. 

December 1995, the FDA also issues a proposed rule to clarify ke

features of NLEA regulations, but this proposal has not been final

Key features of the NLEA-based rules include a listing of ap
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY / 

nutrition claims, a prohibition of unapproved nutrition claims, exp

requirements for nutrient content claims, triggered disclosures in s

cases, e.g., for comparative claims, and provisions for a limited nu

of health claims with specific restrictions on which foods can mak

claims.

Health Claims and Regulations The policy changes du

these years are most pronounced for health claims, especially dise

and affiliated claims. This study uses linear and probit regression

techniques to examine whether disease and affiliated claims incre

decrease following key regulatory events. Among the findings ar

following:

‘ Health Claim Use Changes With FTC Food Rule

Decisions Following the 1980 FTC decision directing the staff 

draw up explicit regulations for heart-health claims, the low level 

health claims in use at the time falls to near zero. Conversely, the 

FTC decision to return to a case-by-case approach for health claim

followed by a statistically significant increase in the use of diseas

affiliated claims to approximately 2 percent of ads.

‘ Health Claims Increase Significantly Following th

1987 FDA Proposal The FDA’s August 1987 proposal to allo

health claims is followed by a statistically significant increase in t

of health claims in advertising. Health claims increase by 5 perce

points from a base of approximately 2 percent of ads. This eviden

consistent with the view that the FDA label rules have an importa

influence on producers’ willingness to make advertising claims.
E - 14 / ADVERTISING NUTRITION AND HEALTH

‘ FDA Reversal and Other 1990 Events Are Follow

Large, Statistically Significant Drop in Health Claims In 

period following February 1990, when FDA reverses its 1987 pro

health claims in advertising fall rapidly to low levels. The size of 

drop is sufficient to eliminate the increase following the 1987 pro

These results are highly statistically significant in both linear and 

specifications. Again this evidence is consistent with the view tha

labeling rules affect the claims producers are willing to make in

advertising.

‘ Health Claims Rise Again in the Post-NLEA

Environment, But Not to Previous Levels After 1994, wh

FDA’s NLEA-based rules are effective and the FTC has issued its

harmonization statement, health claims again increase. The grow

disease and affiliated claims c

mostly in the last two years of 

post-1994 period. This patter

suggests that the FDA’s Dece

1995 proposal to simplify the 

for health claims may have be

important to advertisers. This proposal, which has never been fin

makes it clear that the long and rather complicated model stateme

the original NLEA health claim regulations are not required and 

proposes other simplifications in the rules.

Nutrient Claims and Regulation Regulatory events cou

affect the use of nutrient content claims, both directly because the 

govern nutrient claims, and indirectly because nutrient claims are 

used with health claims or may be spurred by the increased focus 

diet-health issues engendered by those claims. 

Evidence indicates that

advertisers respond

significantly to regulatory

rules for health claims.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY / 

We focus on the results for 8 primary nutritional characterist

foods: total fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, sodium, fiber, calcium,

vitamins/minerals, and calorie/diet claims. Among the findings ar

following:

‘ 1980 End of Part II of the FTC’s Food Rule Is Not

Followed by Much Systematic Change in the Use of Nut

Claims Only 3 of the 8 nutrients have significant movements af

event, indicating only limited change. Fiber and sodium claims in

significantly. 

‘ 1982 End of the FTC Rulemaking and 1987 FDA

Proposal Are Both Followed by Systematic Increases in

Nutrient Content Claims Both of these events relax the polic

towards health claims, and the 1982 event affects some nutrient cl

directly. Both events are followed by systematic changes in the u

nutrient claims. Significant changes occur for 5 out of 8 nutrients 

the first event, and for 6 out of 8 nutrients after the second event. 

the significant changes are positive, indicating a systematic increa

nutrient claims for most nutrients after these events.

‘ After 1990 and 1994, Growth in Nutrient Content

Claims Slows and Then Drops After 1990, 5 of the 8 nutrien

show significant changes, but only 3 of the 5 increase. After 1994

the NLEA rules are final, 6 of the 8 nutrients have significant cha

but only 2 of the 6 increase. Fat, and to a lesser extent calcium, a

two nutrients where content claims continue to grow in the post-1

period. In contrast, producers reduce their focus on saturated fat,

cholesterol, sodium, and calories after the NLEA rules in 1994. T

changes are all statistically significant.
E - 16 / ADVERTISING NUTRITION AND HEALTH

One of the most

consistent changes in

the post-1994 period

is the systematic

movement away from

comparative claims

for all major nutrients

except total fat.

‘ Comparative Claims Rise Prior to the NLEA Rule

Fall After the NLEA Rules Comparative claims are more rest

under the NLEA rules and must include several triggered disclosu

Prior to the NLEA, the use of comparative claims increases signif

for 5 of 8 nutrients after 1982 and 

of 8 nutrients after the health claim

policy change in 1987. After the 

use of comparative claims change

significantly for 5 of 8 nutrients a

1990 event, and for 6 of 8 nutrien

following the 1994 events, but on

these 11 significant changes are

increases. Most notably, when th

NLEA rules are final in 1994,

comparative claims fall for 7 of 8 nutrients (6 significant). The on

exception is for total fat, which exhibits no significant change.

General Nutrition Claims and Regulation General nu

claims, such as healthy or nutritious, are also potentially affected 

regulatory events of this period. Some general terms, such as hea

are directly regulated, and more broadly, these general claims cou

complement or substitute for specific claims subject to the rules.

Statistical results are presented in Chapter 6. The use of gen

health claims seems to fall when specific claims increase and to ri

when specific claims are more restricted, suggesting that general c

substitute somewhat for more specific claims when those are restr

Health Claims Across Food Groups We would expec

changing regulations to affect advertising in some food groups mo
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY / 

others. Some foods have a larger role to play in improving diets. 

Moreover, under the rules implementing the NLEA, health claims 

limited to foods that are “best” on the dimensions relevant to the

particular health claim, “not bad” on other key dimensions, and

“nutritious” in the sense that they provide a minimum level of nut

on at least one of six specified nutrients. By limiting health claim

these particular foods, it is hoped that producers will find it more

profitable to promote these foods, and that as a result consumers w

more successful in improving their diets. If these presumptions ar

correct, the NLEA rules should increase health claims for these fo

increase advertising for them, and reduce the use of health claims 

sellers of other foods.

These issues are examined in Chapter 6. Among our finding

‘ Following 1987 FDA Proposal, Health Claims Inc

in the Cereal/Bread, Fats & Oils, Meat/Egg, and Poultry/

Grain Categories The largest increases in health claims occur 

the 1987 proposal, with the percentage of ads with health claims

increasing by 25.3 percentage points for Fats & Oils, 16.5 points f

Cereal/Bread category, 10.3 points for Meat/Eggs, and 2.0 points 

Poultry/Fish/Grains.

‘ Number of Fruit, Vegetable, and Juice Advertisem

Drops Significantly After 1990; Only Orange Juice Ads H

Health Claims The amount of advertising in the Fruit/Vegetab

Juice category drops significantly in the post-NLEA period. In ou

sample, the category averages approximately 100 advertisements 

year through 1990, when the number begins dropping, and stabili

after 1993 at approximately 50 ads per year, half the pre-1990 lev
E - 18 / ADVERTISING NUTRITION AND HEALTH

Advertising in the

category drops sharply,

but orange juice

producers continue to

use health claims.

Evidence shows n

increased advertis

in “good food”

categories in the p

NLEA period but

reduced advertisin

other select catego

Those producers who con

to advertise are more likely to 

health claims. But with one

exception, the only health clai

the category after 1990 are fro

orange juice producers.

‘ After 1990 Health Claims Increase for Dairy; Dec

for Fats & Oils, Meats/Eggs, and Poultry/Fish/Grains In 

post-NLEA period the percentage of advertising with health claim

increases significantly for the Dairy category, which grows by 5.1

percentage points. More sizable effects are found in the food cate

where health claims fall. The percentage of advertising with a he

claim falls by 43.7 percentage points for Fats & Oils, by 10.4 poin

Bread/Cereals, by 7.4 points for Meat/Eggs, and by 2.5 points for

Poultry/Fish/Grains.

‘ Advertising Does Not Increase in Any Food Cate

in the Post-NLEA Years Regressions relating the number of

advertisements per month to the key regulatory events show rema

stability prior to 1987. After the 1987

proposal, the only category with a

statistically significant change is

Desserts/Snacks, where the number of

ads per month drops by 34 percent. In

the post-1990 period, advertising falls

for 8 of the 9 food groups, with

significant reductions for Cereal/Bread,

Fruit/Vegetables/Juice, and Fats & Oils. After the final NLEA ru

1994, advertising falls for 6 of the 9 food groups, with Fats & Oil
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY / 

Fruit/Vegetables/Juice experiencing further significant declines. T

food groups where advertising increases after 1994 all reflect a re

the level of advertising in 1990.

‘ Health Claims Not Used for Desserts/Snacks or S

Drinks Before or After the NLEA Some provisions in the NL

rules are motivated by a concern that producers of empty or other

nutritionally deficient foods would use health claims in marketing

fact, the requirement that foods must have certain nutrition value 

qualify to make a health claim is commonly called the “jelly bean 

reflecting the fact that without the requirement, an advertiser of je

beans could legally make a heart claim under NLEA rules (jelly b

are low in fat and saturated fat and contain no cholesterol).

To explore the magnitude of this perceived problem, we exam

two food categories in detail: Drinks, which includes all carbonate

drinks and all fruit-flavored beverages (but not juice or milk), and

Desserts/Snacks, which includes desserts, sweets, donuts, salty sn

and related items. The evidence indicates that with a few trivial

exceptions, health claims are never used in marketing foods from 

of these categories. The amount of advertising falls in both categ

over time, but these declines precede the NLEA. Thus, the eviden

provides no support for the view that health claims for “junk food

significant concern during these years.

Summary of Findings on Regulations Overall, the ev

is consistent with the view that the content of food advertising var

considerably with changes in regulation and enforcement. The us

health claims varies most, as expected given the significant chang

policy towards these claims. But nutrition claims also vary a grea
E - 20 / ADVERTISING NUTRITION AND HEALTH

following these events, as competition on health issues increases o

decreases. Under the NLEA rules, the focus in advertising has sh

primarily to total fat away from saturated fat, cholesterol, calories

other nutrients. Also, in the post-NLEA years, producers have mo

away from comparative claims for all nutrients except total fat. T

reasons for these results and their effect on consumer diets are imp

areas for further research.

Economics of Advertising: Issues and Evidence

Advertising is a major feature of consumer good markets. Fi

have an incentive to try to draw consumers to consider their produ

especially consumers who will become regular customers. By

highlighting product characteristics in advertising, firms can attra

consumers who value those characteristics, and if satisfied with th

product, they are more likely to become regular customers. This 

mechanism underlies the information theory of advertising.

Specific Claims in Advertising The economics literatu

contains considerable evidence that the introduction of advertising 

markets can have a positive effect on market performance, throug

prices, product improvements, or beneficial changes in consumer

purchases, for instance. Presumably because of the difficulties of

acquiring data on the content of advertising, there is surprisingly l

direct evidence on the information content of advertising and the

economic forces that shape it. As a result, there is little evidence 

judge whether advertising acts strictly as a signal of quality, a visi

public expenditure, or through direct information provision.

These issues are explored in Chapter 7 of the report. Among 

findings are the following:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY / 

‘ Specific Nutrition Claims Have Become a Major

Feature of Food Advertising Specific nutrition claims are

informative-type claims. A measure of their presence provides ev

on the information content of advertising in this dimension. We 

examine this issue in two ways: first, by determining the percenta

advertisements that include at least one specific nutrient content c

for any of 12 main nutrients, such as total fat, saturated fat, etc., a

second, by determining the percentage of advertisements that hav

specific nutrition-related claim recorded in our coding system. Th

second category includes the main nutrient content claims, as wel

other specific nutrition-related claims, such as made with canola o

sugar free, etc.
E - 22 / ADVERTISING NUTRITION AND HEALTH

Most food ads make

multiple informativetype claims.

Both measures indicate substantial growth in the percentage 

advertising with specific nutrition claims during the first half of o

period. Since the late 1980s, however, the percentages have stabi

approximately 40-50 percent of ads include claims about main nu

and approximately 50-60 percent include claims from our broader 

of specific nutrition-related claims. Despite changing policies and

market conditions, approximately half of all food advertising sinc

late 1980s includes specific nutrition claims.

‘ Other Specific Informative Claims Are Also Com

in Food Advertising Our data includes information on severa

types of specific claims in food ads. Approximately 40 percent of 

include specific information for using the product, often by provid

recipes that use the food. More than 50 percent of the ads include

information about different varieties of the product, such as availa

flavors or package sizes. Approximately one-third of the ads mak

explicit claim about the product’s convenience for some use. 

Approximately 20 percent of the ads highlight that the product is 

has been improved. Finally, approximately 80 percent of the ads 

claim about the taste, texture, or aroma of the food.

Taken together, this evidence

illustrates that virtually all food

advertisements in our sample make s

claims about the advertised product. 

fact, most ads make multiple informative-type claims. Assuming 

nutrition label is credible to consumers, most of these claims invo

search or experience characteristics, that is, characteristics that

consumers can verify at purchase or after use.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY / 

Advertising and Unfolding: Does Competition Lead 

Greater Information Disclosure? One of the economic issu

advertising is the potential bias in the types of information provid

advertisers. Advertisers have an incentive to tell potential custom

what is good about their product but not what is bad. This issue i

particular concern in multi-attribute products, such as foods, wher

claims about the desirable features could draw attention away from 

desirable and unrevealed characteristics. Economic theory sugges

in many cases competition among producers can substantially red

eliminate this bias in the information provided by the market as a 

This unfolding hypothesis holds that firms gaining sales by highli

just one dimension will soon face competition from firms who po

superiority in other important dimensions as well.

The concern about incomplete information underlies some of 

changes implemented in the NLEA rules. Under the NLEA rules, 

producers make nutrient claims on their labels, they are required t

highlight undesirable characteristics. Of course, triggered disclos

also reduce the incentive to make the original nutrient claims, bec

the claims are now more costly. We examine the unfolding hypot

in several ways. Among our findings:

‘ Mean Number of Lipids Featured in Ads Peaks in 

Falls 20 Percent After the NLEA We have data on claims fo

primary lipid characteristics: total fat, saturated fat, polyunsaturat

monounsaturated fat, and cholesterol. The mean number of lipid

characteristics in ads rises only slightly between 1977 and 1987, b

rises from .13 characteristics in 1987, to .57 characteristics in 199

before falling to .47 characteristics post-NLEA period.
E - 24 / ADVERTISING NUTRITION AND HEALTH

By 1997, the number o

nutrients in the averag

with claims has return

to the level of the mid

1980s, a 33 percent dr

The mean number of lipids in an ad is the product of two fac

the percentage of ads that have any lipid claim, and the average nu

of lipids in an ad that has at least one claim. The percentage of fo

with a lipid claim grows throughout the period examined here, slo

first to 10 percent of ads in 1987, then strongly to 34.4 percent in 

and further to 39.5 percent of ads in 1997. Thus, the reduction in 

mean number of lipids in ads in the post-NLEA period is due to c

in the number of lipid characteristics in ads that have a lipid claim

The number of lipids in ads with a claim is steady at approxi

1.3 characteristics throughout the late 1970s and early 1980s, rise

1.65 characteristics in 1991, and then falls back to 1.26 characteri

1997. To put this in perspective, in 1977, 1.1 percent of ads have 

for more than one lipid characteristic; by 1983, this has risen to 2.

percent, by 1991 it rises strongly to 20.1 percent of ads, and by 19

has fallen sharply back to 5.0 percent. This evidence highlights th

competitive focus on saturated fat and cholesterol claims that rose 

late 1980s before falling back dramatically after the NLEA rules.

‘ Competition on Main Nutrients Peaks in 1991 U

broader index of 12 major nutritional components of foods, we fin

results similar to those for lipids. The mean number of nutrients 

featured in advertising begins growing earlier than for lipids, but 

peaks in 1991, before dropping 22 percent by 1997.

As with lipids, movement in

the overall mean is more the result

of changes in the number of

different nutrients featured in ads

than in the number of 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY / 

advertisements making nutrient claims. If a nutrient claim is mad

ad, the mean number of different nutrients in the ad rises sharply d

the 1980s and decreases substantially during the 1990s.

For example, in 1983 4.0 percent of advertisements have clai

3 or more different nutrients. This rises sharply to 19.9 percent of 

1991, before falling back to 8.5 percent of ads in 1997. As with l

this evidence suggests that the competitive pressures on nutritiona

issues of the late 1980s led advertisers to highlight more nutrition

characteristics of their products than they had earlier. In the post-

period, nutritional claims in advertising are more limited, focusing 

one or two nutrients only. Thus, as for lipids, this evidence provi

support for considerable competitive unfolding and does not supp

hypothesis that the NLEA environment induces more complete nu
E - 26 / ADVERTISING NUTRITION AND HEALTH

profiles in ads.

Better understanding of the reasons for these changes and wh

they have improved consumer diets are important areas for further

research. In earlier work (Ippolito and Mathios, 1996), for instanc

found that the fat characteristics of consumers’ diets improved at 

rate in the late 1980s, compared with the rate between 1977 and 1

would be valuable to know whether diets are continuing to improv

at what rate under the policies adopted in the 1990s.

Is There Competition Among “Bads?” The Case of 

and Oils The unfolding hypothesis implies that firms with a rel

advantage over their competitors will be led to advertise that adva

Thus, even advertisers in “bad food” categories may be induced to 

on nutrition and health as long as consumers are sufficiently awar

nutrition issues and differences on nutrition dimensions within the

category are sizable.

The Fats & Oils category provides a good opportunity to test 

unfolding hypothesis in a “bads” setting. These products generall

contain considerable fat, or are substitutes for such products, but t

vary substantially in the type of fat and in the amount of fat per se

Heart disease has been linked to some types of fat, particularly sat

fat, cholesterol, and transfatty acids, but not others. So substitutio

among fats are important. Under the NLEA rules, direct health cl

competition is no longer allowed for products that are not low in f

Among our findings:

‘ Disease and Affiliated Claims Are a Major Featur

Competition in the Fats & Oils Market When Allowed E

the late 1970s, between 6.5 and 11.4 percent of fat and oil adverti
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY / 

per year includes serum cholesterol claims. These claims fade as 

FTC Food Rulemaking considers explicit regulation of heart-relat

claims, but then rise dramatically and immediately to more than 2

percent of ads in 1983, after the end of the rulemaking. By 1988, 

percent of fat and oil ads include disease or affiliated claims deali

heart issues, as producers compete aggressively on choices within 

the category. These claims remain an important feature in the cat

until 1991, when they fall from 36.7 percent of ads in 1991 to 2.8 

percent of ads in 1992, following the November 1991 publication 

proposed NLEA rules prohibiting health claims for fat products. 

the NLEA rules are in effect, health claims do not reappear throug

1997.
E - 28 / ADVERTISING NUTRITION AND HEALTH

Taken together, this evidence indicates that competition on b

can become a major focus of competition in a particular category, 

fats and oils here. Having less of a bad is, of course, a good thing

apparently advertisers believe that they can communicate the heal

importance of these differences to consumers in a way that enhanc

their products’ sales.

‘ Advertising For Fats & Oils Falls Dramatically in 

NLEA Period; Few Compete on Nutrition As the focus on 

issues fades in the fats and oils category, the amount of advertisin

falls dramatically. In 1997, the number of ads is at only 20 percen

peak level in 1989 and at only 43 percent of its level in 1977. Th

number of ads with saturated fat claims also drops to near zero. B

1997, few advertisers in the category appear to compete on the he
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY / 

nutritional characteristics of fat and oil products.

Advertising and Broader Audiences: Do Producers

Reach Out with News? One of advertising’s possible strengt

potential to reach out to consumers with information. As a final t

advertising’s information role in markets, we examine advertisers

different types of magazines to reach consumers with health news

particular, we contrast the use of health claims in general readersh

magazines (Time, Newsweek, and Readers’ Digest) with that in w

magazines (Better Homes & Gardens, Good Housekeeping, Ladie

Home Journal, McCalls, and Women’s Day). Women’s magazine

the normal magazine medium for food advertising, having 10 time

many ads as the general readership magazines at the start of our p

‘ Food Advertising in General Readership Magazin

Increases During Periods of Increased Health Claim

Advertising The idea that producers reach out to the broader au

with health information is supported by data on the number of ads 

two types of magazines. The number of food advertisements in g

readership magazines increases following 1987, reaching 140 per

its 1977 level in 1989, at the height of the health claims period. T

number of ads falls in the early 1990s, before rising again in the p

NLEA period. In contrast, the number of ads in the women’s mag

sample has been trending downward since the mid 1980s.

‘ During Periods of Change, Health Claims Are Mo

Likely in General Readership Magazines As the regulator

constraints are lifted in the mid-1980s and again after the NLEA r

are in place, the use of disease and affiliated claims rises in wome

magazines, but it rises considerably more in general readership 
E - 30 / ADVERTISING NUTRITION AND HEALTH

magazines, and these magazines have large audiences. In 1989 at 

peak, 20.9 percent of all food ads in our general readership magaz

contain a disease or affiliated claim compared to 6.6 percent of ad

our women’s magazines.

Taken together, these data are generally consistent with the

hypothesis that producers will attempt to spread information that 

expands demand for their products to broader audiences when allo

do so.

Concluding Remarks

This report examines a wealth of data on the content of food

advertising during the years 1977 to 1997. The data make it clear 

nutrition-related claims have become a major feature of food adve

and an important focus of competition. The evidence also makes 

that regulatory rules and enforcement policy matter – the content 

food advertising shifts markedly as the policies towards nutrition 

health claims vary over these years.

Among the changes in the post-NLEA period, several finding

worth noting. The nutritional focus in advertising has narrowed

substantially. Total fat has become the primary nutritional focus o

advertising competition, away from other major nutrients includin

saturated fat, cholesterol, and sodium. Comparative claims have 

dropped to very low levels for all nutrients except total fat. For h

claims, the most dramatic change has occurred in the market for f

oils, where competition on the health reasons to choose one fat ov

another has been eliminated in advertising. The evidence also sho

increased advertising focus on “good foods,” and in fact, advertis

fruits and vegetables has fallen significantly since the NLEA.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY / 

The ultimate question of which regulatory and legal policies 

serve consumer interests requires that we relate the advertising ch

observed here to consumers food choices. Until that work is done

evidence provides us with an important part of that evaluation: ob

and detailed information on the content of food advertising under 

different policies examined here.

Marketing is often controversial. Producers are trying to sell 

products. But marketing claims about important product characte

subject to market and enforcement limits on deception – unleash

competitive forces that play an important role in shaping the mix 

products available in the market and in attracting consumers to pr

with desired characteristics. As science has shown the importance 

nutrition in disease risks, advertising has focused increasingly on

nutritional characteristics of food. In crafting policy that serves

consumers’ interests, it is important that we understand the role of

marketing in consumer goods settings. We hope this evidence

contributes to that effort.

1

 See Ippolito, Ippolito and Mathios, and Pappalardo and Ringold (variou

in the references.

I

Introduction

Advertising is a prominent feature of consumer good market

Firms devote substantial resources to advertising as they compete 

customers. But advertising remains controversial. Does advertis

to the information base that consumers use to make better decisio

does it lead them to poorer decisions? Does it facilitate competit

among firms as they try to meet consumer demands or does it inh

competition by its costs?

Regulatory and legal rules limit the claims firms can make in 

advertising. Primarily the legal standards attempt to prevent dece

or misleading claims. But what is deceptive and to whom? How 

different rules on advertising claims affect firms’ incentives to co

And how do the rules affect the information content of advertisin

dimensions that become the focus of competition in marketing?

In a series of earlier studies,1 we explore the role of advertisi

food markets, especially as it relates to health and nutrition-relate

claims. Food advertising and labeling has been subject to consid

scrutiny over the last 25 years, and the rules governing food claim

changed several times, making it a fertile venue for study. With t

exception of the Pappalardo and Ringold study of the margarine a
2 / ADVERTISING NUTRITION & HEALTH

2

 Other authors have also examined the impact of labels and advertising, i

Teisl, Levy and Derby (1999), Derby and Levy (2000), Weiner (1999), and Moo

(1998).

market, our earlier studies have not had direct evidence on the typ

claims actually made in advertising. Instead, the studies focus on

changes in consumer and firm behavior as regulations change reg

health or other nutrition-related claims.2

This study is designed to provide original data on the conten

food advertising over a sufficiently long period that both market a

regulatory forces can be assessed. More specifically, the study co

large, systematic sample of magazine food advertising from the le

women’s and general readership magazines for the years 1977 thr

1997. All advertising for foods in the sampled magazines is inclu

except that for baby food and alcoholic beverages.

A methodology is developed to extract all nutrition-related c

from these advertisements and to categorize them in ways amenab

study. Some other broad classes of claims, such as taste or new p

claims, as well as some health-related pictures and symbols, are a

recorded. Each advertisement is coded twice. Computer checkin

during the coding and computerized reconciliation of discrepanci

third coder are used to assure that the final advertising claim data 

very high degree of accuracy. The data record the presence of cla

various types. The data do not allow us to assess whether the cla

truthful or deceptive to consumers.

After describing the methodology and the sample in more de

Chapter 2, the study proceeds to provide a wealth of descriptive d

food advertising. Chapter 3 presents data on food advertising spe
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION 

from public industry sources and demonstrates that the number of

advertisements in our sample tracks industry trends quite closely. 

chapter also presents data on the amount of food advertising in br

food categories and on trends in nonnutritional types of claims in 

advertising.

Chapter 4 presents detailed data on the use of specific nutrie

content claims over time for all of the major nutrients, such as tot

saturated fat, sodium, etc., as well as claims about calories and di

The chapter also presents data on the use of general nutrition clai

time, such as the use of the terms healthy, wholesome, light, etc., 

as comparative information on trends in the use of specific versus

general nutrition-related claims.

Diet-disease claims and other health effect claims have been

particularly contentious features of food advertising. Chapter 5 p

basic descriptive data on the use of these specific health claims,

including data on the use of heart disease, cancer, and other disea

claims. For the major health claims, the data are also presented b

category.

Regulatory rules for nutrition and health-related claims on fo

labels and in food advertising have been the focus of considerable 

over the period of our data and have changed several times. Chap

provides a brief review of the major regulatory events related to f

marketing, and then uses regression analyses to examine whether 

how the use of health and nutrient content claims varies over the 

regulatory regimes. The chapter also examines whether the post-

environment is successful in inducing more advertising and a grea

health focus in advertising for the foods targeted for increased
4 / ADVERTISING NUTRITION & HEALTH

consumption, such as fruit and vegetables, compared to foods targ

for reduced consumption, such as fats and oils, as had been hoped 

the regulations were devised.

Finally, Chapter 7 focuses more directly on some of the econ

theories of advertising. The chapter provides evidence on the

hypotheses that advertising plays a direct informational role in m

The chapter also examines the hypothesis that a less restrictive po

towards advertising fosters competitive pressures leading firms to 

on more dimensions of the product in their advertising. The chap

presents evidence on competition on bad as well as good aspects 

foods, such as the types of fats, in the fats and oils category. Fina

chapter examines the hypothesis that firms will attempt to spread

information to new audiences through advertising when allowed 

easily.

This study, like our earlier work, cannot resolve policy quest

concerning the use of health information in food advertising and

labeling. Instead our goal is to provide a broad range of evidence 

claims advertisers actually make in their food advertising, eviden

has been lacking in previous assessments of the issues. This type 

evidence is essential in assessing the types and frequency of vario

claims flowing to consumers in advertising under different enforc

policies and the reactions of advertisers to the different advertisin

For instance, if producers do not compete on the nutritional featu

their products, concern about stifling that competition would be

lessened. Conversely, if certain problematic claims do not occur

frequently and regulatory burdens designed to address such claim

other informative nutrition-related claims, the regulations might m

reconsideration.
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION 

Our primary goal in this report is to provide evidence on adv

content that bears on these and a host of other regulation and poli

issues regarding food marketing and consumer policy more gener

addition, though, the data here should be of interest to marketing

researchers, nutritionists, and economists attempting to better und

the forces that shape consumer and firm behavior, especially the r

marketing can play in changing consumer dietary choices.
II

Methodology and Sample Characteristics

INTRODUCTION

The primary goal of this project is to collect reliable data on 

types and quantity of nutrition-related claims in food advertising 

sufficient number of years to span recent changes in food labeling 

advertising regulations. As detailed in Chapter 3, television is the

primary medium used for food advertising. Unfortunately, no arc

exist that would allow us to develop a consistent and representati

database of food advertising on television. Magazine advertising 

second largest category of food advertising, and many libraries re

copies of the most popular magazines. Since advertising campaig

themes are generally carried across the various media used, we w

expect changes in advertising claims in magazines to generally re

overall advertising shifts.

These facts determine the approach adopted here, namely to 

a large database of magazine food advertising from the leading

magazines used by food producers. A methodology is developed 

extract all nutrition-related claims from these advertisements and 

categorize them in ways that will be useful for analysis. This cha

describes the sample of advertisements and the methodology for

extracting claims from the ads.
CHAPTER 2 - METHODOLOGY 

1

 Baby food and alcoholic beverage labels are regulated differently from o

foods. Since part of our interest is in describing changes under the NLEA and o

labeling and advertising rules, advertising for these foods is not included. Dieta

supplements are also not included in the sample, but diet foods, such as Slim Fa

included. For the remainder of the report, we will use the term food advertising 

the qualification that baby food, alcoholic beverages, and supplements are not in

2

 The first US Senate Dietary Guidelines for Americans is published in 19

USDA and HHS dietary guidelines begin in 1980 and are revised every five yea

ADVERTISING SAMPLE

In developing a sample for this study, we want a collection o

advertisements that represents the magazine advertising flowing t

consumers and a sample that is consistent over time in order to re

changes in the content of these advertisements. To achieve these 

we choose a fixed set of magazines that represents the major sour

magazine food advertising. These magazines are sampled consist

fixed points during the year for each of the years in the sample. A

advertisements in the selected magazine issues, except for baby f

alcoholic beverages advertisements,1

 are included in the sample.

Years of the Sample The sample covers the years 1977 t

1997. The sample period begins well after nutrition labeling is pu

place in the early 1970s and coincides with the large USDA food

consumption survey in 1977. The sample period ends three years 

the full implementation of the Nutrition Labeling and Education 

1990 (NLEA) and seven years after passage of the act itself.

These years cover a period of substantial development in the

information flowing to consumers from other sources, including t

development of dietary guidelines,2

 several changes in food label

advertising regulations culminating in the passage of the NLEA, 
8 / ADVERTISING NUTRITION AND HEALTH

3

 As cited in World Almanac and Book of Facts, 1977 through 1997.

4

 The only women’s magazine in the top six that is not included in the sam

Family Circle. We were unable to find a complete set of the selected monthly is

this magazine in available libraries. The seventh magazine, Redbook, along with 

issues of the chosen magazines, are used for testing and development of the cod

instrument.

5

 Modern Maturity has greater circulation than the selected magazines in 

years of our sample, but this magazine is available only to AARP members.

number of scientific and public health initiatives involving food i

These are discussed in more detail as we analyze the data.

Magazines in the Sample Women’s magazines are the p

magazines food producers use for advertising. Circulation data fo

magazines are available from the Audit Bureau of Circulation.3 W

ranks change somewhat from year to year, the list of the top seven

women’s magazines is quite stable during the years 1977 to 1997

a wide range of libraries in the Washington, D. C. area, as well as

purchasing back issues available from the publishers, we attempt

assemble complete samples of the needed issues. This was succe

for five of the top six women’s magazines, and those five are use

sample, namely Better Homes and Gardens, Good Housekeeping

Home Journal, McCall’s, and Women’s Day.

4

 The same procedu

used to select the top three general readership magazines for the s

These are Reader’s Digest, Time, and Newsweek.

5

Sampling Frequency Since most magazines in our samp

issued monthly, we randomly chose a starting month from the firs

months of the year and then chose every fourth month for inclusi

the sample. The selected months are February, June, and Octobe

each year. For the weekly magazines (Time and Newsweek), the 

and fourth issues of the month are included. For Women’s Day, w
CHAPTER 2 - METHODOLOGY 

6

 Content analysis is a technique used in many disciplines to collect objec

systematic, quantitative, and generalizable descriptions of communication conte

technique has been used to study advertising since at least the 1970s. In recent y

researchers have begun to use content analysis to investigate changes in the use 

nutrition and health information in food advertising. See, for instance, Lord, Ea

and Stanton (1987, 1988), Hickman, Gates, and Dowdy (1993), Pratt and Pratt (

and Pappalardo and Ringold (2000).

issued every three weeks, the first issue of the month is chosen if 

selected month has more than one issue. All food advertisements 

these issues of the magazines are included in the sample. If an

advertisement appears in several magazines, it is included in the s

each time it appears. Thus, the sample measures the quantity of

advertising of a particular type flowing to consumers, but not the 

of distinct advertising campaigns at any time.

Summary of Advertising Sample Table 2-1 summarize

characteristics of our advertising sample. Our sample includes al

covered food advertisements that appear in the February, June, or

October issues of the selected magazines for the years 1977 throu

1997. This sample has 11,647 advertisements.

METHODOLOGY FOR EXTRACTING AD CLAIMS

Manifest Content Analysis Claims in the advertisement

extracted using manifest content analysis, which measures explic

advertising claims.6 In this technique coders are given specific

instructions on how to code the words, and to a more limited exte

particular symbols or pictures, in the advertisements. Coders are 

asked to interpret what the words or pictures might mean in a par

context.
Table 2-1 Summary of Advertising Sample Characte

Women’s Magazines Sampled

Better Homes and Gardens

Good Housekeeping

Ladies’ Home Journal

McCall’s

Women’s Day

General Readership Magazines Sampled

Reader’s Digest

Time

Newsweek

Months and Years Included1

February, June, October for every year from 1977 to 199

Foods Covered

All foods except for baby foods and alcoholic beverages

Advertisements Included

All advertisements for covered foods that appear in the s

issues of the selected magazines.

Resulting sample has 11,647 advertisements.

Notes. 

1

 For weekly magazines, the second and fourth issues in the month are i

For Women’s Day, which is issued every 3 weeks, the first issue of the month is 

a month has two issues.
CHAPTER 2 - METHODOLOGY 

7

 See Ringold and Calfee (1989) and the papers cited there for a recent di

of the two techniques.

8

 Coding instructions are available from the authors upon request.

9

 For instance, if a coder indicates that an advertisement has no fat claims

tries to code a low fat claim, the program stops the coding until the inconsistenc

corrected.

10 For instance, a coder would be asked if there were any fat claims of any 

the coder answers no, all of the more specific fat claim categories are filled in

appropriately and the coder is directed to the next channeling question.

This technique is chosen over latent content analysis, which

attempts to measure the effect of claims in the advertisements, be

produces more reliable and objectively verifiable data. Latent co

analysis requires those who code the advertising to attempt to inte

what is communicated to the audience, rather than what is actuall

in the advertisement. While it is undeniably true that words can h

different meanings in different contexts, attempting to discern tha

meaning in a large scale effort such as this one risks introducing

considerable subjectivity and potential bias into the data. The his

nature of the study makes the usual concerns about latent content

analysis particularly acute, as coders today would have to infer im

claims consumers would have taken from advertisements decades 

Computer-Assisted Coding After extensive testing with 

advertisements outside our sample, detailed instructions were dev

to guide coders in extracting claims from advertisements.8 We us

computer-assisted coding instrument that allows coders to enter d

directly into a database. A variety of computerized consistency c

are conducted on each entry as the coding occurs, and coders are 

allowed to proceed until any inconsistencies are corrected.9 Ques

are also nested to reduce the burden on coders.10
12 / ADVERTISING NUTRITION AND HEALTH

11 Coders are instructed to code a claim in this category if it is a no fat cla

including no fat, fat free, zero fat, nonfat, zip, nada, none, without any, 100% fa

0% fat.

12 Coders are instructed to code claims in this category only if the terms lo

lowfat are used.

13 Coders are instructed to code any X% fat free or X% fat statements in th

category, except for 100% fat free and 0% fat, which are coded in the No fat cate

14 Coders code any other statement describing the absolute level of fat in t

product in this category. The text of such claims are recorded in the text box.

Table 2-2 indicates the major classes of claims coded from t

advertising. For each advertisement, a coder is asked if there are 

claims of a given type. If the answer is yes, the coder is asked a s

more detailed questions about the claims in the category. For ins

within the category of General nutrition claims, coders are asked 

indicate the presence of claims in each of the following categorie

Health/Healthy, Smart/Right, Good/Better for you, Nutritious/Nu

Wholesome, Enriched/Fortified, Light/Lighter, Lean/Leaner, Gui

free/No guilt, Fresh, Natural/No artificial/Real/Pure, Energy,

Young/Fitness/Well-being, and Other general nutrition claims.

Figure 2-1 provides a copy of the coding instrument for the f

claim questions as it appears on the computer screen. To illustrat

coding process, consider this series of questions. Coders are first 

whether the advertisement contains any (total) fat claims. If it do

coders are immediately channeled to the next category of questio

the ad does contain fat claims, the coder is first asked whether the

any fat level claims. If the answer is yes, the coder proceeds to

characterize the claim(s) into the categories No fat/Free,

11 Low fa

Fat free,

13 and Other level claim.

14 Coders then record whether th

amount of fat is given quantitatively, whether alone or with anoth

claim.
Table 2-2 Major Categories of Coded Claims1

General nutrition claims

(e.g., nutritious, healthy, natural, light)

Nutrient content claims

(e.g., fat claims, saturated fat claims, calcium claims, ca

claims)

Health claims

(e.g., heart disease claims, cancer claims, serum cholest

claims, bone claims)

Expert/Dietary guidance claims

(e.g., American Heart Association recommends, dieticia

recommend, dietary guidelines given)

Auxiliary health information given

(e.g., total diet context, need for exercise)

Health symbols or pictures

(e.g., USDA Food Pyramid, health association seal, peo

exercising)

Other ad claims of the following types:

Taste, aroma, texture Suggestions for 

New, introducing, improved Convenient, quic

Variety Price, cost, coup

Promotional offer

Notes. 

1

 A more precise definition of each category of claims is given when the 

are discussed in later chapters.
Figure 2-1 Illustration of Claim Coding Questions

Fat Claim Questions

Health Claim Questions1

Notes. 

1

 The complete coding questionnaire is provided in the appendix.
CHAPTER 2 - METHODOLOGY 

15 Claims are coded in this category only if they use the terms less, reduce

lower (possibly with the quantity given, as in 50% less fat).

16 Claims are coded in this category only if they use the terms lowest or le

17 All other claims that compare the amount of fat using comparative term

coded in this category, such as compare, side-by-side nutrition tables, fat has be

etc. The text of such claims are recorded in the text box.

18 This category includes specific disease claims, such as “Concerned abo

disease? Brand X is low in saturated fat and cholesterol.” The category also inc

claims referred to as structure-function claims in labeling regulations, such as “t

maintain healthy cholesterol levels,” “for strong bones,” or “Fiber helps keep yo

digestive system functioning for natural regularity.” This category does not incl

general health or nutrition terms, such as natural or wholesome.

The coder is next asked whether the ad has any fat comparat

claims. If not, the coder is taken to the next category of claims. I

are comparative claims, the coder is asked to classify the claim(s) 

categories Less/Reduced/Lower,

15 Lowest,16 and Other comparati

claim.

17 Coders then record whether the quantity is given in the

comparison (either in grams or % Daily Value) and the compariso

product (if any). Finally, the coder is asked to classify the compa

product as Own product, Competitor’s product, Generic food,

Market/Leading brands, Not specified, or Other. Claims for othe

nutrients are coded in the same general way.

Figure 2-1 also includes the section of the coding instrument 

captures specific Health claims. These claims, discussed in more 

in Chapter 5, are defined as any statement or term in the ad referr

specific health effects of nutrients or foods, such as statements ab

specific disease risks or any other specific health effects of foods

shown in the figure, a coder is asked whether the ad contains any

specific health claims. If not, the coder is channeled to the next s

questions. If there are health claims, the coder records the claim(
16 / ADVERTISING NUTRITION AND HEALTH

19 For many of the older magazines, we had to make copies of the advertis

outside libraries, where color copiers were not available.

the listed categories. The text of the claim is recorded and an ind

is set if the claim somehow quantifies the health effect.

The entire coding instrument is included in the appendix. G

nutrition claims are coded first, since pretesting indicated that thi

category of claims is the most challenging for coders, and the cod

more accurate if the category is addressed first. Nutrient content 

are coded next for each of the major nutrients, as illustrated for fa

above. A catchall category is presented for Other nutrient claims 

covered elsewhere to ensure that all nutrition claims are captured

Calorie and diet claims are next, followed by Health claims, and 

miscellaneous health-related categories, such as Expert and dieta

advice claims, Auxiliary health information, and Health symbols 

pictures. Finally, broad categories of other types of claims in the 

coded, such as Taste, aroma, texture claims and New, introducing

improved claims.

Nine coders participated in the project. All were undergradu

students or college graduates employed by the FTC, and all were 

with computer technology. All received extensive training in the 

rules and in the use of the computerized coding instrument. Each 

reach a level of proficiency before undertaking actual coding.

Black and white copies were made of all advertisements to e

that the availability of color ads does not affect historical trends.1

advertisement is coded independently by two coders. Coders cod

advertisements in assigned magazine issues. These issues are

randomized over time and magazine to ensure that learning and
CHAPTER 2 - METHODOLOGY 

20 We began coding a smaller set of four magazines, the two leading wom

magazines (Better Home and Gardens and Good Housekeeping) and the two lea

general readership magazines (Reader’s Digest and Time). Once we were assure

costs were acceptable, we expanded the set of magazines to include those descri

above.

21 Prior to resolution, reliability rates between coders are very high, rangin

98 percent or higher for specific nutrient claims and 99 percent or higher for spe

health claims, to 93.8 percent or higher for general nutrition claims and 90.8 per

higher for the broad classes of nonnutritional claims. The bulk of the disagreem

the initial codings involve one coder missing a claim; only a very small portion 

disagreements involve substantive questions about how best to code the claim u

coding rules. Detailed reliability rates are available from the authors.

22 Since these data do not involve claims, they were recorded by one of th

(Ippolito).

maturation effects in the coders do not affect historical trends or

magazine category results.20 A computer matching program comp

the two codings and any discrepancies are resolved by a third

independent coder. These resolved data are used in the study.21 T

authors did not do any of the coding or resolution.

Coders are instructed to consider all words in the advertisem

that are readable, including words on the labels shown in the

advertisements. Thus, no distinction is made between “primary” 

and other claims in the ad. All distinct claims in the ads are recor

and many advertisements have multiple nutrition-related claims.

OTHER INFORMATION ABOUT THE ADVERTISEMENTS

Certain other basic information about each advertisement is 

recorded in the database.22 In particular, the data include the mag

month, and year of the ad, the company/brand of the product (as b

can be determined from the ad), the name of the food (text), the n
18 / ADVERTISING NUTRITION AND HEALTH

of products in the ad, the size of the advertisement, whether the n

label is shown in the ad, and food category indicators to categoriz

product(s) in the advertisement into basic food categories. Size i

recorded in one of four categories: 1/4 page or less, more than 1/4 

to less than one page, one page, and more than one page.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

To our knowledge, this study provides the most comprehensi

examination of magazine advertising content ever undertaken. Th

sample includes detailed content assessment of 11,647 food

advertisements that cover a 21 year period. To put this in perspec

Ringold and Calfee’s (1989) cigarette advertising study is based o

sample of 568 ads over a 60 year period, and Pappalardo and Rin

(2000) study of oil and margarine advertising is based on 412

advertisements over 40 years. The study’s scale is possible, in pa

because it made use of computer technology to reduce the burden 

coders and to increase the accuracy and speed of the data coding 

verification process. 

We believe the advertising dataset developed for this project

presents a very accurate and complete picture of the types of nutr

related claims made in magazine food advertising over the years 

1997 covered by the study.
III

Broad Trends in Food Advertising

INTRODUCTION

Before turning to nutrition-related claims, this chapter provid

some background information on general trends in food advertisin

during the years 1977-1997. Data are presented on overall advert

expenditures for foods and on trends in advertising spending by m

These data from industry sources are compared to trends in our sa

of magazine advertising and are found to be quite consistent. The

chapter also provides some general information from our sample 

advertising frequency over time and for different food groups. 

Information is also provided on the use of certain broad categorie

claims in food advertising, such as taste, product use, or convenie

claims. Information on these claims provides some context for as

changes in the health-related claims that are the focus of the follo

chapters.

BACKGROUND

Industry Data on Food Ad Spending Advertising

expenditures are available by medium for a variety of industries f

Leading National Advertisers (LNA). Table 3-1 gives advertising

spending for food products as reported by LNA for each year and 

the percentage of that spending in magazines, television, and othe

covered media. The Television estimates are the sum of network
Table 3-1 Advertising Expenditures for Food Produc

by Media

Year All Media Magazines TV Other 

($1000) (%) (%) (%

1977 1,697,723 8.9 88.2 2

1978 1,950,534 9.6 88.2 2

1979 2,240,247 9.0 88.4 2

1980 2,305,795 9.2 88.0 2

1981 2,463,145 9.4 87.4 3

1982 2,766,022 9.5 87.3 3

1983 3,010,569 9.7 87.7 2

1984 3,377,074 9.9 87.6 2

1985 3,757,174 10.5 85.9 3

1986 3,895,879 11.3 85.5 3

1987 4,047,054 10.4 85.9 3

1988 4,712,518 9.1 80.9 10

1989 4,595,836 10.6 84.7 4

1990 5,020,701 10.1 82.7 7

1991 4,699,701 10.4 83.3 6

1992 4,742,045 11.1 82.6 6

1993 4,725,794 11.2 82.2 6

1994 5,347,362 11.1 83.3 5

1995 5,461,176 14.0 80.0 6

1996 5,684,047 13.6 80.1 6

1997 5,986,885 13.6 79.5 6

Data. BAR/LNA Multi-media Service, Ad $ Summary, Leading National Adver

New York, NY, annual. Data is summed for Food and Food Products (F100) a

Confectionery, Snacks & Soft Drinks (F200). TV includes network, spot, cable, 

syndicated. Other media includes network and national spot radio, Sunday mag

newspapers, and outdoor advertising captured by LNA.
CHAPTER 3 - TRENDS 

1

 Network television cost per 1000 households is from Nielsen Media Res

February each year, available from Television Bureau of Advertising (TVB), 19

(con

cable, and syndicated advertising for the available years as report

LNA. The Other Media category is the sum of Sunday magazine

supplements, newspaper, outdoor, network radio, and national sp

radio. Advertising expenditures for Food and Food Products (F1

and for Confectionery, Snacks & Soft Drinks (F200) are summed 

table. This includes all food advertising in LNA except for alcoh

beverages, and thus, corresponds quite well to the foods covered 

sample.

As shown in Table 3-1, spending for food advertising is

disproportionately concentrated in television throughout the perio

This percentage falls from 88 percent in 1977 to just under 80 pe

1997. In contrast, the percentage of food advertising spending in

magazines, while a much smaller portion of total advertising, incr

over this period, from nearly 9 percent in 1977 to 13.6 percent in 

Spending on food advertising in all other media combined is 10 p

or less of the total, and usually under 7 percent, during the period

magazines, spending in these other media tends to increase over t

period, rising from 2.9 percent in 1977 to 6.9 percent in 1997.

The amount of advertising and the media mix for advertising 

product category depends in part on the absolute and relative pric

advertising in the media best suited for reaching the target audien

The costs of advertising in some media increase markedly in real 

over this period. Figure 3-1 illustrates the cost of reaching 1000

households on network television (nighttime, Monday through Sa

and the cost a 4-color ad per page per 1000 circulation for magaz
Figure 3-1 Cost of Advertising in Magazines and Networ

Figure 3-2 Number of Food Ads and Ad Pages in Sampl

Notes. 

1 Network nighttime television cost per 1000 households from Neilsen M

Television Bureau of Advertising, www.tvb.org/tvfacts/index, 1998, (TVB); ma

cost for a 4-color ad per page per 1000 circulation from Magazine Publishers of 

also at TVB, and Producer Price Index for Finished Goods [100=1982] from Bu

Labor Statistics, in Economic Report of the President, 1999. 1977 values in par

2

 Number of Food Ads is a count of ads in the sample per year. The Weighted C

multiplies each ad by the number of pages in the ad before summing.
CHAPTER 3 - TRENDS 

(...continued)

www.tvb.org. Magazine advertising cost is for a 4-color ad per page per 1000 c

from Magazine Publishers of America, also available from TVB.

2

 The Producer Price Index for Finished Goods is from the Bureau of Lab

Statistics as reported in Economic Report of the President, 1999.

The figure indicates that the price of advertising has increased rap

over the period in these two media, which are heavily used for fo

advertising. Moreover, these costs have increased faster than oth

producer costs since the early 1980s. For instance, the Producer P

Index for Finished Goods2 is also shown in Figure 3-1 and increa

much slower rate than either the magazine or TV advertising cost

1983. Using this index as a price deflator, between 1977 and 199

real cost of advertising increases by 73 percent for magazines and 

percent for TV.

Comparison With Food Advertising Sample Figure 3

depicts the number of food advertisements in our sample of maga

over time. The number of ads per year falls during the period, wh

might be expected given the increasing real price of magazine

advertising during most of the period. In 1977 our sample contai

than 600 advertisements; by 1997 this number falls to approxima

advertisements.

The size of food ads in our sample, measured as the total num

pages of space taken up by the ad, also rises somewhat over time, 

an average of .95 pages in 1977 to 1.05 pages in 1997. Figure 3-3 

the size distribution of advertisements over the period. In 1977

approximately 65 percent of ads are one page or more in size, but 

1997 this figure is 85 percent. Most of this shift is due to the red

use of smaller sized ads after 1987.
Figure 3-3 Size Distribution of Ads

Figure 3-4 Magazine Ad Expenditures for Food Adverti

Sample Versus Industry Data

Notes. 1 The estimated ad cost index for the sample is computed as the weighte

ads per year (page count) multiplied by the cost of a 4-color ad page per 1000 ci

2

 Industry data on magazine advertising expenditures taken from Leading Nation

Advertisers data for Food and Food Products (F100) and for Confectionery, Sna

Soft Drinks (F200).
CHAPTER 3 - TRENDS 

3

 Virtually all advertising in our sample is colored.

4

 Since we do not have annual circulation data for the magazines in our sa

cannot calculate a full cost estimate for the sample. In particular, our index does 

reflect any changes in circulation over these years. Magazine circulation data fr

Magazine Publishers of America for the 50 leading magazines (available at the T

in footnote 1) shows overall circulation rising approximately 5 percent between 

1986, remaining approximately stable until 1993, and then falling about 8 perce

mid-1990s. Assuming our sample of magazines followed this pattern, these circ

changes are not large enough to alter our conclusion.

To correct for this change in the size of ads, Figure 3-2 also

includes data on the estimated number of advertising pages per ye

our sample, that is, the size-weighted average of the count data in 

year. With either measure, the level of advertising in our sample 

substantially over the period.

As one means of verifying that this sizable downward trend 

advertising in our sample is consistent with overall industry expe

data for food advertising, we create a cost index for our sample b

multiplying the number of pages of advertising in each year by th

of a 4-color ad per 1000 circulation in that year.3 This index is

illustrated in Figure 3-4 together with the LNA estimates of maga

advertising expenditures for foods (the combined F100 and F200

categories described above). As is clear from the figure, the two 

series follow a very similar pattern, suggesting that our sample m

changes in the overall market data quite well.4

Advertising and Food Categories To provide informat

the distribution of advertising across food categories, Table 3-2 li

definitions for 9 major food categories that cover the universe of 

products in the sample. Because of their breadth of coverage, the

categories each include a wide variety of foods. The definitions f
26 / ADVERTISING NUTRITION AND HEALTH

Table 3-2 Description of Food Categories

_________________________________________________ ____________

Food Category Description

________________________________________________ ___________

Meat/Eggs/Mixtures Beef, pork, lamb, veal, game, baco

sausage, franks, lunch meats, and

substitutes; eggs and substitutes; m

foods with these items as the majo

ingredient, including sandwiches, 

meat in sauces, frozen dinners, etc

Poultry/Fish/Grain Chicken, turkey, and other poultry

/Mixtures and seafood; rice, pasta, stuffing; m

foods with these items as the majo

ingredient, includes Italian, Orient

Mexican food, etc. Soup.

Cereals/Breads Ready-to-eat and cooked cereals; b

rolls, croissants, bagels, English m

flour, etc. Does not include bread 

sandwiches, etc., if sold as a mixe

Also pancakes and waffles.

Dairy Milk, milk-based drinks, and powd

milk; cheese, cream, sour cream, y

and substitutes. Does not include 

items in mixed foods, as in lasagn

cheeseburgers; does not include da

desserts.

_______________________ ___________________________________

(Table continued on nex
CHAPTER 3 - TRENDS 

Table 3-2 (Continued)

__________________________________ __________________________________ ______ ___

Food Category Description

__________________________________ _________________ _________________ ________

Fats & Oils Butter, margarine, spreads, lard,

shortening, oils, etc.

Desserts/Salty Snacks/ Ice cream, ice milk, and substitute

Sweet Breads pudding, jello; cakes, cookies, pie

related baked goods; sweet sauces

candy, gum, etc.; nuts, seeds, and 

butter; crackers, salty snacks, chip

popcorn, etc.; sweet breads, muffi

coffee cakes, donuts, nut breads, d

etc.

Fruits/Vegetables/Juice Fruit, vegetables, juice, dried fruit

tomato sauce, beans, potatoes, etc

Soft Drinks/Coffee/Tea/ Coffee, tea, soft drinks, fruit drink

Other Drinks juice), etc. Does not include milk

or alcoholic beverages.

Dressing/Sauces/Gravy/ Salad dressing and mixes, meat fla

Seasonings/Misc. sauces, white sauce, gravy, cookin

sauce, soy sauce, etc. Seasonings,

vinegar, yeast, cornstarch, pectin,

unflavored gelatin, baking soda, e

Meal replacements, sugar and sug

substitutes, general brand advertis

_______________________ ___________________________________
28 / ADVERTISING NUTRITION AND HEALTH

5

 The categories here are amalgams of the food categories used in Ippolito 

Mathios (1996), designed to link to USDA food categorizations and described in 

there.

the USDA’s practice for food categorization, in which mixed foo

assigned to categories based on their primary food ingredient. Th

instance, a hamburger made up of meat, bread, and other miscella

ingredients is treated as a meat mixture, since meat is the primary

ingredient.5 The Dressings/Etc. category is a catchall category th

includes small categories of foods not captured elsewhere, such a

replacement products (e.g., liquid meal products) and general bra

advertising (which is a very small part of the sample).

Table 3-3 indicates the percentage of food ads in each year t

contain a product from the listed categories. The table lists 1977

and 1997 data, but unless otherwise indicated, is generally reflect

the data over the whole period. The percentages do not add to 10

percent in any given year, because some advertisements contain m

than one product, including products from different categories.

As shown in the table, food advertising is spread over the fu

of foods, but it shows considerable stability over time with a few

exceptions. Both the Fats & Oils and the Fruit/Vegetables/Juice

categories show systematic reductions in advertising in the post-N

period. The Desserts/Etc. category fell somewhat in the mid-198

then stabilized. With these exceptions, there is little systematic tr

in the annual data for these broad food categories, a finding that i

reflected in the three years of data reported in the table.
Table 3-3 Percentage of Advertising by Food Catego

Food Category 1977 1987 199

Meat/Eggs/Mixtures 10.0 8.3 8

Poultry/Fish/Grain/ 19.1 15.9 20

Mixtures

Cereals/Breads 10.0 9.4 10

Dairy1 4.7 7.6 14

Fats & Oils 4.5 5.8 2

Desserts/Salty Snacks/ 22.9 20.9 20

Sweet Breads

Fruit/Vegetables/Juice 16.4 18.4 11

Soft Drinks/Coffee/Tea 8.6 9.2 9

Other Drinks

Dressings/Sauces/Gravy/ 15.9 16.6 8

Seasonings/Misc.2

Data. Data from advertising sample; product category definitions in Table 3-2

do not add to 100 percent, because some advertisements include products from m

one product category.

Notes. 

1

 The data for dairy products is quite variable from year to year. The da

these three years do not accurately indicate the trend in the annual data, which i

slightly positive.

 

2

 Miscellaneous products and general brand advertising are a small part of this 

category, together never rising above 3 percentage points in the total.

 

3

 The 1997 data for Dressings, etc. is anomalous; in 1996 16.2 percent of the a

included products from this category. The annual data shows only a very slight

downward trend over the years 1977-1997.
30 / ADVERTISING NUTRITION AND HEALTH

6

 Coder instructions included examples or added guidance for coding sen

claims, including for taste claims: the examples “‘tastes good, ‘Umm, umm good

for aroma claims: “Any claim about the smell of the product;” and for texture cl

“Any claim about the texture of the product, such as smoothness, crunchiness,

creaminess, richness, etc.”

EVIDENCE ON BROAD CATEGORIES OF AD CLAIMS

Our primary interest in this report is with the many types of 

related to nutrition, diet, and health. However, in coding the

advertisements in our sample, we also collected some information 

several other classes of claims frequently observed in food advert

These other categories of claims provide some context in which t

the frequency of nutrition-related claims over time. They also ca

controls in assessing whether changes observed in nutrition-relate

claims are specific to those types of claims or simply reflect other 

in advertising affecting the frequency of all types of explicit claim

Taste, Aroma, Texture Claims Food advertising freque

contains claims about the sensory aspects of the product. In our s

coders were instructed to record the presence of a sensory claim

whenever an ad made “an explicit claim about taste, aroma, or tex

of the product.6

 Figure 3-5 illustrates the percentage of ads per y

our sample with a Taste, aroma, texture claim. These data indica

sensory claims are very common in food advertisements: more th

percent of all ads contain such claims between 1977 and 1986, an

the percentage falls somewhat in the latter half of the period, it re

above 65 percent of all ads throughout the period.

Convenient, Quick, Easy Claims Figure 3-5 also prese

percentage of ads that contained a Convenient, quick, easy claim. 
Figure 3-5 Taste, Aroma, Texture and Convenience Claim

Figure 3-6 New, Introducing, Improved and Variety Claim

Notes. 

1

 Taste, aroma, texture claim category includes all sensory claims of the

Convenience claim category includes all claims about ease of use. See text for

definitions.

2

 New, introducing, improved claim category includes all claims about new or im

products or varieties. Variety claim category includes all claims about the variet

available, including package sizes, flavors, etc. See text for definitions.
32 / ADVERTISING NUTRITION AND HEALTH

7

 Coders were guided to record any ad that includes a claim that “specific

focuses on the little time to prepare, the ease of preparation, convenience, instan

to-drink, etc. ... a ‘portability’ claim, as in ‘goes anywhere’ or ‘take it with you,’ 

Coders were specifically instructed not to judge whether the time listed in recipe

short.

this category of claims, coders were instructed to record the prese

“any claims about the product as convenient, quick, or easy to use

Approximately 40 percent of all ads in the sample include such cl

1977, and while the frequency of these claims falls somewhat ove

it remains above 25 percent of all ads throughout the period.

New, Introducing, Improved Claims Another type of c

that is relatively common in food advertising and that might be re

indirectly to new health information is a claim that a product, or v

of a product, is new to the market or has been improved in some w

For this category of claim, coders were instructed to record the cl

“only if the ad makes any claim about a new or improved product 

varieties.” As shown in Figure 3-6, New, introducing, improved 

become somewhat more common over time. Approximately 15 p

of all ads in our sample contain a New, introducing, improved cla

1977, and this rises to more than 25 percent by 1984, where it rem

1997.

Variety Claims Many food ads contain information about

varieties of the product available in the market. This includes cla

about different flavors, package sizes, and types (e.g., regular ver

instant, regular versus a low calorie version, etc.). As shown in F

3-6 approximately 50 percent of all ads in our sample have a Var

claim in 1977. This rises to over 60 percent by 1987 and falls to 

percent by 1997.
CHAPTER 3 - TRENDS 

Suggestions for Use Claims Many food advertisements

contain recipes or other explicit suggestions for using the product

Coders were instructed to code all explicit suggestions for using t

product whether as a food or for other uses (e.g., baking soda for 

applesauce instead of oil for baking, etc.). Coders were explicitly

instructed not to code pictures of the product in use, if there was 

explicit text claim indicating a use of the product. As shown in F

7, approximately 50 percent of all advertisements in 1977 have a

Suggestions for use claim. The percentage begins falling in the e

1980s, reaching a low point of approximately 30 percent in 1989 

1990 before rising again somewhat. Throughout out the period,

suggestions for use are a common feature of food advertising.

Price, Cost, Coupon Claims Another relatively commo

of claim in food advertising relates to the relative economy of the

product. Straightforward price claims are not a typical feature of 

type of food advertising, since prices are set at the retail level and 

advertisement are typically manufacturer-sponsored advertisemen

our study, coders were instructed to code a Price, cost, coupon cl

only if “the ad contains a cost-related claim, e.g., economical or o

cents per serving, etc., or the ad contains a coupon or mail-in reb

coupon offer.” As shown in Figure 3-7, Price, cost, coupon claim

trended down over the years of this study. Approximately 20-30 

of food ads contain such claims in the late 1970s and early 1980s

the middle 1990s, less than 10 percent of food ads in our sample 

such claims.

Promotional Offer Claims Another category of claims th

relatively frequent in this type of food advertising is Promotional 

claims. For this category, coders were instructed to record claim
Figure 3-7 Suggestions for Use and Price, Cost, Coupon C

Figure 3-8 Promotional Offer Claims

2

Notes. 

1

 Suggestions for use claims category includes all explicit suggestions fo

the product, including recipes. Price, cost, coupon claim category includes all c

related claims, such as economical or the presence of coupons in the ad. See tex

definitions.

2

 Promotional offer claims category includes all contests or other promotional o
CHAPTER 3 - TRENDS 

8

 These results are comparable in probit estimates and in estimates that co

the major regulatory periods, as described in Chapter 5, with the exception that t

for Promotional offer claims is no longer significant in the latter case.

if the ad contains a contest, mail-in or call-in promotional offer fo

goods, recipe books, etc., offers of any other good with the produ

“free toy inside”), offers a special reusable package (e.g., a histo

decorative tin box), or if recipes are offered on or in the package, 

As shown in Figure 3-8, approximately 25 percent of all food ads 

sample contain Promotional offer claims in the late 1970s, but thi

over the 1980s and early 1990s, before rising substantially to 30 p

in 1997.

Summary The data for these categories of claims generally 

relatively stable use over time with modest downward trends in m

cases. These findings are illustrated by the simple linear trend

regressions shown in Table 3-4. All of the estimated trends are n

except for the category of New, introducing, improved claims, wh

a positive trend. Moreover, all of the trends are statistically signi

except that for Variety claims.8 The New, introducing, improved 

category is the one category that may relate to changes in the use 

nutrition-related claims, because the introduction of products form

to present a better nutrition profile is often accompanied by such 

claims.

With this background on food advertising overall, we now tu

the use of nutrition claims in advertising over the years 1977 to 1
Table 3-4 Linear Trend Regressions for Broad Classes o

Other Claims1

Class of Claims Trend Consta

[Percent of Ads w/Claim]

Taste, aroma, texture -.010 (-16.42)** .90 (125

[79.6]

Convenient, quick, easy -.004 (-5.89)** .37 (43.

[32.4]

New, introducing, improved .006 (9.92)** .15 (20.0

[20.7]

Variety -.001 (-1.42) .53 (58.

[51.8]

Suggestions for use -.007 (-8.72)** .47 (53.

[40.6]

Price, cost, coupon -.009 (-15.22)** .29 (40.7

[19.5]

Promotional offer -.003 (-4.43)** .23 (31.7

[20.2]

Any of these claims -.003 (-9.08)** .99 (304

[96.5]

Data. Individual ad data from advertising sample. 11,647 advertisements total

t-statistics in parentheses.

Notes. 

1

 Linear model of the form D = Constant + a0

 (Time-77), where D=1 if a

includes claim in class, 0 otherwise; Time is a date variable in the form 77.17 fo

February 1977, ..., 97.83 for October 1997. Results are comparable in probit est

and in probit models controlling for key regulatory periods as in Chapter 5, exce

promotional claims, where the trend in the latter case is positive but not signific
IV

Nutrition Claims in Food Advertising

INTRODUCTION

Nutrition-related claims have been a part of food advertising

throughout the years 1977 to 1997, but the types, specificity, and

frequency of claims have changed in a variety of ways over the pe

This section presents basic descriptive data on the use of specific

nutrient content claims in advertising for all of the major nutrient

for calories over the years of our sample. We also present detaile

information on the use of general nutrition claims, such as wholes

nutritious, healthy, etc.

Evidence on the use of specific disease-related claims, often 

health claims, is presented in Chapter V. Analysis of whether an

the use of nutrition and health claims varies systematically with

regulatory changes is presented in Chapter VI.

NUTRIENT CONTENT CLAIMS

Definition In our coding scheme, Nutrient content claims a

defined as “any statement or term in an ad referring to a specific

nutritional characteristic of a food, e.g., ‘low fat,’ ‘high fiber,’ ‘co

vitamin E,’ ‘low calorie,’ etc. In this chapter we present detailed 

the prevalence of nutrient content claims for the major nutrients o

years 1977-1997, and where claims are widely used, some breakd
38 / ADVERTISING NUTRITION AND HEALTH

the specific type of claim made.

Lipid Claims First we consider the class of Lipid claims, w

includes total fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, and other fat and oil c

This class of claims is one of the most frequently observed in adv

and one that has generated considerable controversy.

Total Fat Claims The category of Total fat claims include

claims about unspecified types of fat, such as “low fat” or “contai

6 grams of fat.” Coders are specifically instructed not to include 

about types of fat in this category, such as claims about saturated 

polyunsaturated fat, or monounsaturated fat. Other types of speci

or oil claims, such as “made with canola oil” or “contains no anim

are also not included in the total fat category. Each of these is co

separately.

In 1997, total fat claims are by far the most frequently used n

content claims in food advertising. As illustrated in Figure 4-1, 3

percent of all food ads in the sample contains a total fat claim. A

illustrated in the figure, this focus on total fat in advertising is a

relatively recent phenomenon. Prior to 1987, the percent of adve

that contains a total fat claim never rises above 5.0 percent of ads

1987, the prevalence of total fat claims in food advertising grows

steadily, slowing temporarily in the early 1990s, but then continu

the same growth path.

Prior to 1987, Fat comparative claims are approximately as 
gg

Figure 4-2 Percentage of Ads with Saturated Fat Claims2

Notes. 

1

 Total fat claims include all claims about unspecified types of fat in the 

such as “low fat.” The category does not include saturated fat claims or claims a

other specific types of fat or oil in the product. Fat level claims are quantitative 

qualitative claims about the level of fat in the product and Fat comparative claim

compare the level to something else.

2

 Saturated fat claims include all statements about saturated fat, whether about t

of saturated fat in the product or the amount compared to something else.
40 / ADVERTISING NUTRITION AND HEALTH

1

 Fat comparative claims explicitly or implicitly compare fat in the produ

in some other product, as in “now with less fat.” Fat level claims refer only to t

product itself, as in “contains 6 grams of fat.” See Figure 2-1or the coding form 

appendix for the claims in each of these categories.

to be used as level claims.1 Use of both types of claims also grow

sharply in the late 1980s, though use of comparative claims grow

rapidly. After 1990, however, comparative claims stop growing,

stabilizing at approximately the 10 percent level. This contrasts s

with fat level claims which continue to grow rapidly in the 1990s

temporary reduction in the early 1990s.

Annual data for these classes of total fat claims, along with

comparable data for other major nutrients, are given in Appendix 

Saturated Fat Claims Saturated fat is the type of fat mos

clearly identified with the risk of heart disease. Figure 4-2 illustr

percentage of food ads that include a saturated fat claim of any ty

the years 1977 to 1997. The pattern of use for Saturated fat claim

time is distinctly different from that for total fat. Saturated fat cla

used in only 2 percent of advertisements prior to 1987, but then r

frequency reaching a peak of 7.7 percent of all food ads in 1990, 

falling again to under 3 percent of ads in the mid 1990s. Claims 

the level of saturated fat in the product follow the overall saturate

claim pattern quite closely, peaking in 1990 before falling to und

percent of ads in 1997. Saturated fat comparative claims peak at 

percent of advertising in 1992, before falling steadily to zero perc

ads by 1997. Thus, in the post-1990 period saturated fat claims a

much less frequently than in 1990, with comparative saturated fat 

having essentially been eliminated.
CHAPTER 4 - NUTRITION CLAIMS 

2

 In coding this category of Cholesterol content claims, coders are instruc

include cholesterol statements that are “clearly about serum or blood cholesterol

are coded separately and are discussed in the next chapter.

Cholesterol Claims Cholesterol is another lipid compone

foods that has been associated with the risk of heart disease. As s

in Figure 4-3, Cholesterol content claims2 vary greatly over the y

our sample. In 1977, only 1.6 percent of advertisements contain a

mention of cholesterol content, but by 1987 this percentage rises 

percent of all advertisements. Between 1987 and 1991, the use o

cholesterol claims increases rapidly to 24.7 percent of all food ad

1991, before falling precipitously to 5.8 percent of ads in 1997. T

pattern of increase and then decrease is consistent for cholesterol 

and comparative claims, with cholesterol comparative claims esse

having been eliminated by 1994.

Other Types of Fat Claims Claims for the other major f

components, monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats, also app

advertising, but these are relatively infrequent. Claims about the 

of monounsaturated fat in a product never occur in more than 0.9 

of food advertising in any year of the sample. Similarly, claims a

the polyunsaturated fat content of products never exceed 1.8 perc

ads in any year. These claims are more common in advertising fo

and oil products, where the type of fat is a focus of competition.

Advertisers also convey information about the types of fat in

products with a variety of other claims. Coders are instructed to r

claims if “the ad specifies that the advertised product is or contain

specific type of oil or other fat characteristic that is not covered a

These Other fat or oil claims include claims about the type of oil 
gg

Figure 4-4 Percentage of Ads with Other Fat or Oil Claim

and Corn Oil and Canola Oil Claims2

Notes. 

1

 Cholesterol content claims include all statements about the amount of

cholesterol in the product, including both level and comparative claims. This ca

does not include statements that clearly refer to serum cholesterol. These are rec

separately.

2

 The Other fat or oil claims category includes any oil or other fat characteristic 

not covered in previous categories. In particular, the category includes type of o

such as corn or canola oil claims, and miscellaneous fat claims, such as “no anim

“not hydrogenated,” “no transfatty acids,” olestra claims, “skim” claims, etc.
CHAPTER 4 - NUTRITION CLAIMS 

3

 Olive oil claims also became more common in the last few years of the s

appearing in 2.7 percent of all ads in 1997.

(e.g., corn oil, olive oil, canola oil), its source (e.g., no animal fat

nondairy, no tropical oils), as well as other characteristics or claim

such as “skim” or “part-skim,” “unhydrogenated,” “no need to fry

“baked, not fried.”

Figure 4-4 illustrates the use of these Other fat or oil claims, 

as the percent of ads that include the specific Corn oil and Canol

claims, which are the two most common of the oil claims.3

 The u

these Other fat or oil claims does not show any pattern over the p

overall, and fluctuates between 5 and 12 percent of all ads.

Summary of Lipid Claims Overall, the evidence indicate

by 1997 total fat has become the primary focus of lipid claim

advertising. Figure 4-5 provides a perspective on the relative inc

of fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol content claims, together with 

the percentage of ads that have at least one claim from any of the 

categories (namely, from the Total fat, Saturated fat, Polyunsatur

fat, Monounsaturated fat, Cholesterol, or Other fats or oils claim

categories). As illustrated in Figure 4-5, the focus of advertising 

for lipids in the 1990s shifts almost exclusively to total fat claims 

away from claims about saturated fat, cholesterol, or other types o

Other Major Nutrient Claims Beyond lipids, a number o

nutrients have been the focus of advertising claims. These includ

sodium, fiber, calcium, and vitamins and minerals of all types. In

in these nutrients is in part driven by evolving scientific understan

of the roles they play in generating good health and in reducing d
ggy p

By Major Type: Fat, Saturated Fat, Chole

Figure 4-6 Percentage of Ads with Sodium Claim2

Notes. 

1

 Lipid claims include all fat, saturated fat, monounsaturated fat, polyun

fat, cholesterol, and other fat and oil claims.

2

 Sodium claims include all claims about sodium or salt.
CHAPTER 4 - NUTRITION CLAIMS 

4

 The Food and Drug Administration began a “sodium initiative” in fall 1

which leads to the inclusion of sodium as a mandatory element of nutrition label

July 1986 (Heimbach 1986).

5

 Recall that level claims are defined as claims that describe quantitatively 

qualitatively the amount or presence of the nutrient in the product (fiber or bran 

risks.

Sodium Claims Sodium is a mineral that has been linked 

risk of hypertension. As shown in Figure 4-6, the use of Sodium 

begins to increase in 1980, rising from 2 percent of ads in the late 

to 11.6 percent of ads in 1986.4

 The use of sodium claims stays a

approximately this level until 1991 when it begins falling. By 19

use of sodium claims had been halved to 6.0 percent of food ads. 

absolute and comparative claims fall, but comparative claims fall 

low levels, under 1 percent of ads.

Fiber or Bran Claims Fiber consumption may be associa

with reduced cancer and heart disease risks. Fiber can be soluble 

insoluble and occurs in significant amounts in several types of ce

brans, and thus, in whole grains. Coders are instructed to record 

claim if the ad contains “any claim about fiber or bran.” Coders a

specifically instructed to code whole grain claims in the fiber cla

category.

Fiber claims are most frequent in the bread and ready-to-eat 

categories, where product names often constitute claims. For inst

the names of the cereals Fiber One and Raisin Bran are coded as

absolute level claims in our data, because the names explicitly ref

the fiber and bran contained in the cereal.5 As a result, virtually a
46 / ADVERTISING NUTRITION AND HEALTH

6

 For instance, the data for comparative claims for cereals and breads look

similar to that for the market overall except that comparative claims peak at 30 p

all bread and cereal ads in 1990 before being eliminated in the post-1990 period

absolute claims, the percent of bread and cereal ads with a fiber claim does not c

to increase in the 1990s, but instead falls from a peak of 78 percent of claims in 

43 percent in 1997.

for such products automatically contain a level claim. This is app

in the data for fiber claims presented in Figure 4-7. There is virtu

difference between the percent of advertisements containing a fib

claim of any type and the percent containing a level claim. Overa

percent of ads that contain a fiber claim of some type has been tre

up over time, from 2.6 percent in 1977 to 6.5 percent in 1997.

In contrast, comparative claims follow the pattern we have s

most other nutrients. Fiber comparative claims rise in the mid 19

peak at 4.1 percent of all ads in 1989, before falling to near zero b

1993. Fiber claims tend to be concentrated in a few categories, w

the pattern is generally consistent with the overall results, but the 

of fiber claim use is higher.6

Calcium Claims Calcium has been linked to bone health f

many years, but since the mid-1980s, calcium’s role in reducing t

of osteoporosis has been given greater scientific support. Figure 

illustrates the use of Calcium claims in advertising. Overall, calc

claims occur infrequently until the mid-1980s when they rise, and 

the exception of 1995, stay at approximately 4 percent of all ads t

1997. Like fiber claims, calcium claims are concentrated in a few

product categories, such as the dairy category, where they occur i

30 percent of ads in some years. Calcium comparative claims, w

never very common, have been virtually eliminated in 1997.
gg

Figure 4-8 Percentage of Ads with Calcium Claims2

Notes. 

1

 Fiber claims include all claims about fiber or bran. Recall that many c

and breads have fiber or bran in their names, and thus, almost always have a lev

under our definition.

2

 The Calcium claims category includes all claims about calcium.
48 / ADVERTISING NUTRITION AND HEALTH

Vitamin and Mineral Claims Vitamin and mineral conte

been a part of nutrition labeling since its authorization in 1972. I

years, scientific interest in the role of certain vitamins and minera

preventing diseases has grown, such as the potential role of antiox

in heart disease and cancer.

Vitamin and mineral claims include all claims about vitamin

minerals except for calcium and sodium, which are coded separat

discussed above. The category includes general vitamin claims, s

“7 vitamins added,” as well as specific claims, such as, “Contains 

RDA for vitamin C.”

As shown in Figure 4-9, the use of vitamin and mineral claim

advertising has fluctuated between approximately 5 and 10 percen

ads over the sample period. Comparative claims have always bee

frequent than level claims, but as with most other nutrients, comp

claims have fallen to trivial levels by 1997. The data indicate som

greater emphasis on the antioxidant vitamins and on folic acid in 

years, but these changes are small. In the mid-1990s, vitamin E c

and folic acid claims are made in approximately 1.5 percent of ad

from near zero levels throughout the 1980s.

Other Specific Nutrient Claims The data also contain

summary information on other nutrients (carbohydrates and prote

other food characteristics that are related to potential health conc

(sugar and artificial sweeteners, caffeine, and preservatives), as w

residual Other nutrient claims category designed to collect any nu

claims not captured by our coding scheme. These are summarize

below.
gg

Figure 4-10 Percentage of Ads with Carbohydrate or

 Protein Claims2

Notes. 

1

 Vitamin and mineral claims include all claims about vitamins or miner

except for calcium and sodium, which are coded separately. The category includ

general vitamin claims, such as 7 vitamins added, as well as specific claims, suc

Contains 100% RDA for vitamin C.

2

 Includes any claim about carbohydrates or protein.
50 / ADVERTISING NUTRITION AND HEALTH

Carbohydrate and Protein Claims Coders are instructe

record any claims about the carbohydrate or protein content of fo

These data are illustrated in Figure 4-10. Carbohydrates claims a

feature of food advertising for a few years in the early 1990s, whe

their peak, 4.7 percent of ads have a carbohydrate claim. Protein 

are a feature of a small percentage of ads throughout the period, w

percent of ads in 1977 and 2.7 percent in 1997 having a protein cl

Sugar and Artificial Sweetener Claims Coders are ask

record any claims about the sugar content of products in the ads, 

“no added sugar,” “sugar-free,” etc. Claims about the use of artif

sweeteners are also recorded, including any references to NutraSw

Saccharin. These data are presented in Figure 4-11. The use of b

Sugar claims and Artificial sweetener claims increases in the earl

as new artificial sweeteners enter the market, but both fall system

after 1984. By 1997, 6.3 percent of ads have some type of sugar 

and 1.2 percent of ads have an artificial sweetener claim.

Caffeine and Preservative Claims Two other small ca

of claims are caffeine and preservative claims. Any claims about

preservatives are recorded. For caffeine claims, coders are asked 

record any claims “about caffeine, including no caffeine, decaffei

etc.” These data are presented in Figure 4-12. Caffeine claims gr

from 0.3 percent of ads in 1977 to a peak of 5.6 percent in 1987 b

falling over the next ten years to 1.7 percent of ads. Preservative 

are more common during the period, but never rise above 6.9 perc

ads. By 1997, these claims have also fallen substantially to 1.9 p

of ads.
gggf

Sweetener Claims1

Figure 4-12 Percentage of Ads with Caffeine or

Preservative Claims1

Notes. 

1

 Includes any claim about sugar or artificial sweeteners, as described in 

2

 Includes any claim about preservatives or caffeine.
52 / ADVERTISING NUTRITION AND HEALTH

Any Other Specific Nutrient Claims Finally, coders ar

to record the presence of any other claims about “some other nutr

covered in any of the above categories or a specific claim about n

more generally, (e.g., “All the nutrients of milk” or “7 essential n

added,” etc.).” Detailed examination of the claims captured in th

nutrient claim category indicates that the claims are primarily “no

MSG,” “wheat germ,” “lactose,” and “reduced acid” claims, toge

with general nutrient density or other nutrient comparison claims

Figure 4-13 presents this data and indicates that our coding schem

quite effective in capturing the vast majority of the nutrition-relat

claims. With the exception of 1995 when it reached 4.5 percent o

the percentage of advertising with any Other nutrient claims neve

exceeds 3.1 percent of advertisements.

Calorie, Dieting, and Weight Claims Calorie, dieting, 

weight claims have long been part of food advertising. To captur

claims, coders are instructed to record a claim if the ad “mentions

calories, concern about weight, weight reduction, dieting, etc.” In

particular, note that foods labeled as diet food are coded as diet c

including, for example, Diet Coke or diet margarine.

As shown in Figure 4-14, the percentage of ads with a calori

or weight claim grows steadily from 1977 through 1991 from 7.8 

of ads to 22.5 percent of ads. Use of calorie, dieting, and weight 

falls in the post-1990 period reaching 12.0 percent of ads in 1997

Calorie claims are relatively evenly split between absolute level c

and comparative claims through 1990, when the use of comparati

calorie claims falls more rapidly than calorie level claims.

Figure 4-15 illustrates the percentage of ads that contain a D
gg

Figure 4-14 Percentage of Ads with Calorie, Dieting, and 

Weight Claims

2

Notes. 

1

 Includes any nutrient claims not covered elsewhere, as described in tex

2

 Calorie claims include all claims about caloric content. Dieting and weight cl

include all claims about “concern about weight, weight reduction, dieting, etc.” 

that the term diet would be coded here, including Diet Coke or diet margarine.
Claims1

Figure 4-16 Percentage of Ads with General Nutrition Cl

and Core General Nutrition Claims1

Notes. 

1 Calorie claims include all claims about caloric content. Dieting and w

claims include all claims about “concern about weight, weight reduction, dietin

Note that the term diet would be coded here, including Diet Coke or diet margar

2

 The Core general nutrition claims category includes all general nutrition claim

the following subcategories: health/healthy, smart/right choice, good/better for 

nutritious/nutrients, wholesome, enriched/fortified, light/lighter, lean/leaner,

youth/fitness/well-being claims. See text for definitions.
CHAPTER 4 - NUTRITION CLAIMS 

7

 Very similar patterns are seen in the use of nutrient content claims for ne

products, as shown in Weimer (1999), Table 1.

or weight claim. From 1977 to 1991, approximately 5 percent of 

ads contained an explicit reference to diet or weight control; after 

these claims fall to about 2.5 percent of ads. Thus, the growth an

reduction in the overall Calorie, dieting, or weight claims categor

attributable primarily to the rise in the pre-1990 period, and then 

reduction in the post-1990 period, in the use of calorie claims in

advertising.

Summary for Specific Nutrient Content Claims Take

together, several patterns are seen in the use of nutrient content c

advertising over this period. First, these claims are used througho

period, but for most nutrients, content claims increase over time i

pre-1990 years, and then decrease in use after 1990.7

 Total fat cla

are the notable exception to this finding; total fat claims continue 

increase throughout the 1990s. The use of comparative claims al

increases prior to 1990 for most nutrients, but these trends are rev

in the 1990s. With the exception of total fat, comparative claims 

very low levels by 1997 for all major nutrients. We more system

examine the timing of these changes relative to regulatory change

Chapter 6.

GENERAL NUTRITION CLAIMS

Introduction and Definitions In addition to claims abou

specific nutrients and specific nutrition-related characteristics of 

advertisers use a wide range of more general nutrition claims in th

food advertising. Terms such as healthy or wholesome presumab
56 / ADVERTISING NUTRITION AND HEALTH

8

 Detailed coding instructions are included in the appendix.

used to convey some general nutritional desirability of the food o

invite consumers to check the nutritional profile of the food. But

whatever their meaning, this type of claim has been a feature of f

advertising throughout the years of our study. In this section we 

basic data on the key categories of general nutrition claims.

For our purposes, General nutrition claims are defined as an

express statement or term, other than a nutrient content claim or a 

claim (as defined here), that indicates a potential health or nutriti

benefit of an advertised food. Coders are specifically asked to co

following subcategories of claims in the general nutrition claims

category: health/healthy, smart/right choice, good/better for you 

health context), nutritious/nutrients, wholesome, enriched/fortifie

light/lighter, lean/leaner, guilt free/no guilt/cheating, fresh, natur

artificial/real/pure, energy claims, youth/fitness/well-being claim

any other general nutrition term or statement.8 Some advertiseme

contain several general nutrition claims, possibly with other nutri

content claims, and the presence of each type of claim is coded in 

relevant subcategory.

Overall Trends Figure 4-16 depicts the percentage of food

advertisements in the sample that contain at least one general nut

claim. In 1977, 49.4 percent of all the ads have such a claim, and 

figure rises to 71.1 percent by 1983, where it stays approximately 

declining in the post-1990 period to the 55.9 percent level in 199

Thus, throughout the period, these general nutrition claims occur

commonly in food advertising, and their use increases prior to 19
CHAPTER 4 - NUTRITION CLAIMS 

9

 Guilt claims are coded “if the ad contains any references to removing th

from eating, or feels like cheating, as in you’ll think you’re cheating.”

declines in the post-1990 period.

This category of all general nutrition claims includes a very 

variety of claims, including some claims which are more clearly r

to nutrition than others. In an effort to explore this broad categor

claims, we create a second narrower category of claims, which w

label Core general nutrition claims, which includes all general nu

claims except the fresh and natural/no artificial/real/pure claims 

might sometimes convey quality more than nutrition to consumer

energy and guilt free/no guilt/cheating claims9

 (which may conve

calorie or other dieting claims), and the other category claims, wh

small category with a variety of claims. Thus, the Core general

nutrition claims category includes all claims from the subcategor

health/healthy, smart/right choice, good/better for you,

nutritious/nutrients, wholesome, enriched/fortified, light/lighter,

lean/leaner, and youth/fitness/well-being claims

As illustrated in Figure 4-16, the omitted classes of general

nutrition claims are a large part of the overall category, but the

remaining claims follow approximately the same pattern of chang

rising before 1983, then falling slightly in the post-1990 period. 

the initial rise, more than 30 percent of all ads had at least one cla

from this core category of general nutrition claims.

Natural, No Artificial, Real, or Pure Claims and Fres

Claims Figure 4-17 illustrates the two categories of claims that 

primary source of difference between the entire class of general n
, 

Figure 4-18 Percentage of Ads with Light or Lean Claim

Notes. 

1

 The Natural, no artificial, real, pure claims category includes all natu

related claims, claims about the absence of artificial ingredients, and use of the t

pure, real, genuine, and organic. See text for further definitions.

2

 Claims using the terms light or lighter and lean or leaner.
CHAPTER 4 - NUTRITION CLAIMS 

10 Coders are instructed to code a claim in this category “if the ad contain

reference to the food or its ingredients as being natural or from nature, as in the 

nature intended, any claim that the product does not contain artificial ingredien

chemicals, or any use of the terms pure, real, genuine, or organic.” Coders are

instructed not to code 100% claims in this category, e.g., 100% beef, 100% chee

11 Coders are instructed to code a claim in the Fresh category if there is an

in the ad “about fresh or freshness, as in made with fresh tomatoes.” The Food 

Administration initiated a widely publicized enforcement effort against producer

the term fresh in labeling in the early 1990s.

claims and the core class of claims. Natural, no artificial, real, p

claims10 occur in 27.2 percent of all ads in 1977, rise in the early 

to 47.2 percent of ads, before beginning a steady decline back to 

percent of all ads in 1997. Similarly, Fresh claims rise from 12.6

percent of all ads in 1977 to a peak of 21.2 percent of all ads in 1

before falling steadily to 8.4 percent by 1997.11

 Natural, no artif

real, pure claims and Fresh claims are both used quite frequently 

advertising over this period.

Light and Lean Claims Within the core category of gene

nutrition claims are several types of claims that are explicitly regu

under current food labeling rules. As shown in Figure 4-18, Ligh

lighter claims become more frequent in the late 1970s, rising rapi

from 6.3 percent of ads to 15.2 percent of ads but then stay at

approximately that level until the 1990s, when their use becomes 

variable before falling to 10.1 percent of all ads by 1997. Thus, t

evidence suggests that the use of light claims may have fallen sin

1990, but these claims had been used at a relatively stable level

throughout the 1980s.

The use of Lean, leaner claims never rises above 4.1 percen
60 / ADVERTISING NUTRITION AND HEALTH

12 For the Health, healthy claims category, coders are instructed to code “

makes any reference to health, healthy, healthier, healthful, etc.”

13 For the Smart, right choice claims category, coders are instructed to cod

ad contains any references to smart, intelligent, wise, wisdom, right choice, or re

terms when in a health or nutrition context, as in the smart choice, Smartbeat, or 

trying to eat right.” Coders were instructed to code Good, better for you claims 

ad contains any use of the terms good, better, or best for you in a health or nutri

context.” This is one of the few cases where coders are asked to make a judgme

context, in this case of good, etc., referring to health or nutrition. Good and sim

are often clearly used in other ways, as in “tastes good.”

in any year during the 1977 to 1997 period, and the evidence indi

no increase in the 1980s.

Health, Healthy Claims Another type of general nutrition 

that is standardized under current labeling rules is the term health

related claims, such as “for your health.”12 As shown in Figure 4

percentage of ads using a Health, healthy claim rises from 1.6 per

ads in 1977 to 4.6 percent of ads in 1988. It then rises rapidly to 

of 12.6 percent of ads in 1990. The evidence also indicates that t

of the term falls somewhat in the post-1990 period, to 8.9 percent 

in 1997 after the use of the term is restricted under FDA labeling 

In part, the rise in the late 1980s reflects the introduction of the H

Choice brand in 1988, but the claim is also used by other advertis

the late 1980s and early 1990s, sometimes in conjunction with sp

health claims, as discussed in Chapter 5.

Similar terms, such as good for you and smart or right choic

also widely used in food advertising to convey “healthy” foods.13 

shown in Figure 4-19, taken together with healthy claims, this gro

claims is a relatively significant feature of advertising throughout 
ggy 

Healthy, or Good for You Claims1

Figure 4-20 Percentage Ads with Nutritious or Wholesom

Claims1

Notes. 

1

 Health, healthy claims category includes claims referring to health, he

healthful, etc. The Smart, good for you, healthy claims category includes the He

claims as well as claims referring to smart, intelligent, and similar terms, and go

better, best for you claims in a nutrition context.

2

 The Nutritious, nutrient claims category includes all claims with the terms nut

nutrients, and related terms. The Wholesome category refers to claims with that 
62 / ADVERTISING NUTRITION AND HEALTH

14 Coders were instructed to code an ad claim in the Nutritious claims cate

contained “any of the terms nutritious, nutrition, nutrients, nourish, nourishmen

in the Wholesome claims category if it contained that term; and in the Enriched, 

claims category if it contained either of those terms, including their use on label

readable in the ad.

twenty-one year period. In 1977, 8.3 percent of food ads contain 

claims, and this figure rises over the years, peaking at 23.3 percen

ads in 1991. The use of Healthy, smart, good for you claims also 

substantially in the post-1990 period to 12.5 percent in 1997.

Nutritious, Wholesome, and Enriched, Fortified Cla

Other categories of general nutrition claims that are coded in our 

are the broad claims that a product is nutritious, wholesome, or en

or fortified in some general sense.14 Figure 4-20 illustrates the

percentage of advertisements that include claims in the first two

categories. Approximately 7.5 percent of all ads contain Nutritio

claims in 1977, but this percentage falls somewhat until 1981 to 4

percent, where it stays approximately until beginning to rise in th

1980s and continuing through the remainder of our period. In 19

approximately 10.8 percent of all ads contain a Nutritious claim. 

Wholesome claims never rise above 5 percent of all ads and after 

bit in the early part of the period never shows much significant or

systematic movement.

Figure 4-21 illustrates the use of Enriched, fortified claims. 

claims are required on labeling for certain products with added vi

or minerals, and some of these label claims are visible in advertis

The percentage of advertising containing enriched or fortified cla

never rises above 7 percent and is typically below 5 percent.
gg, f

and Combined Nutritious, Wholesome, Enr

Fortified Claims

1

Figure 4-22 Percentage of Ads with Specific Health or N

Claims Versus General Nutrition Claims2

Notes. 

1

 The Enriched, fortified claims category includes all claims with either 

terms. The Nutritious, wholesome, enriched, fortified claims category combines 

categories.

 

2

 See text for definitions.
64 / ADVERTISING NUTRITION AND HEALTH

15 In extracting claims from the advertising, coders are led through a seri

channeling questions to extract specific claims related to nutrition and health iss

(con

Figure 4-21 also illustrates the combined use of Nutritious,

Wholesome, and Enriched, fortified claims. Combined, these clai

show a modest increase over time, with considerable year-to-year

variation.

Summary for General Nutrition Claims Taken togethe

evidence on general nutrition claims indicates that these claims ar

common in advertising. More than 50 percent of ads have a gene

nutrition claim in 1977, and this percentage rises to more than 70 

by 1983, where it remains approximately until declining some to 

55 percent in the late 1990s. Claims in the Natural, no artificial, 

pure claims category are used most frequently, but claims from th

Fresh, Light, Nutritious, and Healthy categories are also quite com

If we restrict our attention to the Core general nutrition claims ca

(which includes the healthy, smart, good for you, nutritious, who

enriched, light, lean, and youth subcategories) approximately 20 

of ads have such claims in 1977, rising to approximately one-thir

in the early 1980s, where it remains in 1997.

RELATIVE GROWTH OF SPECIFIC NUTRITION-RELATE

CLAIMS MARKS 1977-1997 YEARS

Finally, in an effort to assess the relative use of specific nutr

related claims compared to general nutrition claims, we present d

indicates the percentage of ads in each year that contains any spe

nutrition-related claim.15 As shown in Figure 4-22, the percentag
CHAPTER 4 - NUTRITION CLAIMS 

(...continued)

first of these questions instructs the coders to record the presence of “any statem

terms related to nutrients, health, calories or dieting” that would be recorded in t

specific claims portion of the coding instrument. Thus, the data from this questi

indicate the presence of any specific nutrient content or health claim, any calori

dieting claim, or any specific fat or oil claim in the ads. This data provides a con

index of the use of specific nutrition-related claims.

food advertisements that have a specific nutrition-related claim sh

sustained and substantial growth between 1977 and 1997. 

Approximately 28.5 percent of ads have a specific nutrition-relate

claim in 1977, but this grows steadily to a peak of 62.2 percent of 

1989, before essentially stabilizing somewhat below this level in 

post-1990 period.

This evidence contrasts with the pattern found in the use of g

nutrition claims, which rises before 1983 but then is stable throug

1980s before declining somewhat in the 1990s. Under our broad

definition, more ads have general nutrition claims than specific cl

for most of the period, but the gap narrows substantially by 1989 

eliminated by 1997. Under the narrower definition in our Core g

nutrition claims category, more advertisements have specific nutr

related claims in all years between 1977 and 1997. The size of th

grows in the 1980s, as the use of specific nutrition-related claims

increases more rapidly than the use of Core general nutrition clai

that by 1997, advertisements are nearly twice as likely to have a s

nutrition-related claim as a general claim from Core category.

Thus, in the broadest sense, the data on the use of nutrition-r

claims during the years from 1977 to 1997 indicate a sustained

movement towards greater use of specific nutrition-related claims 
66 / ADVERTISING NUTRITION AND HEALTH

place of, or in addition to, the use of general nutrition claims that

dominated nutrition-related claims in advertising in 1977. As see

detailed data, these specific claims grew for most major nutrients 

1980s but then turned increasingly to total fat claims away from o

nutrient claims in the post-1990 period.
V

Health Claims in Food Advertising

INTRODUCTION

Diet-disease claims and other health effect claims have been 

particularly contentious feature of food advertising and labeling. 

health claims have been a part of advertising throughout the years 

to 1997, but their frequency and type have varied both over time a

across product groups. In this chapter we present detailed data on 

use of health claims during the years of our sample, including dat

specific diet-disease claims. Analysis of the relationship between

changes in the regulatory environment and the use of health claim

provided in Chapter 6.

DEFINITIONS AND CODING INSTRUCTIONS

For coding purposes a health claim is defined as any stateme

term in an ad referring to specific health effects of nutrients or foo

Thus, this category includes any statements about a disease risk o

other specific health effects of foods. Coders were specifically

instructed to code any claims dealing with the following topics: s

cholesterol, heart disease, heart, cancer, high blood pressure/

hypertension/stroke, birth defects, diabetes, osteoporosis, bones, 

digestive system functioning/regularity, prevents cell damage/

oxidization/free radicals, tooth decay/cavities, and “any other spe

disease claim or health-effect claim, as in to help blood carry oxy
68 / ADVERTISING NUTRITION AND HEALTH

1

 Detailed coding instructions are included in the appendix.

healthy skin, or for gum health.”1

This definition is designed to be broad enough to capture all 

effect claims, even if they do not actually mention a particular dis

For instance, “helps reduce serum cholesterol” is not actually a di

claim, since heart disease is not actually mentioned, but the claim 

be read as a heart disease claim by many consumers who understa

a high serum cholesterol level is a risk factor for heart disease. 

Similarly, a claim “build strong bones” describes a health effect a

a disease, but might be interpreted to relate to osteoporosis.

With these definitions in mind, we now turn to a detailed

description of the types and frequency of health claims made duri

years 1977 to 1997. Annual data on the use of health claims are

provided in Appendix B.

EVIDENCE ON HEALTH CLAIMS

Frequency of Health Claims in Advertising The top 

in Figure 5-1 depicts the percentage of food advertisements in eac

that contain some type of health claim. The percentage of ads tha

include a health claim remains under 4 percent of advertising unt

and then rises to a peak of 11.1 percent of ads in 1989. In the ear

1990s the use of health claims falls back to approximately 2 perc

advertisements, rising again after 1994 to reach 8.2 percent of ad

1997.

To explore the makeup of this class of claims, we categorize
Claims Relative to All Health Claims1

Figure 5-2 Percentage of Ads with Heart/Serum Choleste

Claims Relative to All Disease and Affiliated Claim

Notes. 1 Disease claims specifically mention diseases, while Affiliated claims a

defined here to include claims closely affiliated with disease claims, such as seru

cholesterol claims. Health claims are defined to include all health effect claims

including but not limited to Disease and affiliated claims. 2

 Heart claims include both heart disease claims and other heart claims, e.g., he

smart.
70 / ADVERTISING NUTRITION AND HEALTH

2

 A structure-function claim is a term of art in FDA labeling regulation, 

usually described as a claim that explains the role of a nutrient or ingredient in a

or maintaining the structure or function of some system in humans. See, for inst

“Staking a Claim to Good Health, FDA and Science Stand Behind Health Claim

Foods,” Paula Kurtzweil, FDA Consumer Magazine, November-December 1998

health claims into three subcategories: Disease claims, which are

defined as health claims that specifically mention a disease; Affili

claims, which are health claims that refer to conditions closely af

with a disease; and Nondisease health claims, which do not meet 

of these definitions. Disease claims specifically refer to diseases 

include claims that mention heart disease, cancer, osteoporosis, b

defects, diabetes, and similar diseases. Affiliated claims include c

about serum cholesterol (e.g., “Concerned about your cholesterol

heart claims that are not specific as to heart disease (e.g., “heart s

or “for your heart”), and high blood pressure claims (e.g., “can he

reduce high blood pressure.”) While not explicitly mentioning a 

these claims are all closely affiliated with particular diseases. Fin

the Nondisease health claims category includes a variety of other 

effect claims, including bone claims that do not mention osteopor

(e.g., “build strong bones”), claims about regularity, cell, skin, ey

nerve, teeth and muscle health, growth, digestibility, absorption, 

concerns (e.g., “easy on your stomach”), throat, red blood cell, an

miscellaneous health claims. Many of the claims in the nondisea

health claims category would be considered “structure-function” 

in FDA terminology.2

As shown in Figure 5-1, explicit disease claims are not the m

of health claims during this period. Explicit disease claims are m

less than 1 percent of advertisements through 1984 and never in m
CHAPTER 5 - HEALTH CLAIMS 

than 4.6 percent of ads throughout the period.

When affiliated claims are taken together with disease claim

however, the picture is more variable. Disease and affiliated clai

constitute the majority of health claims from 1983 until 1992, and 

after 1995. The percentage of advertising that includes these clai

well under 2 percent through 1982. The percentage of ads with th

claims rises steadily after 1982, peaking at 8.7 percent of food ad

1989. The use of these categories of health claims falls precipito

after 1990, to 0.7 percent of ads in 1993, and begins rising again 

1995. By 1997, 6.3 percent of advertisements include a disease o

affiliated claim, approximately 72 percent of the 1989 peak use.

In the early years of the sample from 1977 to 1983, the majo

health claims are nondisease health claims rather than disease or

affiliated claims. In particular, it is worth noting that in the late 1

and early 1980s, many of these health claims dealt with “digestib

“regularity.” A substantial portion of this total is due to advertisi

Crisco oil and shortening, which uses the tag line “it’s digestible” 

much of the period. The other nondisease health claims during th

period are primarily bone claims for children and teeth claims.

Note also that in the early period and in the post-1990 period

the use of disease and affiliated claims is very low, the use of non

health claims grows relative to disease and affiliated claims (show

the gap between the top graph and the second graph in Figure 5-1

When explicit disease and affiliated claims are not used, produce

appear to shift somewhat to less explicit health claims.
72 / ADVERTISING NUTRITION AND HEALTH

3

 Serum cholesterol claims include claims such as “can help reduce high l

cholesterol in the blood” or “can help reduce the serum cholesterol that’s already 

or “helps lower your cholesterol.”

4

 The sample also includes a small number of ads with a picture of a heart 

heart or serum cholesterol claim. Typically these ads include saturated fat or ch

content claims. These ads with heart pictures did not occur frequently enough to 

the results reported here.

Heart Disease Claims As shown in Figure 5-2, heart-rel

claims are the most common type of health claim throughout the 

this study. Claims that specifically mention heart disease or othe

of heart claims, e.g., heart smart or for your heart’s sake, rise to 

percent of ads in 19708. After 1983, the use of heart claims rises

steadily, increasing its rate of increase after 1987. The use of exp

heart claims peaks at 4.9 percent of all ads in 1990, before falling

precipitously in the early 1990s. Heart claims increase again only 

1994, reaching 3.1 percent of ads in 1997.

Serum cholesterol claims have also been a major feature of h

claim advertising during the period.3

 The second graph in Figure 

shows the combined use of heart and serum cholesterol claims in 

advertising. The pattern is largely the same as for heart claims al

but the magnitudes are higher. In particular, when compared to th

of any disease or affiliated claim (the top line in the figure), heart 

serum cholesterol claims together make up the majority of diseas

affiliated claims throughout the period.4

Together heart and serum cholesterol claims are used a bit in 

late 1970s and again beginning in 1983. Use peaks in 1989 at 8.2

percent of ads that year, before falling to 0 percent in 1994, and t

rising again to 3.4 percent in 1997. The level and changes in use 
CHAPTER 5 - HEALTH CLAIMS 

5

 During the period examined here, saturated fats are widely recognized 

significant dietary concern in raising the risk of heart disease (National Research 

1989, p. 537). Thus, fats high in polyunsaturated or monounsaturated fats are d

substitutes for fats high in saturated fats. In the 1990s, scientific evidence also g

indicate that transfatty acids (part of monounsaturated fats) may also play a role 

increasing the risk of heart disease.

heart and serum cholesterol claims are the most dramatic of any c

of health claim.

Heart and serum cholesterol claims are made for a wide vari

products, but the frequency of their use varies substantially by pro

category. Table 5-1 provides data on the use of heart and serum

cholesterol claims across the major food categories defined in Ta

Heart and serum cholesterol claims are used most frequently in th

& Oils category as competition focuses on the type of fat in the p

and why that should be important to consumers.5

 These products 

among the first to use heart-related claims as producers attempt to

convey the reasons to choose one type of fat over another. At its 

the late 1980s, nearly 45 percent of all ads in this category make 

or serum cholesterol claim.

Heart and serum cholesterol claims are also relatively comm

the Meat/Eggs category. This food category includes egg and me

substitutes, e.g., Egg Beaters or vegetable patties, as well as froze

entrees and other prepared foods in which meat is the main ingred

e.g., Healthy Choice meat dinners. Heart and serum cholesterol c

appear primarily in advertising for these named products within t

and Eggs category and peak at 22 percent of all advertising in the

category in 1990. Heart and serum cholesterol claims appear in 8

percent of ads in the category in 1997. To a lesser extent, heart a
All Meat/ Poultry/ Cereals/ Fats & Desserts/ Fruit/ Dr

Year Dairy Drinks Foods Eggs Fish/Grain Breads Oils Snacks Vegs. 

1977 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 

1978 1.4 8.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 

1979 1.1 1.9 1.3 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

1980 0.8 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 

1981 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

1982 0.2 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

1983 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 

1984 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 

1985 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 21.8 0.5 0.0 0.0 

1986 1.3 3.4 0.0 0.0 1.5 14.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 

1987 2.0 4.3 2.3 1.9 2.4 12.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 

1988 5.6 2.6 1.1 18.6 1.4 45.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 

1989 8.2 11.5 5.3 18.2 1.5 39.0 2.2 0.9 0.0 

1990 6.8 22.2 0.0 26.5 0.0 44.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 

1991 4.6 5.8 2.8 0.0 0.0 36.7 0.0 2.5 0.0 

1992 1.7 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 

1993 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.0 5.1 0.0 

1994 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

1995 2.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 8.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

1996 2.1 5.9 0.0 4.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 

1997 3.4 8.6 0.0 18.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.1 0.0 

Notes. 

1

 Product categories are defined in Table 3-2.
CHAPTER 5 - HEALTH CLAIMS 

6

 The FDA authorized health claims relating oat products to coronary hea

risk on January 23, 1997 (62 Fed. Reg. 3584).

serum cholesterol claims are also made for frozen entrees in whic

main ingredient is poultry, fish or grain during the late 1980s. Th

not appear again after 1991.

The Cereals/Breads category is another category in which he

serum cholesterol claims play a substantial role. These claims ar

the late 1980s and are primarily made for oat bran and other oat c

These claims stop in 1990 and resume in 1997.6

 A few other cere

make serum cholesterol claims in October 1995 and 1996 based o

low fat and low cholesterol content.

The table also includes data for the Fruit/Vegetables categor

which includes fruit juices. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, he

serum cholesterol claims are made in a few advertisements for lim

beans and pears. Post-1990 heart-related claims are made only in 

and grapefruit juice advertising.

Dairy had a few heart-related claims for low and nonfat milk 

yogurt products in the late 1980s and after 1990. Dressings/etc. h

heart-related claims for low or no fat salad dressings in the early 

but are prohibited under current labeling rules. Soft Drinks/etc. h

heart or serum cholesterol claims.

Finally, the table includes data for Desserts/Salty Snacks/Sw

Breads, which is a category that includes most dessert, salty snac

and related items, as defined in Table 3-2. Heart and serum chole

claims are not a significant feature of advertising in this product
76 / ADVERTISING NUTRITION AND HEALTH

7

 The only heart-related ads for this category include two ads for a low fat

cholesterol muffin mix with the line “as part of a low fat, low cholesterol diet ca

reduce cholesterol” and an ad for peanut butter with the line “good nutrition stra

the heart.”

8

 These ads may have been spurred by competition with oat cereals makin

newly authorized oat-heart disease claims in 1997, as described above.

category at any time during the period.7

Cancer Claims As shown in Figure 5-3, the percentage o

advertisements that make a cancer claim is much smaller than tha

heart-related claims throughout the years covered here. In 1980, 

soft drink ads contain claims about cancer in laboratory animals

consuming artificial sweeteners. With these exceptions, cancer c

begin in the cereal market in 1984 and highlight fiber content. Fr

sellers and juice producers quickly join the cereal producers in m

cancer claims, but together these claims never rise above one perc

food ads during the mid and late 1980s before falling to zero perc

1992 and 1993. After 1993, cancer claims are used again, rising 

percent of all food ads by 1997. These post-1990 claims are prim

from juice producers, together with a few cereal company claims

Table 5-2 provides cancer claim data by product category. C

claims are most prominent in the Cereals/Bread category in the m

1980s but are eliminated in 1991 and reappear only in 1997.8 Th

Fruit/Vegetables category is the only other category in which can

claims were used with any frequency. These claims were made f

vegetable and fruit products in the mid-1980s and for juices post-

Osteoporosis or Other Bone Claims Claims about th

of calcium in preventing osteoporosis have also been used in adv
Figure 5-4 Percentage of Ads with Osteoporosis or 

Other Bone Claims

Notes. 1 Cancer claims category includes all claims that explicitly mention canc

2 Osteoporosis claims includes all claims that explicitly mention osteoporosis. B

claims include any other type of bone claim, e.g., build strong bones or for your 
All Meat/ Poultry/ Cereals/ Fats & Desserts/ Fruit/ Dr

Year Dairy Drinks Foods Eggs Fish/Grain Breads Oils Snacks Vegs. 

1977 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

1978 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

1979 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

1980 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 

1981 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

1982 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

1983 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

1984 0.5 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 

1985 0.8 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 

1986 0.3 0.0 0.0 5.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

1987 0.9 0.0 1.1 7.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

1988 0.2 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

1989 0.5 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

1990 0.6 0.0 0.0 8.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

1991 0.4 0.0 0.0 9.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

1992 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

1993 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

1994 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.7 0.0 

1995 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.6 0.0 

1996 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 

1997 2.2 0.0 0.0 9.1 0.0 0.0 1.2 8.2 0.0 

Notes. 

1

 Product categories are defined in Table 3-2.
CHAPTER 5 - HEALTH CLAIMS 

As shown in Figure 5-4, claims that mention osteoporosis explici

quite limited throughout the period examined here, never rising ab

0.5 percent of advertising. These claims are primarily for dairy

products, cereals served with milk, and fruit juices fortified with

calcium. As with the health claims described above, these claims 

in the mid-1980s, disappear by 1991, and resume in 1995.

Figure 5-4 also shows the use of other types of bone claims,

together with explicit osteoporosis claims. These bone claims fol

similar pattern. With the exception of a few cereal claims in 197

claims do not begin until after 1984. Their use falls dramatically 

1991, before rising again in 1993. By 1997, bone and osteoporos

claims are found in just under one percent of all ads in the sample

post-1990 osteoporosis claims are restricted to milk products.

As shown in Table 5-3, bone and osteoporosis claims are lar

limited to dairy products, calcium-fortified fruit juices and fruit-f

drinks, and to cereals fortified with calcium or advertised for use 

milk.

Hypertension Claims Claims about hypertension, high b

pressure, or stroke are coded together as a class. As shown in Fig

5, prior to 1990, advertising that mentions hypertension-related is

peaks in 1984 at 1.0 percent of all food advertising. The claims

disappear in 1990 and do not return until 1995, when they occur i

percent of all ads. Prior to 1990, these claims are made in ads for

grapefruit products, corn oil, milk, fish, and meat substitute produ

After 1990, these claims appear only in ads for milk, orange juice

cereal products.
All Meat/ Poultry/ Cereals/ Fats & Desserts/ Fruit/ Dr

Year Dairy Drinks Foods Eggs Fish/Grain Breads Oils Snacks Vegs. 

1977 0.5 0.0 0.0 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.9 

1978 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

1979 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

1980 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

1981 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

1982 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

1983 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

1984 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

1985 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.9 

1986 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 

1987 0.7 0.0 0.0 1.9 9.5 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 

1988 0.4 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 

1989 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.4 0.0 

1990 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.6 0.0 

1991 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 

1992 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

1993 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.3 

1994 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.1 

1995 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.5 0.0 0.0 9.3 0.0 

1996 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

1997 1.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 5.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Notes. 

1

 Product categories are defined in Table 3-2.
Figure 5-6 Percentage of Ads with Birth Defect or 

Diabetes Claims2

Notes. 1 Hypertension claims category includes all claims about hypertension, 

pressure or stroke.

2

 Birth defects claims category includes all claims that mention prevention of bi

defects. Diabetes claims category include all claims that mention diabetes, good 

diabetics, etc.
82 / ADVERTISING NUTRITION AND HEALTH

Birth Defect Claims Claims discussing the role of folic a

preventing birth defects are a post-1990 phenomenon. Approxim

0.8 percent of ads have such a claim in 1994 and 1996. These cla

exclusively in orange juice advertising.

Diabetes Claims and Cell Damage/Oxidization/Free

Radical Claims Coders were instructed to categorize any claim

these two categories. No advertisements in our sample have cell

damage, oxidization, or free radical claims. Only two advertisem

have diabetes claims.

Tooth Decay and Other Tooth Health Claims As sho

Figure 5-7, claims about not promoting tooth decay or about build

strong teeth have been a part of food advertising during most year

our study. These claims are typically used in advertising for suga

products to point out their tooth decay advantage relative to sugar

products, or they are used for calcium-containing products to high

the role of calcium in building strong teeth.

Some tooth-decay claims are made in the late 1970s and earl

1980s, but these claims increase in 1984 and in the later 1980s to 

1 percent of all ads, before disappearing in 1991. The only post-

claims related to teeth are a few claims about calcium’s role in

producing stronger teeth for calcium-fortified juice and milk prod

1995.

Regularity Claims Coders were also instructed to code c

about regularity, keeping the digestive system functioning, or rela

claims. The use of these claims is also shown in Figure 5-7. Tho

a large feature of advertising, these claims are used periodically t
or Regularity Claims1

Figure 5-8 Percentage of Ads with Other Health Claims2

Notes. 1 Tooth decay/Tooth health claims category includes all claims about pr

tooth decay, maintaining strong teeth, or other aspects of tooth health. Regulari

category includes all regularity, digestive system or related claims. 2

 Other health claims includes all health effects claims not covered elsewhere. 
84 / ADVERTISING NUTRITION AND HEALTH

highlight one of the benefits of fiber consumption. In particular, 

1982 precursor to their 1984 cancer campaign, the Kellogg comp

began an advertising campaign on the benefits to consumers of br

cereals to “keep their digestive system functioning smoothly.” Th

claims were also used by a few other producers during the late 19

fiber-cancer period, and then again by Kellogg in 1992 and 1993 

they did not use cancer claims.

All Other Health Claims Finally, Figure 5-8 illustrates th

of all other health claims during this period. These claims includ

wide variety of other health effect claims (but no disease claims). 

data shows no systematic trend over the period and never rises ab

percent of all ads. Many of the advertisements that have a claim 

category also have another health claim coded in one of the above

categories. Thus, these data indicate that our coding scheme has

captured most health claims in one of our identified subcategorie

health claims.

One substantial subcategory within this Other Health Claims 

consists of claims about “digestibility” or other “easy on the stom

claims. Approximately 35 percent of all claims in this miscellane

category are digestibility claims. These claims are made for fat o

products, lactose-reduced dairy products, acid-reduced juice prod

soups, and yogurt. Other claims deal with the role of iron and fol

in red blood cell development, protein for muscles, vitamins or m

that help absorption of other nutrients, and other miscellaneous c

Many of the claims in this category would be considered “structu

function” claims in FDA terminology.
CHAPTER 5 - HEALTH CLAIMS 

Conclusion The evidence on the use of health claims indi

that advertisers increased their use of health claims in the mid-19

The evidence also indicates that the use of health claims was shar

diminished in the early 1990s but that by 1997 the use of health c

had recovered to 74 percent of the peak 1989 level of use. In 199

disease and affiliated claims are at 72 percent of their 1989 level, 

disease claims are at 128 percent of their 1989 peak.

Heart and serum cholesterol claims are the most frequently u

health claims both before and after 1990, but the use of these hea

related claims also diminishes most in the post-1990 years. In 19

heart claims are at 64 percent of their 1989 peak, and heart and se

cholesterol claims together are at 41 percent of their 1989 peak. I

part these reductions appear to be due to the elimination of heart-

claims for fat and oil products, and to a lesser extent, to the elimi

of these claims for low and nonfat salad dressings.

Cancer claims are the health claims that have increased mos

1990, primarily due to the use of these claims by juice producers. 

acid-birth defect claims are also a post-1990 phenomenon, but the

remain at a low level of use.
1

 Labels for meat and poultry products are regulated by the U. S. Departm

Agriculture (USDA).

2

 See, for instance, Beales and Muris (1993), Ippolito and Mathios (1996

Pappalardo and Ringold (2000).

VI

Regulation and Advertising Claims

INTRODUCTION

Nutrition-related claims in marketing have been the subject o

considerable regulatory scrutiny during the years 1977 to 1997. C

on food labels are primarily regulated by the Food and Drug

Administration (FDA),1

 and claims in food advertising are under 

primary jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Bo

agencies initiated major rulemakings to change the rules governin

nutrition-related claims on labels and in advertising during the ye

our sample. These regulatory changes have been described in de

number of previous publications,2 but they represent an importan

backdrop against which producers make decisions about which cl

make in their advertising.

In this chapter, we briefly review some of the key regulatory 

that could affect food producers’ incentives to make nutrition-rel

claims in their advertising. We also present analyses of the timin

these regulatory changes and the use of different types of nutritio

related claims. Finally, we focus in more depth on some of the
CHAPTER 6 - REGULATION 

3

 Legislative and regulatory citations are listed in Table 6-1.

4

 A listing of FTC food advertising cases during these years is provided in

Appendix C.

substantial changes that have occurred since the implementation o

NLEA rules in the mid-1990s. 

KEY REGULATORY EVENTS

Table 6-1 summarizes the key regulatory events that could a

the use of nutrition-related claims in advertising. Note that on De

31, 1974 nutrition labeling is required for foods with added nutrie

and for foods whose labels or advertising include nutrition-related

claims.3 Producers are also free to voluntarily label their other pr

with the standard nutrition label. In May 1994, the regulations is

under the Nutrition, Labeling and Education Act of 1990 (NLEA) 

the nutrition label mandatory for virtually all packaged food prod

So throughout the years 1977 to 1997, foods making nutrition-rel

claims of any type must have nutrition labels on their packaging; 

May 1994, virtually all foods have such labels. These labeling

requirements establish standard methods for measuring major nut

Advertising rules never formally prohibit or explicitly regula

nutrition-related claims, including general nutrition claims, nutrie

content claims, or health claims, as those terms are used here. Al

advertising claims are subject to general advertising enforcement 

the FTC’s authority to pursue deceptive business practices.4 An

assessment of what the agency considers to be deceptive, and thu

enforcement risk attached to different types of claims, must be in

from cases or other agency pronouncements during the period of 
Table 6-1 Key Regulatory Events Regarding Nutrition and Health Claims 

Predicted Effe

Date Event Key Events on 

November 11, 1974 FTC staff proposes Food Rule regulating general health and

other nutrient claims in ads; would prohibit health claims.1

December 31, 1974 FDA nutrition labeling rules in effect requiring nutrition label

for many foods.2

March 17, 1978 Presiding Officer’s report in FTC rulemaking proposes

fat/cholesterol heart disease claims.3

* April 8, 1980 FTC votes to end Part II of Food Rulemaking; would have

regulated general nutrition claims and emphatic nutrient claims.4

+ for general c

- for health cl

? for nutrient c

* December 17, 1982 FTC votes to end entire Food Rulemaking, including energy,

weight control, fatty acid, heart disease, and natural claims. 

Policy reverts to deception/substantiation standards for claims.5

+ for health cl

+ for nutrient 

+ for general c

October 7, 1984 Kellogg fiber/cancer advertising campaign begins. Not

challenged by FDA or FTC.6

(Continued 
Table 6-1 (Continued)

Predicted Effe

Date Event Key Events on 

* August 4, 1987 FDA publishes proposed label rule for health claims based on an

ex post deception standard.7

+ for health cl

+ for nutrient 

* February 13, 1990 FDA withdraws 1987 health claim proposal; announces plan for

more restrictive regulations.8

- for health cla

- for nutrient c

July 19, 1990 FDA proposes extensive labeling rules; mandatory nutrition

label, standardized claims, prohibition of unapproved claims.9

November 8, 1990 President signs NLEA authorizing mandatory nutrition label and

nutrition claim label rules; sets up process for regulating health

claims on labels.10

November 27, 1991 FDA proposes new nutrient content and general health claim

rules under NLEA; also proposes preapproval system for label

health claims under “significant scientific agreement” standard.11

May 8, 1993 FDA final NLEA label rules effective for health claims. Model

claims for a limited number of preapproved claims and foods.12

(Continued 
Table 6-1 (Continued)

Predicted Effe

 Date Event Key Events on 

* May 8, 1994 FDA final NLEA label rules effective for nutrition claims.13 ? for nutrient c

- for comparat

* May 13, 1994 FTC Enforcement Policy Statement on Food Advertising

coordinates advertising policy with labeling policy.13

+ for health cl

December 21, 1995 FDA publishes proposal to simplify health claim rules to allow

shorter claims for more foods.14

Notes. * indicates key regulatory events used in regression estimates. FDA is Food and Drug Administration; FTC is Federal Trade C

NLEA is Nutrition, Labeling and Education Act of 1990.

1

 Federal Register, 39, November 11, 1974, 39812.

2

 Federal Register, 38, March 14, 1973, 6951. Nutrition labeling is required on food containing added nutrients or whose label or adv

includes nutrition-related claims.

3

 Dixon (1978) or see Gordon, Richard L., “FTC on food; ‘Health’ is out; calories count,” Advertising Age, March 20, 1978, 1.

4

 Federal Register, 45, April 8, 1980, 23705. Part II of the rule would have regulated “emphatic” nutrition claims, such as “lots of,” “

“packed with,” “excellent source of,” etc., general health claims about the nutritional value of a food, such as “nutritious,” “wholesome

nutrient content claims in general.

(Continued 
Table 6-1 (Continued)

Notes (Continued). 

5

 Federal Register, 48, May 24, 1983, 23270. This ended the remaining portions of the Food Rulemaking, which 

regulated energy and calorie claims, fat, fatty acid, and cholesterol claims, natural and organic claims, and health and related claims. C

continued to be subject to substantiation and deception standards of general advertising policy.

 

6

 Colford, Steven W., “Kellogg eyes long run for All-Bran ads,” Advertising Age, January 7, 1985, 64.

 

7

 Federal Register, 52, August 4, 1987, 28843; this proposal would formally end the prohibition of all specific health claims on label

 

8

 Federal Register, 55, February 13, 1990, 5176.

 

9

 Federal Register, 55, July 19, 1990, 29487.

 

10

 Public Law No. 101-535, 104 Stat. 2353 (codified in part at 21 U.S.C. 343(i), (q) and (r)). Because of the proximity of the 1990 e

effectively combine them in the regression tests.

 

11

 Federal Register, 56, November 27, 1991, 60365, 60537.

 

12

 Federal Register, 58, January 6, 1993, 2478.

 

13

 Federal Register, 59, June 1, 1994, 28388.

 

14

 Federal Register, 60, December 21, 1995, 66206.
92 / ADVERTISING NUTRITION AND HEALTH

A variety of evidence suggests that health claims and some n

content claims raise substantial legal risk at the FTC during the p

from the mid-1970s to at least early 1983. The same is true for ge

nutrition claims and other nutrient content claims from the mid-1

until late 1980. These judgments are based in part on key events 

FTC’s Food Rulemaking listed in Table 6-1.

The FTC Food Rulemaking was a broad effort to regulate fo

claims in advertising through explicit industry-wide rules that beg

with the publication of the staff’s initial regulatory proposal on

November 11, 1974, well before the start of the period examined 

The initial proposal has several major components, including a ba

all diet-disease claims as inherently deceptive, and plans to regula

general nutrition claims, “emphatic” nutrient content claims, such 

“loaded with” or “high in,” and several specific nutrient content c

On March 17, 1978, the Presiding Officer’s report in the rulemak

specifically proposes to define rules to allow fatty acid/heart dise

claims, thus recommending against a ban on diet-disease claims, 

clarifying the conditions for such health claims.

After extensive hearings and considerable controversy, on A

1980, the FTC votes to end Part II of the Food Rule, which would 

regulated general nutrition terms, such as “nutritious” or “health f

and “emphatic” nutrient claims, preferring to deal with these issu

case-by-case basis under its general authority. The FTC, howeve

not end the rulemaking regarding fatty acid/heart disease claims, 

other nutrient content claims, and other general nutrition claims, 

“natural.” After further consideration, the FTC votes to close the 

Food Rulemaking on December 17, 1982 in favor of case-by-case
CHAPTER 6 - REGULATION 

5

 For a more detailed discussion of this regulatory history, see Ippolito an

Mathios (1996) 19-26.

6

 See Hutt (1986) 25 or “FDA May Strengthen Ban on Cholesterol-Reduc

Claims,” Food Chemical News, January 25, 1971, 21-22.

enforcement. This ends proposals to explicitly regulate fat and

cholesterol claims, calorie and weight claims, “natural” claims, an

acid/heart disease claims in advertising. This decision is finalize

period of public comment in Spring 1983. 

Thus, by Spring 1983 at the latest, the FTC makes it clear th

nondeceptive health claims, general nutrition claims, and nutrient

content claims in advertising face considerably less enforcement 

the FTC.

During the early years of the period examined here, health cl

advertising also raise the risk of legal challenge by the FDA.5

 Du

these years, a health claim in advertising allows the FDA to decla

product a “drug,” and thus, subject to drug law regulations.6

 Foo

products do not have the type of efficacy testing required for drug

products, thus under this interpretation, the use of health claims i

advertising raises substantial legal risk at the FDA.

Two events are listed in Table 6-1 as key points when produ

likely to perceive the risk of FDA prosecution of health claims to 

reduced. On October 7, 1984, the Kellogg company begins a hig

publicized TV advertising campaign explicitly using the National 

Institute’s statements on the potential relationship between fiber 

cancer to promote its high fiber cereals. Despite much public dis

and considerable controversy, neither the FDA nor the FTC files 
94 / ADVERTISING NUTRITION AND HEALTH

7

 The proposed regulations are based on a reasonable basis, deception-typ

standard. This approach would allow health claims without preclearance from t

government and would hold them to a test that they do not mislead consumers a

they have a “reasonable basis” of scientific support. A “reasonable basis” stand

scientific support is generally considered to be a high standard of scientific supp

not necessarily one in which consensus has been reached.

against Kellogg. The second event occurs on August 4, 1987, wh

FDA publishes its long awaited proposed rule to govern health cl

which significantly relaxes its prior position on such claims.7

Thus, by August 1987, and possibly earlier, the regulatory ri

making nondeceptive diet-disease claims in advertising is substan

less than in the early years of our sample. This decision is broadl

perceived as opening up the opportunities for food producers to m

health claims. The environment again changes in early 1990, wh

FDA withdraws its 1987 proposal regarding health claims, and in 

1990, proposes an extensive revision of its labeling rules to inclu

mandatory nutrition labeling, standardized nutrient content and g

nutrition claims, a more stringent preapproval system for health c

and a prohibition of all unauthorized nutrition or health claims.

This is followed in November 1990 by the passage of the NL

which clarifies FDA’s authority to set up rules that govern health 

nutrition labeling, and nutrition claims of all types on labels. Key 

in the NLEA implementation process are listed in Table 6-1 and i

November 27, 1991, when the FDA reproposes its 1990 labeling 

with some adjustments required by the NLEA. Thus, through a s

events in 1990 and 1991, the rules governing all types of nutrition

related claims are revisited, and the process of completing final ru

under the NLEA is initiated.
CHAPTER 6 - REGULATION 

8

 See Ippolito and Mathios (1993) for a more detailed discussion of thes

The final NLEA label rules for health claims are effective in 

1993 and for nutrient content claims and general nutrition claims 

1994. Also in May 1994, the FTC issues an enforcement policy

statement harmonizing advertising policy with the new label

requirements for all types of nutrition-related claims. Key feature

the NLEA-based label rules include a listing of approved terms, e

requirements for nutrient content claims, triggered disclosures in 

cases, e.g., for comparative claims, and explicit requirements for 

general nutrition claims, such as the term “healthy.” The NLEA-

rules also provide for only a limited number of health claims, and 

specific restrictions on which foods can make such claims.8

This brief summary of regulatory and legislative events illus

the substantial changes that occur during the period of our sample

Rules have been relaxed in some cases and restricted in other cas

making it difficult to characterize the changes overall. To get a b

assessment of whether changes in the rules appear to be related to

changes in the use of particular types of nutrition-related claims, 

to regression estimates first for health claims, and then for the var

classes of nutrition claims.

HEALTH CLAIMS AND REGULATION

Background The regulatory changes described above are 

stark for health claims. The events in the FTC’s rulemaking sugg

the 1980 decision not to close the health claim portion of the rule

could have been perceived as a negative event for advertisers inte
96 / ADVERTISING NUTRITION AND HEALTH

in using health claims, since it follows the 1978 Presiding Officer

report suggesting that health claims for heart disease would be all

in advertising. In contrast, the December 1982 decision makes it 

that the FTC is willing to allow nondeceptive health claims, and t

increases the likelihood that producers would make health claims 

advertising.

In the early 1980s the implication of the FDA’s rules means 

advertisers using health claims, especially disease and affiliated c

face considerable risk from the FDA, so the FTC’s rulings may n

much difference in advertisers’ assessment of the risk inherent in 

health claims. If so, the FDA’s 1987 proposal to allow health cla

under a standard similar to the FTC’s reasonable basis/deception

standard should have been a positive event for advertisers, remov

remaining regulatory concern in using nondeceptive health claim

This positive event for health claims is reversed in February 

when the FDA withdraws the 1987 proposal and begins the sever

process of arriving at the final NLEA rules for health claims, whi

effective in May 1993. The FTC’s Enforcement Policy Statemen

Food Advertising in May 1994 clarifies that the label rules have

implications for advertising.

These major regulatory events for health claims are indicate

asterisks in Table 6-1. The table also includes a prediction for w

the regulatory change should increase or decrease the use of heal

claims. Note, in particular, that we focus on the FTC’s enforcem

statement as the key post-NLEA event, but the results do not chan

significantly if we use the May 1993 effective date for the FDA h

claims rules instead.
CHAPTER 6 - REGULATION 

9

 We focus on Disease and Affiliated Claims because the regulatory shifts 

directly applicable to his subcategory of health claims and most health claims ar

(con

Methodology To assess the relationship between the regu

events and the use of health claims, we estimate various simple

regressions that relate the likelihood that an advertiser uses health 

against time and the key regulatory events. For instance, conside

simple linear regression:

Yit = C + b1 D5/1980 + b2 D1/1983 + b3 D8/1987 + b4 D2/1990 + b5 D

+ Time + c1Time D5/1980 + c2 Time D1/1983 

+ c3

 Time D8/1987 + c4

 Time D2/1990 + c5

 Time D5/19

where Yit = 1 if advertisement i at time t has the claim under 

0 otherwise,

Time = Date (in years) - 1900 (so February 1977 is 77.2, 

Dm/y = 1 if the date of the ad is after month m in year y, 

D5/1980 = 1 after May 1980), 0 otherwise.

In this specification, the dummy variables represent the major reg

events indicated in Table 6-1.

Results Table 6-2 presents ordinary least squares regressio

results for the use of Disease and Affiliated Claims for this equati

(Linear-2), as well as for a simpler version in which the trend and

interaction terms are not included (Linear-1).9 The table also inc
Table 6-2 Regression Results for Disease and Affiliated Clai

Across Regulatory Periods

Variable Linear-1 Linear-2 Probit-1 P

Constant 0.010** -0.224 -2.323** -

(2.85) (-0.76) (-28.47) (

D5/1980 -0.006 -0.007 -0.343** 

(FTC ends Part II of Food Rule) (-1.16) (-0.68) (-2.15) (

D1/1983 0.020** 0.017* 0.682** 

(FTC ends entire Food Rule) (3.88) (1.66) (4.66) 

D8/1987 0.050** 0.007 0.532** 

(FDA health claim proposal)

D2/1990 -0.044** -0.034** -0.443** 

(FDA withdraws 1987 proposal/NLEA) (-8.01) (-3.22) (-5.93) (

D5/1994 -0.003 0.021** 0.048 

(FTC policy statement; (0.63) (2.01) (0.59) 

FDA/NLEA rules effective)

Time — 0.003 — 

(0.80) 

Time*D5/1980 — -0.006 — 

(-0.86) (

Time*D1/1983 — 0.005 — 

(0.91) 

Time*D8/1987 — 0.025** — 

(4.28) 

Time*D2/1990 — -0.048** — 

(-7.77) (

Time*D5/1994 — 0.035** — 

(7.31) 

Adj. R-squared 0.015 0.022

Log-Likelihood -1371.26 -

n 11,647

Mean Dependent Value 0.027

Notes. t-statistics in parentheses. Dependent variable is equal to 1 if an ad has 

or affiliated claim, 0 otherwise. ** indicates significance at the 5 percent level, * 

percent level in a two-tailed test.
CHAPTER 6 - REGULATION 

(...continued)

type. Regression results for all health claims are comparable.

10 Probit regressions are specifically designed to deal with discrete outcom

in our case, either an advertisement has a particular type of claim (Yit = 1) or it d

(Yit = 0). Linear ordinary least squares regression models are not constrained to 

between 0 and 1, and thus, are not ideal for use with discrete data. In many case

however, linear methods give comparable results to discrete models like the prob

model. Linear models have the advantage that their coefficients are easily interp

When the results are comparable under the two techniques, we will focus on the 

estimates for this reason. See Greene (1977) 874 for a discussion.

probit versions of these regressions (Probit-1 and Probit-2).

104 Th

models are estimated from the individual advertising data, that is, 

the 11,647 advertisements in the sample.

As expected, coefficients on the first FTC event in May 198

consistently negative and are significant in the probit estimates of 

model either for the direct effect or for the interaction term. Adv

significantly reduce their use of health claims in advertising when 

FTC decides to continue pursuing explicit regulation of heart dise

claims in May 1980.

Also as expected, coefficients on the second FTC event in ea

1983, when the FTC ends the entire rulemaking, are positive and

statistically significant. Once it is clear that health claims will be 

according to standard deception criteria at the agency, advertisers

increase their use of health claims. This result is statistically sign

in all formulations. Use of health claims remains low (in the Line

formulation, approximately 3 percent), but is more than double ea

levels.

The use of health claims also increases following August 19
100 / ADVERTISING NUTRITION AND HEALTH

11 Estimates based on the different regulatory dates in 1990 produce comp

results.

when the FDA publishes its proposal explicitly liberalizing its po

health claims. The coefficient on D8/87 is positive and significant 

the Linear-1 and Probit-1 specifications, as are the coefficients on 

interaction terms in the expanded models. Note also that the size 

coefficient in the Linear-1 model is considerably larger that the e

FTC event (.05 versus .02), evidence consistent with the view tha

FDA rules for labels have an effect on the use of health claims in

advertising.

Also as predicted, the use of claims falls significantly follow

FDA decision in February 1990 to pull back its 1987 health claim

proposal in favor of more restrictive rules.11 The coefficients are 

and highly significant in all specifications either for the direct eff

for the interaction term at that date. Despite the fact that the FTC 

not changed its advertising policy at this point, most of the increa

the use of health claims following the FDA’s 1987 decision is rev

After the FTC harmonization statement in May 1994 and the 

implementation of final rules under the NLEA, the use of health c

shows a significant increase in the models that allow both a discr

effect and an interaction effect (Linear-2 and Probit-2) but not in 

simpler models. In part, this reflects the fact that most of the incr

the use of health claims in the post-1994 period comes in the last 

years of the period. This pattern suggests that the FDA’s Decemb

1995 proposal to simplify the rules for making health claims may 

been important to advertisers. The FDA proposal, which has not 

finalized (as of April 2002), makes it clear that the long and rathe
CHAPTER 6 - REGULATION 

12 The same result holds if Time is added to the simple models (Linear-1 a

Probit-1).

13 The evidence indicates that disease claims are usually accompanied by 

nutrient claims. For instance, a margarine ad from 1988 is typical: “Zero choles

saturated fats, and a downright terrific taste. Medical studies show that a diet lo

saturated fats and cholesterol can reduce the level of cholesterol already in your 

And that can help reduce your risk of heart disease. ...”

complicated model statements in the original health claim regulat

not required and makes additional simplifications in the rules.

Finally, note that controlling for the regulatory events, the tim

trend is not significant in the estimates.12

 Taken together, these results are consistent with the view th

advertisers respond to the regulatory rules they face in making he

claims, and that changes in the regulatory rules can lead to signifi

changes in the types of claims producers use in their advertising. 

easing of the health claim rules in the mid-1980s, in particular, ha

substantial and significant effect on whether producers focus on d

disease issues in their advertising.

NUTRIENT CONTENT CLAIMS AND REGULATION

Background and Method The regulatory events identifi

Table 6-1 could also affect producers’ incentives to use nutrient c

claims, both directly because the rules govern nutrient claims, and

indirectly because the rules affect health claims, and nutrient con

claims often accompany health claims.13 In this section we exam

whether there are systematic movements in the use of nutrient co

claims for the major nutrients across the different regulatory peri
102 / ADVERTISING NUTRITION AND HEALTH

In addition to the effects related to health claims described in 

previous section, several of the regulatory events have direct

implications for the use of nutrient content claims. In May 1980 

FTC decision to end Part II of the Food Rule terminates efforts to

regulate “emphatic” nutrient claims, such as “high in fiber” or “lo

calcium,” and thus, should increase these types of nutrient claims

the other hand, the decision continues efforts to regulate energy, f

other nutrient claims, and thus could reduce the use of these nutri

claims. Together these effects provide no clear prediction for a c

in the use of nutrient content claims at this point.

In contrast, the 1983 formal end to the FTC Food Rulemakin

would be expected to increase the use of nutrient content claims,

because the direct regulatory concern has been lifted, and becaus

expected increase in health claims. The FDA’s August 1987 prop

health claims should also increase the use of nutrient content clai

accompany health claims. The opposite should be true for the 19

events, which reverse the 1987 proposal and initiate rulemakings 

regulate nutrient content claims directly.

Finally, the 1994 NLEA-based rules could increase nutrient 

claims compared to their level at that point, because the rules mak

what is allowed for nutrient claims after a period of considerable

controversy, and because they explicitly authorize some health cl

On the other hand, the rules impose strict limits on some nutrient 

and in the case of comparative claims, require more extensive

disclosures. Thus, the prediction for the change in the use of nutr

content claims in 1994 is not clear, and in particular, there are

substantial reasons to predict that the use of comparative claims m
CHAPTER 6 - REGULATION 

14 Probit regressions give comparable results and are not reported.

fall. These predictions are noted in Table 6-1.

Overall Results for Nutrient Content Claims: Focus 

to Total Fat Under NLEA Rules Table 6-3 presents simple li

regression results (comparable to those for Linear-1 model for he

claims in Table 6-2) relating the use of nutrient content claims fo

of the major nutrients to the major regulatory changes during thes

years.14

After the first FTC decision in May 1980, 3 of the 8 coeffici

significant and 2 of the 3 are positive, indicating only limited cha

the use of nutrient claims across the 8 listed nutrients. In contras

the end of the Food Rule in early 1983 and after the FDA’s 1987 

claim proposal, the use of nutrient content claims rises considerab

these increases are widespread across nutrients; 5 of the 8 coeffic

the post-1983 period and 6 of the 8 in the post-1987 period are

significant, and all of these significant coefficients are positive.

In the post-NLEA periods, the growth in the use of content c

slows and then reverses. After 1990, when the FDA withdraws it

proposal and initiates rulemakings on nutrient claims, 5 of the 8

coefficients are significant, but only 3 of these are positive. Afte

when the NLEA-based rules are final, 6 of the 8 coefficients are

significant but only 2 of the 6 are positive. Fat, and to a lesser ex

calcium, are the nutrients where content claims continue to grow 

post-NLEA period. In contrast, producers reduce their focus on

saturated fat, cholesterol, sodium, and calories under the NLEA r
D4/80 D1/83 D8/87 D2/90 D5/94

Nutrient [FTC ends Part II [FTC ends entire [FDA health claim [FDA withdraws 1987 [FTC Policy Statem

Food Rule] Food Rule] proposal] proposal/NLEA] FDA/NLEA rules eff

Fat .006 (0.55) -.000 (-0.02) .065 (6.51)** .122 (11.40)** .096 (9.35)*

Saturated Fat .000 (0.03) .008 (1.74)* .025 (5.16)** .006 (1.07) -.017 (-3.38)*

Cholesterol .008 (0.89) .013 (1.47) .093 (10.40)** .036 (3.71)** -.119 (-12.93)*

Sodium .015 (1.73)* .051 (6.34)** .028 (3.50)** -.016 (-1.79)* -.037 (-4.48)*

Fiber .028 (3.60)** -.001 (-0.20) .022 (2.89)** -.009 (-1.13) .005 (0.60)

Calcium -.006 (-1.17) .019 (4.08)** .002 (0.46) .002 (0.48) .019 (3.85)*

Vitamin/Mineral -.018 (-2.05)** .025 (3.07)** -.011 (-1.32) .016 (1.75)* -.000 (-0.00)

Calorie/Diet .013 (1.15) .063 (5.91)** .053 (4.99)** -.032 (-2.83)** -.058 (-5.24)*

Significant 

 Coefficients/Total 3/8 5/8 6/8 5/8 6/8

Number Positive/

 Number Significant 2/3 5/5 6/6 3/5 2/6

Notes. ** indicates significance at the 5 percent level in a 2-tailed test; * at the 10 percent level. t-statistics are in parentheses. D

variable equals 1 if ad has claim; 0 otherwise. Linear specification.

1

 Addition of a trend variable does not change qualitative results and trend is significant (positive) only for fat and fiber. Probit e

give comparable results. The constant terms in the linear estimates are .038 (fat), .008 (sat. fat), .038 (chol.), .021 (sodium), .029 

.010 (calcium), .070 (vit./min.), .074 (cal./diet). All are significant.
CHAPTER 6 - REGULATION 

15 In the labeling rules, the first two pieces of information must be immed

adjacent to the claim, but the actual amounts of the nutrient may be adjacent to t

prominent claim or on the same panel as the nutrition label. (21 CFR 101.13(j)(2

iv)). Thus, under the NLEA regulations, a claim of “less fat” would become “25

fat than our regular product, 8 grams of fat per ounce versus 11 grams per ounce

16 For instance, for “less” and “more” claims the regulations allow compa

only to foods in the same product category (21 CFR 101.13 (j) (1) (i) (A)).

17 The FTC’s Enforcement Policy Statement on Food Advertising issued i

1994 summarizes the agency position on comparative claims as follows:

In summary, the Commission ordinarily will not challenge comparative nu

content claims that comply with FDA's regulations, and will carefully scru

comparative nutrient content claims that characterize nutrient differences i

(con

These changes are all statistically significant.

Comparative Claims Fall under NLEA Rules Compar

claims are a subset of nutrient content claims. Under the NLEA r

comparative claims are required to meet a number of specific rest

and to disclose more information as part of the claim. In particul

producers are required to disclose the comparison product, the

percentage (or fraction) that the nutrient is reduced, and the actua

amount of the nutrient for both the product and the comparison fo

These added disclosures in the NLEA rules increase the cost of m

comparative claims. The NLEA rules also place additional const

on allowed comparisons. Products must have at least 25% less (o

of the nutrient in question. Products can only be compared to allo

reference foods, as defined by regulation,

16 and the reference foo

cannot already have a low (or high) level of the nutrient. While

advertisers are not directly bound by the FDA rules, FTC policy

guidance states that claims not in compliance with the FDA rules 

receive careful scrutiny from the FTC.17
106 / ADVERTISING NUTRITION AND HEALTH

(...continued)

that do not comply with FDA's regulations.

18 Probit results are consistent with the linear results.

To assess the use of comparative claims more systematically

estimate both linear ordinary least squares and probit regressions 

the use of comparative claims to the major regulatory events. Th

results are presented in Table 6-4.18 The use of comparative claim

significantly in the pre-NLEA period. Six of 8 coefficients are

significant in both the post-1983 period and the post-1987 period

of the 12 significant coefficients are positive. These results sugge

increases in direct competition on the nutritional features of food

Following the NLEA, the trends change markedly. In the po

period, 5 of 8 coefficients are significant and in the post-1994 per

of the 8 are significant, but only 3 of these 11 significant coeffici

positive. Most notably, in the post-1994 period when the NLEA 

are final, 7 of the 8 coefficients are negative (6 are significant); a

only exception is for fat, which exhibits a small, insignificant rise

Thus, one of the most consistent changes in food advertising

observed in the post-NLEA period is the systematic reduction in 

of comparative nutrient content claims. With the exception of fat

use of comparative claims is lower for all of the major nutrients i

post-NLEA period relative to the years preceding its passage. In 

shown in Figures 4-2, 4-3, and 4-6 through 4-9, comparative claim

virtually eliminated by 1997 for all nutrients except fat.

The data here do not allow us to determine why comparative 

fall so consistently under the NLEA rules. Possibly claims from 
D4/80 D1/83 D8/87 D2/90 D5/94

Nutrient [FTC ends Part II [FTC ends entire [FDA health claim [FDA withdraws 1987 [FTC Policy Statem

 Food Rule] Food Rule] proposal] proposal/NLEA] FDA/NLEA rules eff

Fat .004 (0.64) -.005 (-0.80) .024 (3.70)** .041 (5.73)** .007 (1.01)

Saturated Fat .001 (0.24) .008 (2.53)** .007 (2.25)** .006 (1.87)* -.011 (-3.44)

Cholesterol .000 (0.09) .006 (1.61) .015 (4.26)** .002 (0.60) -.026 (-7.22)

Sodium .005 (1.07) .011 (2.55)** .024 (5.45)** -.003 (-0.61) -.023 (-4.95)

Fiber .002 (0.64) .008 (2.33)** .014 (4.02)** -.022 (-5.74)** -.009 (-2.43)

Calcium -.003 (-0.97) .014 (5.12)** -.004 (-1.33) -.002 (-0.80) -.000 (-0.02)

Vitamin/Mineral .002 (0.65) -.009 (-2.88)** -.001 (-0.23) .016 (4.48)** -.012 (-3.62)

Calorie/Diet .021 (2.80)** .021 (2.80)** .018 (2.55)** -.027 (-3.54)** -.051 (-6.87)

Significant 

 Coefficients/Total 1/8 6/8 6/8 5/8 6/8

Number Positive/

 Number Significant 1/1 5/6 6/6 3/5 0/6

Notes. ** indicates significance at the 5 percent level in a 2-tailed test; * at the 10 percent level. t-statistics are in parentheses. D

variable equals 1 if ad has claim; 0 otherwise. Linear specification.

1

 Addition of a trend variable does not change qualitative results and trend is significant (positive) only for fiber and calcium and

(negative) for vitamins. Probit estimates give comparable results. The constant terms in the linear estimates are .021 (fat), .000 (s

.005 (chol.), .001 (sodium), .007 (fiber), .003 (calcium), .012 (vit./min.), .023 (cal./diet). All are significant except for sodium and

calcium.
108 / ADVERTISING NUTRITION AND HEALTH

earlier period do not meet the minimum requirements for the use 

comparative claims under the NLEA (e.g., the required minimum 

percent reduction), and advertisers believe that the risk of continu

make these claims in advertising is too great. Alternatively, the a

disclosures required to make such claims under the NLEA rules m

make them less effective or sufficiently costly that producers aba

them. Regardless of the cause, the reduction in claims suggests a

reduction in head-to-head competition on nutritional features of f

products.

The systematic movement away from comparative claims un

NLEA rules merits further research to better understand the reaso

firms greatly reduced nutrition comparisons in advertising. Rese

would also be valuable to help determine whether the effects on

consumer behavior and on firms’ incentives to develop and prom

nutritionally preferred foods have been beneficial or harmful. If 

earlier claims are misleading to consumers, their elimination shou

to dietary improvements for consumers and to stronger incentives 

firms to improve the nutrition profile of foods. If the earlier claim

not misleading but provide useful comparative information to

consumers, their loss should slow dietary improvements for consu

and reduce firms’ incentives to make food improvements.

More generally, research on these issues would be useful to

regulators and researchers interested in better understanding the e

of triggered disclosures and the role of simple comparative claim

environment where detailed product information is provided on p

labels.
CHAPTER 6 - REGULATION 

GENERAL NUTRITION CLAIMS AND REGULATION

Background and Method General nutrition claims, such 

“healthy” or “nutritious,” are also potentially affected by various

regulatory events during the period. Moreover, these general clai

complement or substitute for more specific claims, and thus, coul

affected by regulatory changes affecting specific claims. In this s

we present a brief summary of the evidence on these general claim

across regulatory periods.

Several of the regulatory events could have direct impact on 

of general nutrition claims. The end of Part II of the FTC Food R

May 1980 ends the proposal to regulate general health claims bro

The end of the entire Food Rule in early 1983 terminates proposa

regulate “natural.” In both cases we would expect use of general 

to increase following the event. The impact of the health claim e

August 1987 and February 1990 depend on whether general claim

complement or substitute for specific health claims; if general cla

usually substitutes for specific claims, the change should be oppo

that predicted for specific health claims; and conversely, if they a

complements, the effect should be in the same direction. Other e

1990 include proposals for explicit regulation of general claims a

would be expected to reduce their use. Finally, the 1994 NLEA r

provide explicit rules for using these claims, and they also impos

restrictions on their use. This would be expected to reduce the us

general claims, unless the removal of the regulatory uncertainty i

sufficiently large to dominate this effect.

To examine the relationship between the regulatory events a
110 / ADVERTISING NUTRITION AND HEALTH

19 These categories are described in more detail in Chapter 4.

20 Probit regressions again provide comparable results.

use of general claims, we collect claims into five categories of rel

general claims: Healthy/Smart/Good for You/Youth, Nutritious/

Wholesome/Fortified, Light/Lean, Natural/No Artificial/Real/Pur

Fresh claims.19 Table 6-5 presents simple linear regression result

which the presence of a claim from the indicated category is regre

against dummy variables for the major regulatory periods.20

Results for General Nutrition Claims: Substitutes fo

Specific Claims As predicted, the results in Table 6-5 indicate 

the use of general nutrition claims tends to increase in the post-19

period and in the post-1983 period, as the FTC’s Food Rule is end

Four of the 5 coefficients are significant in each of these periods, 

of the 4 in the post-1980 period and 4 of the 4 in the post-1983 pe

are positive, suggesting significant growth in the use of general n

claims from most categories. In the post-1987 period only 2 coef

are significant and these are both negative (as are two of the

insignificant coefficients). Thus, in the period when the rules gov

specific health claims are relaxed, advertisers move away from th

of general nutrition claims to more specific health and nutrient cl

suggesting that general claims and specific claims are substitutes 

that specific claims are preferred to the general claims.

Finally in the post-NLEA periods, the use of these claims ag

changes significantly in four of five equations in both periods. In 

post-1990 period the use of general nutrition claims grows (3 of t

significant coefficients are positive), evidence that is again consis
D4/80 D1/83 D8/87 D2/90 D5/94

Category [FTC ends Part II [FTC ends entire [FDA health claim [FDA withdraws 1987 [FTC Policy Sta

 Food Rule] Food Rule] proposal] proposal/NLEA] FDA/NLEA rules 

Healthy/Smart/ .018 (1.52) .042 (3.73)** .016 (1.36) .037 (3.02)** -.066 (-5.57

Good for You/Young

Nutritious/ -.029 (-2.57)** .043 (4.02)** -.013 (-1.20) .032 (2.76)** .017 (1.52

Wholesome/Fortified

Light/Lean .038 (3.10)** .033 (2.90)** -.016 (-1.39) .021 (1.72)* -.049 (-4.13

Natural/No Artificial/ .072 (4.54)** .079 (5.26)** -.026 (-1.71)* -.053 (-3.25)** -.062 (-3.97

Real/Pure

Fresh .041 (3.45)** -.010 (-0.88) -.022 (-1.97)** -.017 (-1.41) -.053 (-4.59

Significant 

 Coefficients/Total 4/5 4/5 2/5 4/5 4/5

Number Positive/

 Number Significant 3/4 4/4 0/2 3/4 0/4

Notes. ** indicates significance at the 5 percent level in a 2-tailed test; * at the 10 percent level. t-statistics are in parentheses. D

variable equals 1 if ad has claim; 0 otherwise. Linear specification.

1

 Addition of a trend variable does not change qualitative results. Probit estimates give comparable results. The constant terms in 

linear estimates are .101 (Healthy/etc), .119 (Nutritious/etc.), .111 (Light/Lean), .028 (Natural/etc.), and .144 (Fresh). All are sig
112 / ADVERTISING NUTRITION AND HEALTH

with the hypothesis that general and specific claims are substitute

the post-1994 period, when added restrictions are imposed by the 

rules, the use of general claims drops significantly across four of 

groups, and these reductions are all significant and larger than the 

post-1990 increases. The only exception is for Nutritious/Wholes

Fortified claims, which are not explicitly regulated under the NLE

rules.

Thus, the use of these general nutrition claims drops systema

in the post-NLEA period, though it should be noted that in 1997 m

than 55 percent of all food ads still contain general nutrition claim

some type. Systematic movements in the use of general claims re

to specific health claims suggests that general claims are substitu

specific claims and suggests that, absent other constraints, restric

specific claims induce firms to move to more general claims to co

their nutrition message.

DO “GOOD FOODS” USE HEALTH CLAIMS MORE,

ADVERTISE MORE, POST NLEA?

Use of Health Claims Across Food Categories We w

expect the changing regulations to affect advertising in some food

groups more than others. Health issues are more relevant to some 

categories than others and some of the regulatory changes have sp

requirement that will restrict health claim use in some food categ

Under the rules developed to implement the NLEA, for insta

health claims are limited to foods that are “best” on the dimensio

relevant to the particular health claim, “not bad” on other key

dimensions, and “nutritious” in the sense that they provide a mini
CHAPTER 6 - REGULATION 

21 See 21 CFR 101.14 for general requirements for health claims on labels

Ippolito and Mathios (1993) for a summary of the requirements. For example, f

product to mention sodium’s role in hypertension, the product must be “low” in 

(less than 140 mg per serving); it must contain less than 13 g fat, 4 g saturated fa

cholesterol, and 480 mg sodium per serving; and without fortification, it must co

least 10 percent of the Daily Reference Value for vitamin A, vitamin C, iron, cal

protein, or fiber.

22 Because for so many products, no health claims are made during key pe

is not possible to run directly comparable probit specifications for these estimate

seen in the next chapter in the case of Fats & Oils, however, the two methods giv

qualitatively similar results when corrected for periods with no variation.

level of nutrition on at least one of six specified nutrients (withou

supplementation).21 This approach is adopted as part of a strategy 

implement the NLEA’s goal of educating consumers about health

dietary practices. By limiting health claims to what might be con

“good foods,” it is hoped that producers of these foods will find i

profitable to promote the foods, and as a result, will have greater 

in getting consumers to include these foods in their diets in place 

desirable foods. If these presumptions are correct, these NLEA ru

should increase the frequency with which sellers of “good foods” 

health claims to promote their foods, increase the promotion of th

“good foods,” reduce the use of health claims by sellers of other f

and together, these changes could lead to improvements in consu

diets in these relevant food categories.

To examine the advertising part of these hypotheses, Table 6

gives the results of simple linear time series regressions that relat

use of disease and affiliated claims with the key regulatory event

Regressions are run separately for the nine food categories descri

Chapter 3, which together cover all food advertising in our sampl
By Food Category1

Veg/Fruit/ Cereal/ Poultry/ Meat/ Fats & Sauces/ 

Dairy Drinks Juice Bread Fish/Grain Egg Oils Dressing/M

Constant .000 -.000 .000 .003 .038** .104** -.000 .000 

(0.00) (-0.00) (0.00) (0.65) (2.66) (3.31) (-0.00) (0.00) 

D5/80 -.000 -.000 -.000 .002 -.038* -.104** .014** .011 

(FTC ends Part II FR) (-0.00) (-0.00) (-0.00) (0.29) (-1.65) (-2.11) (2.82) (1.22) 

D1/83 .027** .029 .014 -.000 .010 .183** -.014** -.004 

(FTC ends Food Rule) (2.26) (1.22) (1.18) (-0.04) (0.43) (4.02) (-2.80) (-0.47) 

D8/87 -.015 .165** -.002 .020** .103** .253** -.000 -.003 

(FDA health claim prop.) (-1.30) (7.01) (-0.15) (2.98) (4.81) (6.28) (-0.00) (-0.31) 

D2/90 .019 -.148** -.012 -.016** -.063** -.278** -.000 .044*

(FDA withdraws 1987 (1.44) (-5.68) (-0.94) (-2.30) (-2.79) (-6.28) (-0.00) (4.52) 

 proposal/NLEA)

D5/94 .074** .044* .063** -.009 -.011 -.159** .000 -.044*

(FTC Policy Statement/ (5.05) (1.83) (5.17) (-1.38) (-0.49) (-2.97) (0.00) (-4.48) 

 FDA/NLEA rules effective)

Adj. R2.035 .071 .028 .005 .026 .131 .007 .019 

Mean Dep. Variable .024 .055 .016 .007 .040 .171 .002 .013 

N 1729 1047 1228 1879 932 720 939 1746 

Notes. 

1

 Product categories are defined in Table 3-2. t-statistics are in parentheses. ** indicates significance at the .05 level; * at 
CHAPTER 6 - REGULATION 

23 The few claims in the drink category at this time are somewhat differen

usual positive health claims. One ice tea advertiser at the time makes claims abo

absence of artificial sweeteners implicated in cancer risks in laboratory tests. As 

the subsequent coefficient, these claims are short-lived.

24 In 1997, the use of health claims increases substantially in the Cereals/B

category, returning to near 1990 levels, following the FDA authorization of an o

disease claim.

Between 1980 and 1983, when the FTC focuses the final pha

its rulemaking on health claims, advertisers stop using health clai

the only two categories in which they are not trivial at that time,

Meat/Eggs and Fats & Oils (as shown by the equal sized but oppo

signed coefficient for the constant term and D5/80 in those equatio

Once the final Food Rule decision is issued in early 1983, health 

appear in several food categories, though with the exception of Fa

Oils, these claims appeared in fewer than 3 percent of ads during 

1983 to 1987 period. Once the FDA publishes its 1987 proposal 

health claims, their use is more widespread and more frequent. T

increases are significant in five of the nine categories, in the

Cereals/Breads, Poultry/Fish/Grains, Meats/Eggs, Fats & Oils, an

Desserts/Snacks categories. 

Of interest for assessing the post-NLEA period, however, ar

coefficients for the variables D2/90 and D5/94. As seen in Table 6-6

use of disease and affiliated claims increases significantly in only 

category in the post-1990 period, for the Sauces/Dressings/Misc

category, and decreases significantly in five categories, Cereal/Br

Poultry/Fish/Grains, Meat/Eggs, Fats & Oils, and Desserts/Snack

After the NLEA rules are finalized and the FTC policy is clarifie

May 1994, disease and affiliated claims increase significantly in 
116 / ADVERTISING NUTRITION AND HEALTH

25 By net increase, we mean products where the post-1990 effects taken to

are positive (as indicated by the sum of the D2/90 and D4/94 coefficients). For inst

despite the positive coefficient for Cereal/Bread in 1994, the magnitude is not la

enough to overcome the negative coefficient in 1990. The same is true for the

Sauces/Dressing/Misc. category.

categories, Fruit/Vegetables/Juice, Cereal/Bread and Dairy, and d

significantly in two categories, in Fats & Oils and

Sauces/Dressings/Misc.

Taking these post-NLEA changes together, the two categorie

significant net increases25 do include foods targeted for increased

consumption by public health officials, namely fruits and vegetab

low-fat dairy products, thus providing some evidence of the desir

effects from the NLEA. Between 1990 and 1997 the likelihood th

Vegetable, Fruit and Juice ads used health claims increases by 9.3

percentage points; Dairy ads increase by 5.1 percentage points.

More sizable effects are found in the food categories that

experience decreases following the NLEA. Most significantly, th

likelihood that Fat & Oils advertising makes disease or affiliated 

decreases by 43.7 percentage points. The likelihood that Cereal a

Bread advertising includes a disease or affiliated claim decreases 

percentage points; for Meats, Eggs and their substitutes this likeli

falls by 7.4 percentage points; and for Poultry, Fish, and Grains it 

by 2.5 percentage points. The Fats & Oils category, the Meat and 

and the Poultry, Fish, and Grain categories especially include the 

of products targeted for reduced health claim use by the NLEA ru

The reduction in these categories is statistically significant, and in 

first two categories constitute the largest measurable changes in h
CHAPTER 6 - REGULATION 

claim advertising in the post-NLEA period.

In fact, examination of the underlying data indicates that afte

no disease or affiliated claims are included in advertising for any 

entree, meal or individual products, for any poultry, fish, or grain

entrees, meals, or individual products, or for breads of any kind. 

Moreover, after 1992 no salad dressings or other sauces, includin

nonfat dressings, make health claims of any type; and after 1993, 

margarine, cooking oil, or other fat product or substitute make su

claims. Thus, the evidence indicates that the health implications 

choices in all of these food categories appears to have been comp

eliminated from advertising under the NLEA rules through 1997.

This evidence suggests that the rules implementing the NLE

produced the desired effect in reducing the focus on health in cer

categories that do not meet regulation guidelines, such as Fats & 

and Meats/Eggs/Mixtures, and to a lesser extent increasing the fo

health in at least one category targeted for increased consumption

Fruits/Vegetables/Juice. In an effort to assess these changes mor

precisely, we now turn to a more detailed examination of some of 

advertising changes in key categories.

Fruit, Vegetable, and Juice Advertising Falls After N

Only Orange Juice Ads Have Greater Health Focus As

described above, after the passage of the NLEA, the percentage o

advertising that includes a health claim in the Fruit/Vegetable/Jui

category rises significantly, a result that is consistent with the hyp

that sellers find it more profitable to advertise these products with 

claims under the new regulations. However, other data from the

category does not support this hypothesis, and in fact, indicates th
118 / ADVERTISING NUTRITION AND HEALTH

26 After 1990, with only two exceptions, all advertisements in the category 

have health claims are orange juice ads. One advertisement for Campbell’s V8 j

includes a cancer and heart claim in 1996, and one advertisement for the Califor

Beans Association has a heart claim.

overall advertising for fruit, vegetables, and juice has fallen unde

NLEA.

The first type of evidence is the number of different types of 

and vegetables that make health claims in advertising. Orange ju

producers are the most frequent users of health claims throughout 

years of the study, but in the years after the NLEA rules, health c

the category are used almost exclusively by orange juice produce

Prior to the NLEA rules, a few other fruit or vegetable producers 

heart or cancer claims in our sample, including grapefruit juice

producers, West Coast pear producers, California lima bean prod

and the California Prune Board. Prior to passage of the NLEA in 

61 percent of advertising with a disease or affiliated claim in the

Fruit/Vegetable/Juice category is for orange juice; after the NLEA 

are effective in May 1993, 95 percent of ads with these claims in 

category are orange juice claims. Thus, the evidence is not consi

with the hypothesis that the post-NLEA rules increase the numbe

different types of fruit and vegetable producers using health claim

their advertising; in fact, the opposite is true.

Second, as illustrated in Figure 6-1, the amount of advertisin

Fruit/Vegetable/Juice category falls significantly after the NLEA

Between 1977 and 1990, our sample includes between 78 and 120

advertisements per year in the category, and while variation exist

year to year, the data do not indicate any discernable trend. After 
Figure 6-1 Number of Advertisements for the Fruit/Vege

Juice Category1

Figure 6-2 Fruit/Vegetable/Juice Ads As a Percentage of 

Food Ads

Notes. 

1

 The Fruit/Vegetable/Juice category includes all fruit, vegetable or juice

products, as described in Table 3-2.
120 / ADVERTISING NUTRITION AND HEALTH

27 We examined detailed data on the particular firms advertising in this ca

over time. We did not find any large advertisers or particular classes of fruit or 

producers who systematically stopped advertising between 1990 and 1993 that c

account for the data shift. In particular, we did not find the drop concentrated am

marketing order advertisers, which we checked in light of litigation against mark

orders during this period. See Cal-Almond v. USDA (1993) and the Supreme C

opinion in Glickman v. Wileman (1997), or the summary in Crespi (2001).

the number of advertisements in the category falls significantly an

substantially, stabilizing at less than 50 advertisements per year o

average. The number of advertisements in the category in the pos

NLEA period falls by approximately 50 percent compared to the 

NLEA period.

Recall from Chapter 3 that food advertising in general exhib

downward trend over the years of the study. Nonetheless, the cha

the Fruit/Vegetable/Juice category are substantially more pronou

that those for food advertising in general. Figure 6-2 illustrates th

percentage of food advertising in the Fruit/Vegetable/Juice catego

each year. The data illustrate the same pattern as the advertising 

data: Fruit/Vegetable/Juice advertising is approximately 17 perc

all food advertising through 1990 and then falls to approximately 

percent of food advertising after 1990, a 35 percent reduction.27

Thus, taken together the evidence for the Fruit/Vegetable/Ju

category indicates a significant reduction in advertising for this c

in the post-NLEA period; the number of ads in the category drop

half and the percentage of food advertising in the category drops 

about one-third. Producers that continue to advertise are more lik

use health claims, though these are almost exclusively orange juic

producers in the post-NLEA period.
CHAPTER 6 - REGULATION 

28 Other specifications which allowed for an overall time trend or control 

cost of magazine advertising (as described in Chapter 3) do not change the findi

reported here. None of the food categories have a significant time trend in those

specifications.

Advertising Falls or Remains Stable in All Food

Categories in Post-NLEA Period The hypothesis that added

regulatory restrictions on health claims in the post-NLEA period 

easier and more profitable for firms selling “good” foods to adver

leading to more advertising by these types of foods, is rejected m

generally by the data examined here. For instance, Table 6-7 pre

simple linear regressions relating the number of advertisements p

month with the key regulatory events. Regressions are again run

separately for the nine food categories and the results are shown i

6-7.28

Prior to 1987 coefficients for the regulatory dummies are gen

not significant, with the exception the 1980 dummy for the

Poultry/Fish/Grain category. With this one exception, these resul

indicate that the number of advertisements does not change signif

in the pre-1987 environment. Between 1987 and 1990, when the 

labeling rules are relaxed and health claim advertising is at its pea

number of advertisements in the listed food categories shows no

significant increases or decreases, except in the Desserts/Snacks

category, where the number falls by 34 percent.

Finally, in the post-NLEA period, 8 of the 9 coefficients on t

variable are negative (the exception is an insignificant positive fo

Desserts/Snacks). Three of these decreases are significant, the

Vegetables/Fruit/Juice category, as discussed above, the Cereal/B
By Food Category1

Veg/Fruit/ Cereal/ Poultry/ Meat/ Fats & Sauces/ 

Dairy Drinks Juice Bread Fish/Grain Egg Oils Dressing/M

Constant 32.60** 20.30** 17.60** 34.20** 18.60** 12.50** 21.10** 31.40** 

(11.86) (11.51) (7.82) (12.01) (10.46) (8.75) (11.72) (10.11) 

D5/80 -1.23 –4.18 4.65 -9.58** -4.23 -1.75 -3.35 2.10 

(FTC ends Pt. II Food Rule) (-0.30) (-1.58) (1.38) (-2.24) (-1.58) (-0.82) (-1.24) (0.45) 

D1/83 0.84 0.95 -1.96 5.23 0.41 2.89 -3.32 -3.50 

(FTC ends entire Food Rule) (0.22) (0.38) (-0.62) (1.31) (0.16) (1.44) (-1.32) (-0.80) 

D8/87 0.66 0.30 0.09 0.52 1.84 2.11 -1.18 -1.25 

(FDA health claim prop.) (0.17) (0.12) (0.03) (0.13) (0.74) (1.05) (-0.47) (-0.29) 

D2/90 -10.79** -4.88* -3.46 -1.79 -3.21 -5.25** -1.00 -4.67 

(FDA withdraws 1987 (-2.72) (-1.92) (-1.07) (-0.44) (-1.25) (-2.55) (-0.38) (-1.04) 

 proposal/NLEA)

D5/94 -6.36* 4.50* 3.45 1.96 -1.59 -4.50** -0.34 -3.63 

(FTC Policy Statement/ (-1.75) (1.93) (1.16) (0.52) (-0.68) (-2.39) (-0.14) (-0.88) 

 FDA/NLEA rules effective)

Adj. R2.341 .092 -.017 .006 .064 .269 .198 .110 

Mean Dependent

 Variable 27.4 16.6 19.5 29.8 14.8 11.4 14.9 27.7 

Notes. 

1

 Product categories are defined in Table 3-2. t-statistics are in parentheses. ** indicates significance at the .05 level; * at 
CHAPTER 6 - REGULATION 

29 See 21 CFR 101.14.

category, and the Fats & Oils categories. For the NLEA final eve

May 1994, 6 of 9 coefficients are negative, and 2 are significant, 

Oils and Fruit/Vegetables/Juice. Three of the coefficients are po

but they are all of the same magnitude and opposite in sign from t

corresponding 1990 coefficients, indicating no net change for all 

the post-NLEA period.

Thus, at this level of aggregation, there is no evidence of inc

advertising in “good” food categories in the post-NLEA period, b

some evidence of reduced advertising across certain food categor

These reductions are significant in one category targeted for redu

consumption (Fats & Oils), as well as one targeted for increased

consumption (Fruit/Vegetables).

Health Claims for Desserts and Snacks Have Not Chang

Under the NLEA; Evidence Indicates Health Claims Are 

Used for These Foods A number of provisions in the NLEA 

are motivated by a concern that producers of empty or otherwise

nutritionally deficient foods would use health claims in marketing 

products. For instance, the requirement that foods making health 

on labels must have at least 10 percent of the Daily Reference Va

vitamin A, vitamin C, iron, calcium, protein, or fiber29 is common

called the “jelly bean rule.” This reflects the fact that without the

nutritional requirement, an advertiser of jelly beans (or other suga

products) could make (say) a heart disease claim under NLEA rul

because the product is low in fat and saturated fat and contains no

cholesterol. In the late 1980s, when the health claim debate was 
124 / ADVERTISING NUTRITION AND HEALTH

vigorous, the prospect of oat bran potato chips with heart claims, 

enriched donuts with cancer claims, were regularly invoked as pa

the rationale for stricter regulation.

The extent to which desserts or snack foods do indeed make 

claims can be examined with the data in our sample. To this end 

focus on two of our food categories, Drinks, which includes all

carbonated soft drinks and all fruit-flavored beverages (but not ju

along with other beverages such as coffee, tea and water, and

Desserts/Snacks, which includes desserts, sweets, donuts, danish 

other sweet breads, salty snacks, such as potato chips and related 

Most so-called “junk foods” are included in these two categories, 

with many foods that have positive nutritional value.

Table 6-8 presents the percentage of advertisements in each 

with a disease or affiliated claim in the two categories. First, not

every year but three for the Dessert/Snack category, and in every 

but one for the Drink category, no advertisements contained disea

affiliated claims. Thus, throughout the regulatory periods, diseas

affiliated claims are not a significant phenomenon in these catego

Moreover, the occasional exceptions are either likely to be a

under the NLEA or are marginal claims picked up by our coding 

which may or may not have been seen as health claims by consum

the latter category are the 1985 advertisements for a peanut butte

the tag line “good nutrition straight from the heart” and the 1997

advertisement for a rice cake product providing publicity for a wa

raise funds for breast cancer research. Recall that our coders are 

allowed to judge the intent of any claim in the context of an ad, b

required simply to code the presence of any disease-related word
Table 6-8 Percentage of Advertisements with Disease or

Affiliated Claims for Desserts/Snacks and Drink Catego

Year Desserts/Snacks Drinks

1977 0.0 0.0

1978 0.0 0.0

1979 0.0 0.0

1980 0.0 3.61

1981 0.0 0.0

1982 0.0 0.0

1983 0.0 0.0

1984 0.0 0.0

1985 0.520.0

1986 0.0 0.0

1987 0.0 0.0

1988 0.0 0.0

1989 2.23

0.0

1990 0.0 0.0

1991 0.0 0.0

1992 0.0 0.0

1993 0.0 0.0

1994 0.0 0.0

1995 0.0 0.0

1996 0.0 0.0

1997 1.240.0

Notes. 

1

 These advertisements for a low calorie lemonade focused on the absen

artificial sweetener, with a claim that the sweetener “had been determined to cau

in laboratory animals.”

 

2

 An ad for peanut butter included the tag line “good nutrition straight from th

 

3

 Ads for a low fat, low cholesterol oat bran muffin mix with the claim “as par

fat, low cholesterol diet, can help reduce cholesterol” and as much fiber “as a bo

fruit-bran cereal.”

 

4

 Ads for low fat rice cakes promoted a national walk to raise funds for breast 

research.
126 / ADVERTISING NUTRITION AND HEALTH

advertisements, hence the heart and cancer claims in these cases. 

1989 advertisements are for a low fat, oat bran muffin mix with th

claims “as part of a low fat, low cholesterol diet, can help to redu

cholesterol” and as much fiber “as a bowl of fruit-bran cereal.” I

impossible to judge from the advertisement whether the product w

meet the current requirements for an oat bran-heart disease claim 

certainly that is possible. The 1980 advertisements in the Drink c

are ads for a low calorie lemonade drink highlighting the absence 

artificial sweetener, which “has been determined to cause cancer 

laboratory animals.” In the late 1970s and early 1980s, concern a

artificial sweeteners led to claims of this type in a few product

categories.

Certainly, these data do not support the hypothesis that abse

regulatory restraints, health claims would be widely used by prod

of nutritionally vacuous or significantly deficient products. In pa

lack of claims may reflect advertisers’ concerns about normal

advertising enforcement against deceptive or misleading claims. 

Alternatively, such claims may not be effective with consumers w

presumably might be skeptical of claimed health benefits of oat b

potato chips or the like. Whatever the cause, the evidence indica

both before and after the NLEA, health claims have not been a

significant phenomenon in the Dessert/Snack or Drinks categorie

Finally, Figures 6-3 and 6-4 present data on the amount of

advertising in these two categories. The Desserts/Snacks/Sweet B

category is a large category with considerable advertising, averag

more than 50 advertisements per month in the early years of the s

As reflected in the regressions reported in Table 6-8 and the data 
Sweet Bread Category1

Figure 6-4 Number of Advertisements for the Soft Drink

Category2

Notes. 

1

 The Dessert/Snack/Sweet Bread category includes all dessert and snack 

including candy, sweets, nuts, muffins, chips, and related items, as described in 

2.

 

2

 The Soft Drink category includes all coffee, tea, soda, fruit flavored drinks, e

does not include milk, juice, or alcoholic beverages.
128 / ADVERTISING NUTRITION AND HEALTH

Figure 6-3, however, the amount of advertising in the Desserts ca

falls significantly in the late 1980s, the period of greatest health c

advertising, and this reduced level of advertising does not change 

post-NLEA period. The number of advertisements in the categor

by approximately one-third during the late 1980s. For Drinks, the

general slow decline in the number of advertisements over the wh

period from approximately 21 advertisements per month in the la

1970s to approximately 12 advertisements per month in the post-N

period. The decline does not appear to be particularly associated 

any of the regulatory periods, as seen in the regression in Table 6

Thus, both the Desserts/Snacks category and the Drinks cate

exhibit less advertising over time, but these declines do not seem 

associated with the NLEA or its implementing regulations. In fac

substantial reduction in the Desserts/Snacks category coincides w

period of greatest health claim activity in the late 1980s.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Overall, the results here indicate that the content of food adv

varies considerably with changes in regulation and enforcement. 

Advertising claims about the health implications of diet have

experienced the most dramatic movement over the years of this st

the rules shifted from prohibitions in the early years, to normal de

standards in the late 1980s, and then back to a more qualified acc

under the NLEA rules of the later 1990s. 

Nutrient content claims also vary with regulatory changes, e

when the regulatory changes do not directly affect the use of such

claims, as when the rules for health claims change but not those f
CHAPTER 6 - REGULATION 

nutrient content claims. The reason for these results deserves fur

study. Health claims deal directly with the consequences of parti

characteristics, as in the case of heart disease as a consequence of

saturated fat consumption. It may be that without that explicit rem

of the reason to care about a particular nutrient, consumers are no

responsive to simple nutrient claims. Alternatively, the conseque

claims may provide direct information to consumers and that with

the nutrient claims are not meaningful.

Under the NLEA rules advertisers have shifted away from m

other nutrients to focus more exclusively on total fat claims. Also

advertisers have shifted away from comparative claims on all

dimensions, again with the exception of total fat. Which features 

rules are associated with the movements and whether these chang

desirable for consumers are ripe areas for further research.

We do see evidence of substitution between general nutrition

claims, such as wholesome, and more specific nutrient claims dep

on the regulatory environment. When specific claims are more d

or more costly, advertisers shift to more general nutrition claims,

suggesting that general nutrition claims are often a second best ch

advertisers.

Finally, the evidence here does not support the hypothesis th

of the benefits of tightening the requirement for health claims to o

best foods would lead to “good” foods, such as fruits and vegetab

increasing their advertising and their focus on health in advertisin

Post-NLEA advertising for fruits and vegetables falls and only or

juice producers make health claims in our data.
1

 In Stigler’s words, “advertising ... is treated with a hostility normally res

tariffs or monopolists.” A notable exception at the time is seen in Telser (1962)

advertising is found to be a means of competition.

2

 For a recent review of the economics of advertising literature, see Bagw

(2001).

VII

Economics of Advertising: Issues and Evid

INTRODUCTION

Advertising is a major feature of consumer good markets. W

George Stigler (1961) wrote his now-classic paper on the econom

information, economists viewed advertising primarily as a barrier 

entry. At the time it was considered revolutionary to think that

economic forces applied to information and that market institutio

advertising might be a response to the market’s need for informat

Since then, the economic view of advertising has changed

fundamentally.2

As in the Stigler paper, part of the literature addresses the di

information function of advertising, focusing on its potential to in

consumers about product characteristics. For instance, Butters (1

theoretically examines the informational role of price advertising 

shaping market equilibrium prices, Ehrlich and Fisher (1982) stre

advertising’s role in economizing on shopping time, and Grossma

(1981) highlights firms’ incentives to provide information created 
CHAPTER 7 - ECONOMICS OF ADVERTISING 

3

 See, for instance, Nelson (1974, p. 732), Kihlstrom and Riordan (1984, 

or Becker and Murphy (1993, p. 943).

4

 But see Parker (1995) who questions the quality finding.

ability to credibly advertise product characteristics.

Other papers, typified by Nelson (1970, 1974), Klein and Le

(1981), Kihlstrom and Riordan (1984), Ippolito (1990) and others

on the indirect ways in which advertising can signal product qual

Firms’ large public advertising expenditures can sometimes credi

signal a commitment to produce goods with promised characteris

even when consumers cannot judge quality at purchase.

In this signaling view, the content of advertising may not be

important. Information is provided by the expenditure itself. In f

number of the signaling papers, as well as some more general adv

papers, begin with observations that it is “obvious” that many ads

provide essentially no information.3

Empirical studies in the literature have attempted to assess w

prices (say) are lower or higher in markets where advertising is al

This work is typified by the Benham (1972) study of prices for

optometric services, which finds that prices are lower in states th

advertising compared to those that do not, and the Bond et al. (19

study of the same market, which finds that prices are lower and th

quality of services is comparable in states that allow advertising.4

Similar in spirit are studies of prescription drugs by Cady (1976), 

gasoline by Maurizi (1972), grocery prices during a newspaper st

Glazer (1981), and liquor prices in Rhode Island before and after 

decision removing an advertising ban by Milyo and Waldfogel (1
132 / ADVERTISING NUTRITION AND HEALTH

5

 To our knowledge no public datasets have systematic data on the claims 

advertising. Several papers in the marketing literature do contain content inform

collected directly by the authors to address topics under study by them. These in

Pappalardo and Ringold (2000), Laband (1989), Dowling (1980), and Resnik an

(1977).

But these tests, and others like them, are all indirect tests of

advertising’s roles. This empirical work does not directly addres

question of whether advertising contains informative claims abou

products, or works through more indirect methods as typified by t

signaling literature. In large part, the difficulty of obtaining data 

types of claims actually made in advertising inhibits more direct t

In this chapter, we provide several types of evidence on the

hypothesis that advertising plays a direct information role in mark

that it is shaped by economic forces. Using our detailed data on t

types of claims made in magazine food advertising, we show that 

portion of this advertising has claims about specific product

characteristics. As we saw in the last chapter and will see further 

evidence below, producers change the content of their advertising

systematically in response to what is or is not allowed under exist

regulations, evidence suggesting that producers believe that the c

of their advertising is important. Finally, we present several type

evidence consistent with the unfolding theory of advertising, that 

evidence that competitive forces push producers to reveal more ab

their products and to bring that information to potential customer

free to do so easily.
CHAPTER 7 - ECONOMICS OF ADVERTISING 

INFORMATION IN ADVERTISING: DIRECT EVIDENCE

Background As consumers search among available produ

making purchase decisions, firms have an incentive to try to draw

consumers to consider their products, especially consumers who w

ultimately become regular customers. By providing product infor

through spending on advertising, firms can attract consumers who 

these advertised characteristics desirable. Firms with products th

deliver the advertised characteristics are more likely to get the rep

business necessary to make the advertising worthwhile. This sim

mechanism is the fundamental force underlying the information t

of advertising.

The range of information that could be conveyed from seller

potential customers is extensive. Sellers can inform, or remind,

consumers of the existence of the product. Sellers can convey sp

attributes of the product (e.g., for foods, nutritional features, taste

varieties, price, ease of use, etc.). They can also convey how the 

might be used or why it might be valuable to consumers (e.g., for 

by providing recipes or suggestions for use, or by informing cons

about the health benefits of the product). Firms can also use adve

to identify where the product is sold and other characteristics of t

seller. Obviously, some media are more suited to providing some 

of information and not other types, but with a mix of media, a firm 

lower consumers’ cost of acquiring a great range of information a

products.

Specific Nutrition Claim Measures The data collected 

study includes several categories of claims about specific produc
134 / ADVERTISING NUTRITION AND HEALTH

characteristics that would be relevant to consumers in choosing fo

products. To consider nutritional characteristics from this perspe

we create several indices for claims about specific nutritional

characteristics of foods. As shown in Table 7-1, the first index, L

focuses on the 5 main lipid (fat) dimensions of foods and counts t

number of distinct lipids featured in the ad. The second index, M

nutrients, adds 6 other major nutritional features of foods to the l

(sodium, fiber, calcium, carbohydrates, protein, and calories), as 

other vitamins and minerals treated as a group. Finally, the third 

Main nutrients & individual vitamins and minerals, is comparabl

second index except that individual vitamins and minerals are

considered in more detail. Each index reflects the number of dist

dimensions with specific claims in the advertisement.

In some of the analysis, we also use indicator variables for e

category of claims that indicate the presence of claims for any of 

covered nutrient dimensions. Thus, for instance, the Main nutrie

indicator variable equals 1 if the ad has a claim for any of the ma

nutrients, and is zero otherwise. The other indicator variables for 

and Main nutrients & individual vitamins and minerals are comp

Recall also from Chapter 4 that our coding system also colle

summary measure of whether an advertisement contains any spec

nutrition-related claim. This measure, labeled Specific nutrient, h

fat, oil, or calorie claims, indicates all ads with a claim coded in 

specific nutrition-related claim part of our coding scheme. Thus, 

index reflects main nutrient claims, as described above, as well a

specific health claims, other specific nutrition-related claims, suc

lactose free or contains wheat germ, and fat and oil claims, such 
CHAPTER 7 - ECONOMICS OF ADVERTISING 

Table 7-1 Indices for Lipid and Nutrient Claims

Index1 / Indicator2 Nutrients Included in Index

Lipids Total Fat

(0 to 5) / (0 or 1) Saturated Fat

Monounsaturated Fat

Polyunsaturated Fat

Cholesterol

Main Nutrients Lipid Dimensions (5) plus

(0 to 12) / (0 or 1) Sodium

Fiber

Calcium

Any other vitamin or mineral

Carbohydrates

Protein

Calorie

Main Nutrients & Individual Main Nutrients (11)3

 plus

Vitamins or Minerals Vitamin B

(0 to 21) / (0 or 1) Vitamin C

Vitamin E

Beta Carotene

Potassium

Antioxidants

Iron

Folic Acid

General/Multiple Vitamin

Other Specific Vitamin

Notes. 

1

 Each index can take a value from 0 to the specified maximum value

depending on the number of listed dimensions for which claims are made in the 

2

 Each indicator variable equals 1 if the ad contains a claim for any of the listed 

in the category, 0 otherwise.

3

 The vitamin and mineral dimension listed in Main Nutrients is replaced by the 

and mineral dimensions listed here, and thus, represents a more detailed index.
136 / ADVERTISING NUTRITION AND HEALTH

6

 See the text surrounding Figure 4-22 for a more detailed discussion.

with canola oil.

6

 Advertisements that contain only general nutrie

claims, as typified by the terms nutritious or healthy, are not inclu

this measure.

Specific Nutrition Claims Have Become a Major Fea

of Food Advertising Figure 7-1 presents evidence on the perc

of advertisements in each year that contain a Main Nutrient Claim 

claim from the broader category of Specific nutrient, health, fat, o

calorie claims. Both measures demonstrate a substantial increase 

percentage of advertisements that include specific nutrition-relate

claims during the first half of our period. Since the late 1980s, ho

the percentage of ads with nutrition claims has stabilized; approx

40-50 percent of ads include claims about main nutrients, and

approximately 50-60 percent include claims from the somewhat b

class of specific nutrition-related claims.

Using either measure, the evidence indicates that despite a c

regulatory environment, a substantial portion of magazine food

advertising contains specific claims about nutritional features of f

products. Since the late 1980s, approximately half of all food ads 

at least one specific nutrition-related claim.

Other Specific Informative Claims Are Also Commo

Food Advertising Recall also from Chapter 3 that our coders

recorded the presence of a number of other types of claims that ap

food advertising. Of particular interest for the current discussion 

specific claims about the availability of different varieties of the p
Figure 7-1 Percentage of Advertisements with at Least O

Specific Nutrition Claim by Type 1

Notes. 

1 Main nutrient claims are specific claims about the nutrients listed in Ta

Specific nutrient, health, fat, oil, or calorie claims includes all claims in the spec

nutrition-related claims portion of our coding scheme, including all ads with ma

nutrient claims, as well as specific health claims, other specific nutrition-related 

such as lactose free, and other fat or oil claims, such as made with canola oil.
138 / ADVERTISING NUTRITION AND HEALTH

suggestions for using the product, claims highlighting convenienc

ease of preparation, claims indicating that the product is new or h

improved, and claims about the taste, aroma, or texture of the pro

In each of these cases, producers are attempting to attract consum

interested in these specific features of the product.

Table 7-2 summarizes evidence on the 2 nutrition-related cat

illustrated in Figure 7-1, as well as the other specific product clai

mentioned above. The table gives the overall percentage of

advertisements in the sample that have a claim from the category, 

as the minimum and maximum percentages of ads per year with c

for the years from 1977 to 1997. While some variation exists fro

to year, the variation is greatest in the nutrition-related categories

reflecting the general growth in the use of nutrition claims that oc

in the first 10 years of the sample.

As shown in Table 7-2, approximately 40 percent of ads incl

specific suggestions for using the product, often by providing rec

that use the food. More than half of the advertisements include

information about the existence of different varieties of the produ

Approximately one-third of the ads make a claim about the produ

convenience for some use. Approximately 20 percent of the ads

highlight that the product is new or has been improved. Finally,

approximately 80 percent of advertisements make a claim about t

taste, texture, or aroma of the food.

Taken together, this evidence illustrates that a great many

advertisements make specific claims about the advertised produc

Assuming that the nutrition label is credible, consumers can verif

nutrition claims with nutrition information on the label. Consum
CHAPTER 7 - ECONOMICS OF INFORMATION 

Table 7-2 Percentage of Food Ads with Specific Informa

Claims by Type1

Percentage of A

_________________

Type of Claim Overall Min / M

Sample Annual P

Nutrition-Related Categories

Main nutrient claims 3 35.0 18 / 

Specific nutrient, health, fat, oil,

or calorie claims 4 45.5 28 / 

Other Categories of Specific Product Claims 5

Variety information651.8 44 / 

Suggestions for use7

40.6 32 / 

Convenient/quick/easy claims832.4 25 / 

New/introducing/improved claims9

20.7 13 / 

Taste/aroma/texture claims10 79.6 65 / 

Notes. 

1

 Data from magazine advertising sample.

2

 Range of annual percentages for years from 1977 to 1997.

3

 Includes all ads with a main nutrient claim as defined in Table 7-1.

4

 Includes all ads with a specific nutrient-related claim, as defined in the text su

Figure 4-22.

5

 These categories of claims are described in more detail in Chapter 3.

6

 Variety claims category includes all explicit claims about the varieties availab

including package sizes, flavors, etc.

7

 Suggestions for use category includes all explicit suggestions for using the pro

including recipes.

8

 Convenient/quick/easy claims includes all claims about ease of use.

9

 New/introducing/improved claims includes all claims about new or improved 

10

 Taste/aroma/texture claims include all claims about the taste, aroma, or textu

product.
140 / ADVERTISING NUTRITION AND HEALTH

7

 As defined in Nelson (1970).

also experiment with suggested uses of the food, determine wheth

of use and convenience claims are valid, try new or improved pro

and judge taste or other sensory characteristics. Thus, as would b

expected, most of these claims involve search or experience

characteristics7 that consumers can judge before or after purchase

ADVERTISING AND UNFOLDING: DOES COMPETITION 

TO INFORMATION ON MORE NUTRITION DIMENSIONS?

Theory and Method One of the economic issues in adver

is the potential bias in the types of information provided by adver

advertisers have an incentive to tell potential customers what is g

about their product but not what is bad about the product. This is

of particular concern in multi-attribute products, such as foods, w

claims about the desirable features could draw attention away fro

desirable and unrevealed characteristics. Despite the inherent bia

individual firm level, economic theory suggests that in many case

competition among producers can substantially reduce or elimina

bias in the information provided by the market as a whole (Gross

1981). 

For instance, this theory would predict that if firms advertise 

cholesterol benefits of their products and are gaining sales by om

information on other dimensions, such as saturated fat, competing 

with low cholesterol, low saturated fat products have the incentiv

highlight these facts. This “unfolding” theory suggests that despi

firms’ initial reluctance to highlight “bad” nutritional characterist
CHAPTER 7 - ECONOMICS OF ADVERTISING 

8

 Consumer survey evidence suggests that most consumers view advertisin

selling message and bring considerable skepticism to interpreting advertising cla

See, for instance, Calfee and Ringold (1994).

competition will often induce all but the worst products to disclos

features of available products. As long as consumers are skeptica

firms that do not reveal key information,8 the market would induc

firm to fill in important missing information, both cholesterol and

saturated fat in our example.

The concern about partial information and selective highligh

particular nutrient dimensions underlies some of the changes

implemented in the NLEA rules for food labeling. For instance, u

the NLEA, if producers of certain products make any nutrient cla

their labels, they are also required to disclose undesirable charact

Thus, for instance, if a claim is made about the low saturated fat 

of a high fat product, a disclosure would have to be made referrin

consumers to the fat content on the nutrition label. The rule is de

to induce more complete nutrition information into the market. T

presence of these labeling rules creates greater pressure on firms 

consider these issues in advertising. Of course, triggered disclosu

this type also reduce the incentive to make the original nutrient cl

all, because the claims are now more costly in space and complex

This could have the unintended consequence of reducing competi

nutrition overall.

The data in our sample allows us to examine the unfolding

hypothesis in several ways. First, we examine the number of diff

nutrient dimensions about which claims are made in advertising o

time. In particular, we examine whether the number of nutrient
142 / ADVERTISING NUTRITION AND HEALTH

dimensions included in advertising increased during the late 1980

when the regulatory constraints are relaxed and disease and affili

claims are at their peak, presumably increasing competition on th

nutritional characteristics of foods. We also examine whether the

number of nutrients mentioned in advertising increases still furthe

post-NLEA period when triggered disclosures are specified by

regulation in an effort to fill in key nutrition information in claim

The nutrient measures used in this analysis are those listed in 

7-1, namely the Lipids index, the Main nutrients index, and the M

nutrients & individual vitamins and minerals index. Each index c

on an integer value from zero to the maximum number of nutrien

category (as listed in Table 7-1) and indicates the number of diffe

dimensions for which claims are made in the advertisement. Figu

illustrates the mean number of nutrients for which claims are mad

each of the three indices for each year of our sample.

Lipid Dimensions The mean number of lipid dimensions 

increases only slightly between 1977 and 1987, but then it rises

substantially from .13 dimensions per advertisement in 1987 to .5

dimensions per advertisement in 1991, more than 4 times higher. 

mean falls by about 20 percent between 1991 and 1997, to .47

dimensions per advertisement.

The mean number of lipids per advertisement is the product 

factors, the percentage of ads that have any lipid claims and the a

number of lipid dimensions in ads that have a lipid claim. Figure 

illustrates the second of these two factors, the conditional mean, t

the average annual number of lipid dimensions in advertisements 

that have at least one lipid claim. Obviously this mean is always 
Figure 7-2 Mean Number of Nutrients per Advertisemen

Category1

Figure 7-3 Mean Number of Nutrients per Advertisemen

Ads with at Least One Nutrient Claim by Categor

Notes. 

1

 Nutrient categories are defined in Table 7-1.
144 / ADVERTISING NUTRITION AND HEALTH

than one, since only ads with at least one lipid dimension are incl

the mean. As shown by the bottom line in the figure, the number 

dimensions in ads grows in the mid-1980s from 1.31 dimensions 

in 1983 to 1.65 dimensions per ad in 1991, but falls back to 1.26

dimensions per ad by 1997. Thus, this evidence makes it clear th

advertisements that make lipid claims, the number of lipid dimen

included in the ads rises through the passage of the NLEA, but th

substantially through the 1990s returning to the level of the early 

Figure 7-4 illustrates the first factor of the overall mean, the

percentage of advertisements that contain any lipid claims. The

percentage of ads with a lipid claim changes little until after 1987

approximately 10 percent of advertisements have a lipid claim. B

1991, the percentage of ads with a lipid claim increases substanti

34.4 percent of ads, and after a small reduction in the early 1990s

number increases further to 39.5 percent of all ads in 1997.

Thus, the evidence on lipids indicates that there is a rapid in

in the competitive focus on lipids in the late 1980s, reflected in b

percent of ads that make a lipid claim and the number of dimensi

included in the ads that make a claim. After the NLEA, lipids rem

focus of competition, but only for a single lipid dimension at a tim

typically total fat.

The extent of this reduction in multidimensional competition 

lipids is illustrated in Table 7-3, which gives the percentage of ad

year that have claims for one or more than one lipid dimension fo

years 1977, the first year of our sample, 1983, before the mid-198

changes, 1991, at the end of the late-1980 more relaxed regulator

period, and 1997, after the NLEA rules are fully implemented. T
Figure 7-4 Percentage of Advertisements with at Least O

Nutrient Claim by Category1

Table 7-3 Percentage of Advertisements with Claims for 

or More Lipid Dimensions2

Number of

Lipid Dimensions

in Ads 1977 1983 1991 199

3 0.3 0.0 2.2 0.7 1.1 2.5 20.1 



















2 0.8 2.5 17.9 4.3 

1 3.7 5.5 14.3 34.5

0 95.1 92.0 65.6 60.5

Notes. 1 Lipid dimensions and Main nutrients defined in Table 7-1. 2

 Lipid dimensions are fat, saturated fat, polyunsaturated fat, monounsaturated f

cholesterol.
146 / ADVERTISING NUTRITION AND HEALTH

data illustrate the extent to which producers are induced to focus 

more than one lipid dimension by the competition of the late 1980

the extent to which this has faded in the post-NLEA period. In 19

20.1 percent of advertising had claims for more than one lipid

dimension, typically saturated fat and cholesterol; by 1997, only 5

percent of ads had claims about more than one lipid dimension.

Main Nutrient Dimensions Figures 7-2, 7-3, and 7-4 als

illustrate the use of Main nutrient claims in advertising throughou

period with and without the breakout of individual vitamins and

minerals. The evidence largely parallels that for lipids, with a few

differences. Figure 7-2 illustrates that the growth in the use of m

nutrient claims begins in 1982, earlier than the growth for lipids. 

main nutrient claims peak in 1991, as with lipids, at 1.15 dimensi

ad, and drop in the early 1990s, stabilizing at approximately 0.9

dimensions per advertisement, a 22 percent drop from the peak. A

note that breaking out individual vitamin claims, as opposed to tr

them as a summary measure, has a small effect on these data. Mo

multiple claims involve the main nutrients listed in Table 7-1 rath

individual vitamin claims.

As with lipids, movement in the overall mean is due more to

changes in the number of nutrient dimensions featured in advertis

than to changes in the number of advertisers making any nutrient 

at all. As shown in Figure 7-3, the mean number of main nutrient

dimensions in advertisements, for those advertisers making claim

sharply in the late 1980s and decreases substantially in the 1990s

changes are more pronounced than for lipids alone. By 1997, the

number of nutrients in the average ad making claims has returned 
CHAPTER 7 - ECONOMICS OF ADVERTISING 

level of the mid-1980s, a drop of approximately 33 percent from t

peak in 1992 in both measures.

This pattern of changes is illustrated in more detail in Table 

which shows the distribution of multiple dimension advertisemen

the years 1977, 1983, 1991, and 1997. In 1977 a few advertiseme

show copies of the nutrition label. With that exception, the inclu

multiple dimensions in advertising does not really grow until the 

1980s, and by 1991, 19.9 percent of all food advertising has 3 or 

main nutrients mentioned explicitly in advertising, evidence cons

with the hypothesis that competitive pressure leads to greater

information unfolding. After passage of the NLEA rules, the perc

of advertisements making claims for multiple dimensions falls

substantially, so that by 1997 only 8.5 percent of food ads mentio

or more nutrients in their advertising, less than half the 1991 rate

much more substantial portion of the advertising in 1997 is single

nutrient advertising, and as we saw in Chapter 4, much of that is 

fat.

Taken together these results are consistent with the hypothes

the less restrictive regulatory environment of the late 1980s and t

resulting increase in competitive focus on nutrition led advertiser

highlight more nutritional dimensions of their products than they 

earlier. Since the NLEA, advertisers who make nutrient claims h

reduced the number of dimensions included in advertising back to 

levels of the mid-1980s.
148 / ADVERTISING NUTRITION AND HEALTH

Table 7-4 Percentage of Advertisements with Claims for 

or More Main Nutrients

1

Number of

Main Nutrients

in Ads 1977 1983 1991 199

7

+

0.5 0.0 0.4 0.0

6 1.3 0.2 1.2 0.5

5 0.2 5.2 0.4 4.0 2.2 19.9 0.2 

4 0.3 0.4 6.2 2.7

3 2.9 3.0 9.9 5.1

2 2.6 7.3 12.5 14.2

1 9.9 21.9 14.5 28.4

0 82.3 66.8 53.1 48.9

Notes. 

1

 Main Nutrients listed in Table 7-1.
CHAPTER 7 - ECONOMICS OF ADVERTISING 

IS THERE COMPETITION AMONG “BADS?” THE CASE 

FATS AND OILS

The unfolding hypothesis implies that firms with a relative

advantage over their competitors will be led to advertise that adva

whenever profitable. An implication of this theory is that even

advertisers in “bad food” categories constrained to make only tru

claims may be induced to make nutrition and other health claims, 

highlight differences within the food category that make some ch

nutritionally superior to others. Thus, if producers get a new opp

to highlight their advantages, they should react to the change with 

advertising claims.

The advertising data here provides an opportunity to test the

unfolding theory as it relates to competition on bads. The Fats an

Category is defined in our data to include any butter, margarine, 

lard, shortening, oil, or related product. These products are all hi

products, or substitutes for such products, and thus, the category 

generally considered to be a “bad food” category. However, fat a

products vary considerably in the type of fat they contain and in t

amount of fat per serving. Thus, within the category there is

considerable variation in the health implications of using the diff

products.

For most of the period examined here, saturated fats are con

to be the type of fat most hazardous to health. Saturated fats incr

risk of cardiovascular disease, while polyunsaturated and
150 / ADVERTISING NUTRITION AND HEALTH

9

 In the late 1980s and early 1990s, scientific evidence accumulated indic

transfatty acid, a type of unsaturated fatty acid, also increases the risk of cardiov

disease by increasing serum cholesterol. Transfatty acid claims are not allowed 

labels under the NLEA rules during the period studied here. Recent labeling pro

could change this. However, general publicity about the scientific findings coul

led to reduced margarine consumption in the 1990s, because transfatty acids are 

common in those products within the category. The new evidence could also aff

marketing of the products within the category. However, if producers assumed t

labeling restrictions that limit the ability to discuss the relative benefits of differ

applied to advertising as well, these responses would be limited.

10 This provision, known as the jelly bean rule, is designed to prevent hig

sugared but low fat products from making health claims. Perhaps unintentionall

provision also prohibits health claims for other nonfat products, such as nonfat

substitutes for fats in cooking or nonfat salad dressings.

monounsaturated fats generally do not.9 Substituting unsaturated 

saturated fats is expected to reduce the risk of cardiovascular dise

and thus under the unfolding theory, producers of lower saturated 

products within the category have a health advantage that they wo

expected to promote if the regulatory rules allow such competitio

To assess the extent of competition of this type, we must als

control for key regulatory constraints. Recall that key regulatory 

related to health claims are listed in Table 6-1. We again focus o

four major events used in the regression analyses in Chapter 6. O

particular note for the fats and oils category, the final FDA labeli

prohibit heart claims for all products that are not “low” in fat, as 

in the regulations. Thus, the NLEA-based rules prohibit explicit 

competition on the type of fat in fat and oil products, though lipid 

without any health context would still be allowed. Moreover, low 

substitutes for higher fat products that do not have nutrition value

defined by the regulations, are also barred from making health cla
CHAPTER 7 - ECONOMICS OF ADVERTISING 

Thus, focusing on these regulatory events, if the unfolding th

applies even in bad food categories, health claims for fats and oil

be expected to be minimal prior to 1983 (or possibly 1987, if the

labeling rules are implicitly binding on advertising), to increase

substantially at this point and then to fall rapidly following the FD

proposals in 1990, and probably to be eliminated under the final l

rules in 1993 and the coordinating FTC policy in May 1994. Nut

content claims dealing with fat composition would presumably pa

these health claims, but they might persist in the post-NLEA perio

even if health claims are prohibited, if consumer knowledge of th

issue is sufficiently strong by that point.

Figure 7-5 illustrates the percent of fat and oil advertisement

each year making an explicit disease claim (heart disease in this c

well as the percent making disease or affiliated claims (mostly se

cholesterol claims, together with the heart claims).

Focusing first on explicit disease claims, the evidence indica

virtually no disease claims are made through 1983, the year the F

formally ends its Food Rule proceeding and publicly states that it 

judge disease claims under a deception standard. Disease claims 

rising in 1984, rise more steeply after 1987, and by 1990, 33.3 pe

all fat and oil ads include specific disease claims. These are prim

lower saturated fat products touting their heart healthiness. Imme

following the FDA actions in 1990 and 1991, the use of disease c

falls to 2.7 percent of ads in 1993 before falling to zero in 1994, t

of the FTC statement. This evidence is quite consistent with the

unfolding theory as described above: the use of disease claims in

rapidly following the lifting of the regulatory restrictions and fall
Figure 7-5 Percentage of Fats and Oils Advertisements w

Disease or Affiliated Claims1

Figure 7-6 Projections from Probit-2 Model for Probabi

Disease or Affiliated Claim2 in Fats and Oils

Advertising, Monthly Data

Notes. 1 The Probit-2 estimate is given in Table 7-5 and relates key regulatory 

use of disease and affiliated claims.

2

 In fats and oils advertising these claims are virtually all serum cholesterol or h

claims.
CHAPTER 7 - ECONOMICS OF ADVERTISING 

dramatically when the prohibition is reinstituted under the NLEA 

During the period when disease claims are allowed, the reasons to

choose one fat over another become a dominant focus of competi

the fats and oils category.

Figure 7-5 also gives the percentage of ads that have either a

affiliated or a disease claim. The evidence is quite similar. Since

affiliated claims are not so clearly prohibited even in the 1970s, t

carry a somewhat lower regulatory risk for advertisers. This lowe

is evident in the greater use of affiliated claims in the late 1970s, 

between 6.5 and 11.4 percent of fat and oil advertising include se

cholesterol claims. These claims fade as the FTC Food Rulemak

reaches a decision point on heart-related claims and rise dramatic

and immediately to more than 20 percent of ads in 1983, once the 

votes to end its Food Rulemaking and to allow health claims unde

normal deception rules. By 1988, 45 percent of fat and oil ads in

serum cholesterol or heart claims. These claims remain an impor

feature of marketing in the category until 1992, when they fall fro

percent in 1991 to 5.4 percent of advertising in 1992 following th

publication of the proposed NLEA labeling rules that prohibited h

claims for fat and oil products and to 0.0 in 1994 when those rule

effective. Health claims do not reappear in fat and oil advertising

through the end of our sample in 1997.

To provide an assessment of the statistical significance of th

changes, we estimate simple time series regressions using the ind

data for each fat and oil advertisement and a series of dummy var

for the key regulatory events. The dependent variable is a dummy

variable indicating whether the ad has a disease or affiliated claim
154 / ADVERTISING NUTRITION AND HEALTH

regression specifications are comparable to those used in Chapter 

the broader analysis. Our sample includes 720 fat and oil

advertisements.

The column labeled Linear-1 in Table 7-5 presents the resul

the simplest linear model with discrete dummy variables for the

regulatory events. These results indicate that the shifts between r

are statistically significant in all cases and that an average of 10.4

percent of ads have disease and affiliated claims prior to the FTC

decision in May 1980. All fats and oils advertisers stop making h

related claims after this decision until the FTC votes in late Dece

1982 to adopt a case-by-case deception approach to the claims. D

and affiliated claims immediately rise, averaging 18.3 percent of 

and oils advertising in the months between that decision and Aug

1987, when the FDA proposes adopting a similar approach for lab

The model indicates that an additional 25.3 percent of fats and oi

advertising also includes these claims during the period following 

decision, for a total of 43.6 percent on average. Following the FD

retraction of this proposal in favor of a more regulatory approach 

February 1990, advertising using disease and affiliated claims fal

27.8 percentage points in the category. Finally in the period follo

May 1994, the remaining 15.9 percent of advertising also stops u

claims.

These estimates suggest that the regulatory rules had statistic

significant and sizable effects on the use of disease and affiliated 

in the fats and oils category. The estimates also suggest that prod

actively focused on the heart health implications of fat compositi

their advertising when free to do so under the regulatory rules.
Table 7-5 Disease and Affiliated Claim Regression Resul

for Fats & Oils

Variable Linear-1 Linear-2 Probit-1 P

Constant 0.104** -1.80 -1.26** -1

(3.31) (-0.66) (8.33) (

D5/1980 -0.104** -0.14 —1 —

(FTC ends Part II Food Rule) (-2.11) (-1.37)

D1/1983 0.183** 0.25** 0.36* 

(FTC ends Food Rule) (4.02) (2.87) (1.93) (

D8/1987 0.253** 0.28** 0.74** 

(FDA health claim proposal) (6.28) (3.29) (4.83) (

D2/1990 -0.278** -0.05 -0.84** 

(FDA withdraws 1987 (-6.28) (-0.58) (4.80) (

proposal/NLEA)

D5/1994 -0.159** 0.11 —1 —

(FTC policy statement/ (-2.98) (1.10)

FDA/NLEA rules effective)

Time — 0.02 — 

(0.70) (

Time*D5/1980 — -0.02 — —

(-0.40)

Time*D1/1983 — -0.03 — -

(-0.54) (-

Time*D8/1987 — 0.06 — 

(1.22) (

Time*D2/1990 — -0.15** — -

(-3.06) (-

Time*D5/1994 — 0.12** — —

(2.51)

Adj. R-squared 0.131 0.151

Log-Likelihood -274.14 -26

n 720 720 568 5

Notes. t-statistics in parentheses. Dependent variable is a dummy variable indi

that an ad has claim. 

1

 The probit model could not be estimated for June 1980-J

1983 and for June 1994-October 1997 because no ads during these periods mad

or affiliated claims, thus producing no variation in the data during these periods

sample size, n, reflects the more limited time span used in the estimates.
156 / ADVERTISING NUTRITION AND HEALTH

11 The scientific basis for the relationship between saturated fat and heart 

relatively well established even at the start of our period. See Ippolito and Math

(1996), Pappalardo and Ringold (2000), or National Research Council (1989).

12 Specifically, the data during these periods has to be dropped and the mo

estimated relative to the initial period. When the predictions of the probit mode

projected over time, they coincide very well with the predictions of the correspo

linear models.

The column labeled Linear-2 elaborates on the basic model b

allowing an underlying trend (to reflect trends in scientific knowl

and general information diffusion) and trend interactions with the

regulatory dummies. The model provides a better fit for the data 

qualitatively similar results. The estimate indicates no significan

trend11 and significant shifts in the last four regulatory events.

Comparable probit models are also estimated, but because no

advertisements have any disease or affiliated claims between Feb

1980 and February 1983 and after February 1994, the model is es

only for the remaining periods.12 The projections from the model

very similar to those of the comparable linear model. For instanc

Figure 7-6 illustrates the projections for the months in our sample 

the Probit-2 model, together with the actual percent of advertisem

with a disease or affiliated claim in each month of the sample. Th

regulatory events are also indicated on the graph. The projection

the Linear-2 model would be very similar. The graph illustrates t

despite considerable month to month variation in the use of disea

affiliated claims, a clear and substantial difference in the pattern 

is apparent across regulatory periods paralleling the pattern seen 

simple Linear-1 model described above. Moreover, the figure ill

that the reactions to substantial changes in the regulatory rules ar
CHAPTER 7 - ECONOMICS OF ADVERTISING 

sizable and occur relatively quickly both in reducing claims when 

rules are tightened and in increasing claims when restrictions are 

This evidence is consistent with the view that advertisers react str

to the regulatory rules by making specific claims in their ads whe

are important within the category, and thus, that the information c

of the advertising is important to them.

Nutrient claims are also used for this class of products. Figu

illustrates the percent of fat and oil advertising that makes saturat

claims during this period – the primary basis for heart-related cla

The percent of ads that includes a saturated fat claim rises steadil

through 1990, when it peaks at 52.8 percent of advertising in the

category. The use of saturated fat claims begins to fall at this poi

dropping to 42.9 percent of advertising by 1996 and 8.3 percent i

but this drop clearly lags behind the reduction in the use of health

claims. Thus, the data suggests that consumer interest in the heal

issues implicit in choosing fats and oils does not fall dramatically 

1990, and thus, that the regulatory constraints may indeed be the 

of the precipitous decline in the use of health claims in the catego

Moreover, in periods when health claims are restricted, firms gen

use nutrient claims (saturated fat claims in this case) to reach out 

consumers who understand the importance of the nutrient.

Finally, Figure 7-8 illustrates the actual number of advertisem

per year in our sample for fats and oils. The level of advertising 

category shows a small positive trend through 1990, but this trend 

reversed after that point so that by 1997, fat and oil product adver

has fallen to 43 percent of its 1977 level and to 20 percent of its p

1989. The figure also illustrates the number of fat and oil ads in 
Figure 7-7 Percentage of Fats and Oil Advertisements w

Saturated Fat Claims

Figure 7-8 Number of Fats and Oils Advertisements per 

and Number with Saturated Fat, Cholesterol, and

Disease or Affiliated Claims
CHAPTER 7 - ECONOMICS OF ADVERTISING 

sample that include a disease or affiliated claim and those that ma

saturated fat claim. The data clearly illustrate that saturated fat cl

and disease and affiliated claims are highly correlated prior to 19

expected. The data also indicate that after health claims are proh

in this category, claims about the saturated fat content of fats and 

begin to fall as does all advertising in the category. By 1997, few 

oil producers seem to be competing on the nutritional characterist

their products.

Taken together this evidence indicates that competition on b

does occur and can become a major focus of competition in a par

category, as in the fats and oils category here. Having less of a b

course a good thing, and apparently advertisers believe that they 

communicate these differences to consumers in advertising in a w

enhances their products’ sales.

Moreover, the evidence in our sample indicates that the fat a

category is the food category where disease and affiliated claims 

first as a significant feature of advertising (see Table 5-1, for inst

Why these health claims would be used first in such a high fat ca

is an open question. Possibly the general discussion of fats and h

disease from public health and general information sources suffic

sensitized consumers to fats as a health concern that producers vi

an easy and salient message to communicate. Alternatively, beca

amount of fat in these products is relatively large and fat is used a

input to many foods prepared at home, shifting across types of fa

produces sizable health benefits, and thus, represents a significan

marketing opportunity. Whatever the rationale, the evidence indi

that the use of health claims focusing on heart-related differences 
160 / ADVERTISING NUTRITION AND HEALTH

amount and type of fat is an early and significant feature of comp

in the fats and oils category prior to the adoption of the NLEA ru

ADVERTISING AND BROADER AUDIENCES: DO PRODU

REACH OUT WITH NEW INFORMATION?

In exploring the role of advertising in markets, one of advert

possible strengths is its potential to reach out to consumers with

information. When there is information to convey that would aff

consumer behavior in ways that would be profitable to advertiser

advertisers have strong incentives to bring that information to the

audiences who would use it. In earlier work on the cereal market

(Ippolito and Mathios, 1989) and on fat consumption (Ippolito an

Mathios, 1996) this incentive to reach broader audiences was disc

as a key reason for the expectation that diets would change as reg

rules allowed firms to make explicit disease claims in advertising

Unfortunately the production and consumption data available in t

studies do not allow a direct test of this economic theory, but only 

of its implications on behavior; diets did improve when the restric

on health claims were lifted.

The advertising data available in this study allows us to exam

this theory more directly. Magazine food advertising is primarily 

in “women’s magazines,” reflecting the primary food shopper in 

households. This dictates the choice of our sample to include the 

leading women’s magazines, as described in Chapter 2, namely B

Homes & Gardens, Good Housekeeping, Ladies’ Home Journal,

McCalls, and Women’s Day. Three high circulation “general

readership” magazines that carry some food advertising are also i

in the sample, Time, Newsweek, and Reader’s Digest. In 1977 th
CHAPTER 7 - ECONOMICS OF ADVERTISING 

women’s magazines in our sample contain 558 food advertisemen

compared to 59 food ads in the 3 general readership magazines,

illustrating the relative dominance of the women’s magazines as f

advertising vehicles.

If the ability to make disease and affiliated claims allows firm

bring information to consumers in new ways, we might expect fir

bring that information to their normal target audience, but also to 

out to other possible consumers as well, as they use the new infor

to attempt to expand the demand for their products. Figure 7-9

illustrates the percent of ads that contain a disease or affiliated cl

each class of magazines. As the regulatory constraints are lifted i

mid-1980s and again after the NLEA rules are put in place in the 

the use of disease and affiliated claims rises in the women’s maga

but rises considerably more in the general readership magazines. 

1989 at the peak, 20.9 percent of all food ads in our general reade

magazine sample contained a disease or affiliated claim compared 

percent of ads in the women’s magazine sample. In 1983 and in 

before and after the peak, both samples have disease and affiliate

claims in less than two percent of advertisements. Thus, both sam

begin and return to the same level of claim use when the regulato

environment is not receptive to these claims, but the rise is substa

greater in the general readership magazines when the regulatory

environment does not prevent these claims. The post-NLEA rise 

1995 follows the same pattern.

The theory that producers reach out to the broader audience 

health information is also supported by data on the number of ads 

two types of magazines. As shown in Figure 7-10, the number of 
Figure 7-9 Percentage of Food Ads with Disease and Affi

Claims by Magazine Type1

Figure 7-10 Number of Food Ads by Magazine Type as a

Percent of 1977 Level2

Notes. 

1

 General readership magazines in the sample are Time, Newsweek, and 

Digest. Women’s magazines are Better Homes & Gardens, Good Housekeeping

Home Journal, McCalls, and Women’s Day.

2

 The number of ads in each sample in 1977 is given in parenthesis in the legen
CHAPTER 7 - ECONOMICS OF ADVERTISING 

ads in women’s magazines has been trending down since the mid

In contrast, at the height of the health claim period in 1989, the nu

of food ads in the general readership magazines increases substan

to 140 percent of its 1977 level before returning to its 1977 level 

when the use of health claims falls. The post-NLEA data are also

consistent with this hypothesis, except for 1997, when general

readership ads fall.

Finally, Figures 7-11 and 7-12 illustrate the same phenomen

fat and saturated fat claims. These claims often accompanied hea

other health claims, but they are also used in isolation. The data 

that reaching out disproportionately to the general readership aud

occurs only during or immediately after the intensive health claim

periods when producers had information about health effects that 

be conveyed to potential consumers.

Taken together these data are generally consistent with the

hypothesis that advertisers will attempt to spread information tha

expands the demand for their products to broader audiences when

allowed to do so.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

This chapter examines several predictions of economic theor

advertising’s role in markets. First and foremost, the evidence he

suggests that most magazine food advertising contains a variety o

specific informative claims. In this forum, advertising provides

information. As regulatory rules have been relaxed and general

awareness of nutritional issues has increased, specific nutrition cl

have become a major focus of food advertising. In the 1990s
Figure 7-11 Percentage of Ads with Total Fat Claims by

Magazine Type1

Figure 7-12 Percentage of Ads with Saturated Fat Claims 

Magazine Type1

Notes. 

1

 General readership magazines in the sample are Time, Newsweek, and 

Digest. Women’s magazines are Better Homes & Gardens, Good Housekeeping

Home Journal, McCalls, and Women’s Day.
CHAPTER 7 - ECONOMICS OF ADVERTISING 

approximately half of all food ads have specific nutrient claims. 

about other search and experience characteristics of foods, such a

available flavors or varieties, suggestions for using the product,

convenience features, new or changing products, and taste or othe

sensory characteristics, are all common features of food advertisi

Taken together, the evidence suggests that specific claims about s

and experience characteristics of foods are a dominant feature of 

advertising in our sample. 

Perhaps the high level of informative-type claims is a reflect

the medium we examine – magazine advertising. Becker and Mu

(1993) predict that print media will have a larger fraction of infor

advertising than TV and radio, because the latter media must com

consumers (with free programming) to accept the type of advertis

presented there. We have no advertising from these TV and radio 

with which to assess the relative levels of specific informative cla

but clearly the level of informative claims could vary with the me

The evidence also suggests that competitive pressure genera

the use of health claims leads to considerable information unfoldi

relative to the periods when health claims are prohibited or after 

NLEA rules are in place. The average number of nutrients menti

ads doubles from the early 1980s to 1990, but then drops by more 

20 percent by 1997. More telling, perhaps, is the evidence on the

proportion of ads with multiple claims, which follows an even ste

rise as health claims increase but then declines significantly in th

NLEA period. In 1991, at the height of the health claim advertisi

percent of food advertisements have claims for 3 or more differen

nutrients, in 1983 only 4 percent of ads highlight 3 or more nutrie
166 / ADVERTISING NUTRITION AND HEALTH

in 1997 only 8.5 percent do. Thus, the evidence is consistent with 

hypothesis that a more open environment leads to competitive pre

that induce producers to reveal information on more nutrient dim

in advertising.

The evidence from the fats and oils market clearly illustrates 

advertisers will compete on the relative health features of foods e

“bad” food categories if differences are sufficiently large. Fats an

producers are among the earliest and heaviest users of health clai

they advertised how the choice among fat products is related to h

disease risk. This advertising has disappeared under the NLEA ru

that do not allow foods not considered “good” foods to mention t

health issues implicit in the choice of these products. Thus, the N

rules may have shifted the focus of competition in the category aw

from nutrition to other issues.

Finally, the evidence suggests that producers do reach out to

potential customers when they have information that would incre

demand for their products, as predicted by theory. When health c

are allowed, advertisers significantly increase the number and hea

focus of food advertisements in general readership magazines, thu

apparently reaching out beyond their normal magazine media cho

the mass audience expected to find this information useful.
VIII

CONCLUSION

Advertising can be an important source of information for

consumers. Advertisers have incentives to highlight product feat

valued by potential customers. As long as market mechanisms, o

enforcement of deceptive advertising laws, sufficiently discourag

deceptive claims, the pressures created by advertising competitio

should push producers to improve their products in dimensions th

consumers value and should improve the information environmen

which consumers make product choices

This report examines the types of claims made in magazine f

advertising during the years 1977 to 1997. The report uses origin

collected from a large-scale, systematic sample of the leading wo

and general readership magazines. Besides providing a wealth of

information on the content of food advertising, we also attempt to 

understand two issues: how economic forces affect food advertis

over time, especially as they relate to nutrition and health claims, 

how producers’ incentives to focus on nutrition and health vary u

the different policies adopted during these years, including those

adopted after the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990.
168 / ADVERTISING NUTRITION AND HEALTH

The data show that nutrition-related claims have become a m

feature of food advertising and an important focus of competition

broadest sense, the evidence here shows some reduction in most c

of nonnutritive claims and an increase in specific nutrition-related 

during these years. For instance, taste, aroma, and/or texture clai

made in more than 80 percent of ads through the late 1970s and e

1980s, but fall to 65 percent of ads by 1997. In contrast, 28 perce

ads in 1977 contain a specific nutrition-related claim of some typ

1990, 55 percent of ads have such claims, a level that is approxim

maintained during the 1990s. Thus our data indicate that the type

information in advertising can shift markedly, depending on what

producers choose to feature in their advertising.

The data also indicate that regulatory rules and enforcement 

matter; firms move away from nutrition or health claims when reg

risks rise and increase the use of these claims when regulatory ris

As the FTC pursued its proposed Food Rule in the late 1970s and 

1980s, producers reduced their use of claims challenged in the

rulemaking. After the FTC made decisions to end various parts o

rulemaking in favor of a case-by-case policy of pursuing deceptiv

claims, advertisers again began to highlight nutrition and diet-dis

issues in advertising.

A similar pattern is found as various decisions are made lead

the current post-NLEA environment. For instance, disease and a

health claims increase significantly following the FDA’s propose

adoption of a “reasonable basis” standard in the late 1980s, to a p

8.9 percent of ads by 1989. They fall substantially after the agen

reverses that position in 1990, to under 1 percent of ads in 1993. 

1997, after the final NLEA rules are in place, disease and affiliate
CHAPTER 8 - CONCLUSION 

health claims returned to 72 percent of their 1989 peak level. The 

health claims in various product categories varies with the require

of the NLEA labeling rules, presumably reflecting perceived

enforcement risk in advertising.

Focusing more directly on the changes in the post-NLEA per

several findings are worth noting. The nutritional focus in advert

has narrowed substantially in the post-NLEA period. Total fat ha

become the primary nutritional basis of advertising competition, a

from other major nutrients, such as saturated fat, cholesterol, and 

that had been important before the NLEA. The number of

advertisements that make comparative claims about nutrients has 

dropped sharply, to very low levels for nutrients other than total f

The most dramatic change in the use of health claims in the p

NLEA period occurs for fat and oil products, such as cooking oils

margarines, and related products. Prior to the NLEA, we observe

vigorous competition on the fat composition of various products. 

late 1980s, nearly half of all advertisements for fat and oil produc

focus on the heart implications of fat choices. In contrast, after th

NLEA rules are in place, no ads mention the health reasons to ch

unsaturated fats over saturated fats. The amount of advertising al

dramatically in the post-NLEA period, as fat and oil producers no 

compete aggressively on the nutritional and health implications o

choosing one product over another.

Advertising for “good foods” also does not increase in the N

period. Advertising falls significantly for fruits and vegetables af

1990, and health claims are made for fewer products in the catego

Advertising also falls or remains stable in other “good food” cate
170 / ADVERTISING NUTRITION AND HEALTH

Certainly some of these advertising changes were explicitly

envisioned in the NLEA labeling rules. The elimination of a heal

focus in the fats and oils category was designed into the rules. H

other changes may not have been anticipated, as with the reduced 

comparative claims. Whether these changes serve consumer inter

an important topic for further attention.

Regarding the economic theories of advertising, the evidenc

provides considerable support for the view that advertising is an

important source of information. The evidence documents that m

food advertisements in magazines include specific claims about b

nutritional and nonnutritional features of the products. In fact, m

include a number of product characteristic claims. During the pe

when the regulatory environment is most open in the late 1980s, t

nutritional competition among producers appears most intense, le

to greater unfolding of nutrient claims in advertising.

The ultimate question of which regulatory and legal policies 

serve consumer interests requires that we relate the advertising ch

described here to consumers’ food choices. Until that work is do

study provides us with a much needed part of that evaluation: obj

and detailed information on the actual content of food advertising 

the different policy periods that characterize 1977 to 1997. 

Marketing is often controversial. Producers are trying to sel

products. But marketing claims about important product characte

– subject to market and enforcement limits on deception – unleas

competitive forces that play an important role in shaping the mix 

products available in the market and in attracting consumers to pr

with desired characteristics. As science has shown the importanc
CHAPTER 8 - CONCLUSION 

nutrition in disease risks, advertising has focused increasingly on

nutritional characteristics of food. In crafting policy that serves

consumers’ interests, it is important that we understand the role o

marketing in consumer goods settings. We hope this evidence

contributes to that effort.

APPENDIX A

Computerized Coding Instrument









APPENDIX B

Selected Data Tables
Any Fat Fat Saturated Sat. Sat. Chol. 

Year Fat3 Cholesterol Lipid2 Level Compare Fat Level Compare Level C

1977 10.4 4.1 2.4 1.8 0.3 0.3 0.0 1.6 1.6 

1978 12.0 3.6 1.9 2.0 0.9 0.9 0.0 3.8 3.8 

1979 15.6 4.5 2.4 2.8 1.1 1.0 0.2 5.8 4.5 

1980 12.6 3.8 1.8 2.1 1.1 0.8 0.3 4.6 4.1 

1981 11.3 3.1 1.0 2.2 0.7 0.7 0.0 3.1 3.1 

1982 11.9 5.5 2.9 2.9 0.7 0.7 0.0 6.4 6.2 

1983 12.7 3.7 2.7 1.2 1.4 0.4 1.1 4.6 3.9 

1984 13.7 4.9 2.5 3.1 0.8 0.3 0.5 4.4 3.3 

1985 15.0 4.3 2.6 2.1 2.1 1.2 0.9 7.5 7.0 

1986 12.9 4.6 3.3 1.8 2.0 1.6 1.0 7.0 6.5 

1987 12.6 4.3 2.9 1.6 2.0 1.8 1.4 6.7 6.1 

1988 17.6 8.9 6.3 3.9 3.9 3.3 1.5 12.6 12.1 

1989 29.1 12.6 9.9 4.6 4.3 3.4 2.0 18.6 17.7 

1990 31.2 18.4 12.4 9.2 7.7 7.7 0.9 21.6 19.9 

1991 36.8 26.0 21.5 10.1 5.6 5.4 2.0 24.7 23.9 

1992 31.1 26.4 23.1 7.8 4.1 3.3 3.7 16.9 15.9 

1993 30.8 20.7 15.1 8.1 4.3 4.0 2.9 14.8 13.9 

1994 31.4 25.8 20.3 7.8 2.7 2.3 2.1 10.1 10.1 

1995 34.4 28.7 24.4 6.8 3.1 2.7 1.4 6.6 6.6 

1996 40.2 35.7 30.6 10.5 2.7 2.5 0.6 6.0 6.0 

1997 41.0 36.9 31.1 11.1 2.7 2.7 0.0 5.8 5.8 

Table continued on n
Mono Mono Mono Poly Poly Poly Other Corn Canola 

Year Fat Level Compare Fat Level Compare Fat/Oil4 Oil Oil 

1977 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 6.2 1.0 0.0 

1978 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.6 0.6 9.4 1.1 0.0 

1979 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.6 1.1 10.9 1.0 0.0 

1980 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.5 0.2 7.0 0.5 0.0 

1981 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.2 0.7 0.0 

1982 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 7.9 2.1 0.0 

1983 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.7 0.2 8.9 2.0 0.0 

1984 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.8 0.8 10.7 3.6 0.0 

1985 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 1.4 0.3 11.3 3.4 0.0 

1986 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 7.0 1.1 0.0 

1987 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.4 2.2 0.2 

1988 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.9 0.0 7.8 3.0 0.7 

1989 0.7 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 1.7 0.5 

1990 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.2 2.3 0.6 

1991 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.2 0.8 0.8 

1992 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 1.6 0.0 7.4 0.6 0.2 

1993 0.9 0.9 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.3 0.0 0.7 

1994 0.8 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.1 0.0 0.6 

1995 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.6 

1996 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.8 1.0 1.0 

1997 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.3 0.0 0.0 

Table continued on n
Sodium Sodium Fiber Fiber Whole Calcium C

Year Sodium Fiber Calcium

Level Compare Level Compare Grain Level C

1977 1.9 1.9 0.0 2.6 2.6 0.8 1.0 2.6 2.4 

1978 2.2 2.0 0.2 2.5 2.5 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 

1979 2.1 1.9 0.3 3.6 3.6 1.1 0.6 0.6 0.6 

1980 2.9 2.9 0.0 4.1 4.1 1.0 1.8 0.2 0.2 

1981 3.3 3.3 0.2 6.2 6.2 1.0 3.1 0.0 0.0 

1982 4.1 3.3 1.5 6.2 6.2 1.0 2.6 0.9 0.9 

1983 8.0 6.4 2.0 5.5 5.5 0.9 2.0 0.7 0.4 

1984 6.6 5.8 1.2 4.3 4.3 1.3 0.7 1.2 0.2 

1985 7.0 6.7 0.6 5.8 5.8 2.6 2.0 2.0 1.4 

1986 11.6 10.5 1.8 4.9 4.9 1.8 1.6 3.6 2.6 

1987 11.0 9.0 4.7 7.6 7.2 2.2 4.0 4.0 3.4 

1988 12.1 9.6 3.7 5.6 5.6 2.2 1.5 1.7 1.7 

1989 11.1 9.4 3.7 9.5 9.5 4.1 2.2 3.7 3.7 

1990 11.3 9.6 3.2 8.6 8.5 3.2 2.3 3.2 3.2 

1991 13.3 9.9 6.0 5.4 5.4 1.0 2.4 2.4 2.4 

1992 8.5 5.8 3.5 7.6 7.6 1.2 3.3 3.3 3.3 

1993 8.8 5.8 3.8 8.3 8.3 0.0 5.2 1.6 1.6 

1994 4.2 3.1 1.0 6.3 6.1 0.4 3.6 2.9 2.7 

1995 7.6 4.9 3.1 9.6 9.6 0.0 4.5 7.6 7.0 

1996 6.4 4.7 1.6 6.0 6.0 0.2 3.9 3.1 2.7 

1997 6.0 5.1 1.0 6.5 6.5 0.2 1.0 3.9 3.9 

Table continued on n
Vitamin Vitamin Vitamin Vitamin Folic General Year Vitamin Potassium Carbos 

Level Compare C E Acid Vit/M in

1977 7.9 7.5 1.0 4.5 0.6 0.0 0.8 3.6 2.4 

1978 7.4 6.5 1.6 2.2 0.2 0.0 0.3 3.9 0.5 

1979 6.6 6.2 1.5 1.9 0.2 0.0 0.3 2.6 0.3 

1980 3.6 3.4 0.5 1.6 0.5 0.3 0.3 1.1 0.0 

1981 5.0 4.1 1.2 2.6 0.5 0.3 0.3 2.2 0.0 

1982 6.5 5.5 2.4 3.1 0.0 0.9 0.0 2.6 0.7 

1983 6.8 5.7 1.2 3.2 0.0 1.2 0.0 3.0 0.4 1

1984 7.6 7.6 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.5 0.2 2.8 0.8 1

1985 8.4 8.4 0.6 1.7 0.0 1.1 0.0 5.8 0.2 

1986 7.0 6.9 0.3 2.6 0.2 2.1 0.2 1.1 0.0 

1987 8.1 7.7 0.7 3.8 0.0 1.1 0.2 2.9 0.2 

1988 6.1 6.1 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.7 0.0 2.8 0.9 

1989 7.0 7.0 0.7 2.6 0.2 1.2 0.0 4.4 0.5 

1990 10.2 9.0 2.6 4.7 0.0 1.3 0.0 4.7 1.5 

1991 8.4 7.4 2.6 1.6 0.0 3.0 0.4 4.4 2.8 

1992 8.4 6.6 2.1 1.9 0.0 1.7 0.0 4.7 4.7 

1993 5.8 5.6 0.7 2.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 3.1 2.7 

1994 5.9 5.9 0.0 3.8 1.3 0.8 1.0 2.5 0.8 

1995 8.8 8.2 2.0 4.3 1.4 1.6 1.6 4.1 2.0 

1996 7.6 7.6 0.6 4.5 0.8 1.2 1.2 2.3 1.4 

1997 9.6 9.6 0.2 3.1 0.0 1.0 0.0 6.0 0.7 

Table continued on n
No Artificial Other Calorie/ Calorie Calorie 

Year Protein Caffeine Diet Preserves Sweetener Nutrient5 Diet6 Level Compare N

1977 3.2 6.0 0.3 0.8 1.6 7.8 5.2 1.3 4.7 2

1978 3.6 3.9 2.4 0.6 2.5 6.0 3.8 2.5 4.4 3

1979 2.4 4.1 2.3 0.3 0.8 9.1 5.5 3.7 4.5 3

1980 4.7 2.8 3.4 1.6 1.5 7.7 5.4 2.9 3.3 3

1981 6.4 3.1 1.7 0.5 2.6 7.6 3.4 3.8 5.0 3

1982 6.7 4.5 1.4 1.2 3.1 9.5 4.5 4.8 5.3 3

1983 6.8 5.7 2.7 2.5 1.6 12.3 6.6 5.2 6.1 4

1984 3.9 3.6 3.5 6.6 0.5 13.5 8.9 6.1 6.3 4

1985 5.5 3.4 2.7 6.0 0.5 16.5 9.8 6.0 6.1 4

1986 6.9 1.0 2.1 4.4 0.8 14.9 9.0 6.4 4.9 4

1987 5.2 2.9 5.6 4.0 1.1 18.2 10.3 8.3 5.9 5

1988 0.9 3.7 3.0 3.2 2.0 16.7 9.1 7.2 4.1 4

1989 4.8 2.0 3.9 4.1 1.0 22.1 11.6 11.2 4.9 6

1990 5.8 3.6 2.6 4.7 1.7 20.9 9.4 10.3 5.5 5

1991 5.6 3.6 2.4 2.6 2.2 22.5 14.5 10.3 5.0 5

1992 3.7 5.6 2.1 1.0 1.2 13.6 7.4 6.0 2.1 4

1993 3.6 2.5 1.3 3.4 0.7 17.1 11.0 6.5 1.3 5

1994 3.6 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.4 10.5 6.7 3.1 3.4 4

1995 2.0 2.7 0.8 1.0 4.5 8.6 6.3 1.2 2.0 4

1996 0.8 2.1 2.9 2.1 0.8 13.8 9.9 2.7 2.9 5

1997 1.9 2.7 1.7 1.2 2.4 12.0 8.7 3.4 2.7 5

Table continued on n
Notes. 

1

 Percentage of ads with a claim for the listed nutrient. See Chapter 4 for more specific definitions. Level claim refer to th

absolute amount of the nutrient, as in low fat, and comparative claims compare the nutrient amount to something else (even if uns

in less fat. Level claims and comparative claims are both included in the overall category for the nutrient, e.g., fat level and fat

comparative claims are both in the fat claim category. The level and comparative categories do not necessarily add to the overall 

because an ad can have claims from both.

 

2

 The any lipid category includes any advertisement with claims about fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, polyunsaturated fat,

monounsaturated fat, type of oil used, or any other fat or oil claim, such as baked not fried.

 

3

 The fat category includes claims about fat that are not further qualified. In particular, it does not include saturated fat or other 

fat claims.

 

4

 The other fat/oil category includes type of oil claims or any other fat-related claims not in our primary categories.

 

5

 The other nutrient category includes advertisements with a nutrient-related claim not explicitly reflected in our coding system.

 

6

 The calorie/diet category includes advertisements with claims about calories, dieting, or weight control. The calorie level, calo

comparative, and diet categories are all subcategories of the calorie/diet category.

 

7

 The any nutrient category includes advertisements with any of the nutrient-related claims reflected in our coding system.
Any Smart/ Good Enriched/ G

Year Healthy Nutritious Wholesome Light Lean General Right For You Fortified F

1977 49.4 1.6 2.1 6.0 7.5 6.6 1.9 6.3 1.8 

1978 52.1 1.4 3.5 6.1 6.5 5.2 2.4 7.1 2.0 

1979 52.8 1.6 1.1 6.0 6.0 3.7 2.9 14.6 2.8 

1980 55.1 1.1 2.3 5.7 5.4 1.3 1.5 13.7 2.6 

1981 56.4 1.4 1.0 6.4 4.6 2.6 3.3 11.3 1.5 

1982 62.0 4.6 3.4 10.8 5.7 0.9 4.6 13.6 3.8 

1983 71.1 3.4 3.2 11.6 9.3 3.2 3.9 15.2 4.1 

1984 69.6 4.8 3.1 12.2 5.6 3.0 5.3 11.7 3.5 

1985 67.9 3.7 3.8 11.8 4.3 3.5 4.7 16.2 2.9 

1986 65.2 3.8 4.4 7.0 5.6 2.6 4.6 16.8 3.1 

1987 66.1 3.2 4.3 7.6 8.5 3.1 3.4 16.8 3.8 

1988 67.2 4.6 4.3 7.2 7.8 2.6 0.7 15.0 2.0 

1989 68.0 10.6 5.8 11.2 8.5 4.1 2.7 14.0 1.9 

1990 66.2 12.6 7.9 9.0 12.0 5.8 4.5 16.2 1.7 

1991 66.8 10.1 4.6 14.7 8.5 4.4 3.8 17.5 3.2 

1992 58.1 9.5 4.1 12.2 9.5 4.5 1.4 13.0 2.5 

1993 70.1 10.3 5.6 10.1 5.6 3.6 3.8 22.0 2.9 

1994 59.1 6.9 4.6 5.9 8.8 2.1 3.6 12.8 4.0 

1995 62.5 7.4 2.0 6.6 15.4 2.0 4.1 12.3 1.6 

1996 55.2 9.0 3.9 6.0 10.5 4.3 1.4 10.1 2.9 

1997 55.9 8.9 0.7 5.3 10.8 3.6 1.2 10.1 3.6 

Table continued on n
Natural/ Young/ Other Smart/ Nutritious/ Light/ C

Year Fresh Energy Real Fit General2 Good3 Wholesome4 Lean5 Gen

1977 12.6 27.2 0.5 1.5 0.0 8.3 13.6 8.1 19

1978 15.6 30.6 1.1 3.6 0.0 12.0 12.1 8.8 22

1979 15.4 27.6 0.3 2.8 0.0 9.9 10.9 16.0 26

1980 16.5 29.4 0.0 3.3 0.0 9.8 7.5 14.7 24

1981 15.6 35.2 0.0 1.7 0.0 8.6 9.1 12.2 22

1982 21.2 37.5 0.5 1.7 0.0 16.9 10.3 16.7 30

1983 17.8 44.6 1.4 4.6 0.2 17.3 15.0 18.7 36

1984 16.6 47.2 0.2 5.8 0.2 19.6 13.7 14.8 36

1985 16.5 42.9 0.8 2.3 0.0 16.2 12.2 18.8 35

1986 17.5 39.5 0.2 2.9 0.0 13.7 11.9 19.1 33

1987 17.1 39.5 0.5 3.8 0.0 13.9 11.7 19.6 34

1988 14.3 42.3 0.7 3.5 0.2 14.5 10.4 16.1 30

1989 16.4 43.4 0.2 4.8 0.0 20.6 13.5 15.2 35

1990 18.2 33.3 2.6 5.1 0.2 22.7 20.5 16.7 38

1991 10.7 34.4 2.8 4.4 0.0 23.3 15.9 20.1 39

1992 12.8 36.5 2.9 5.8 0.0 20.8 12.6 15.3 32

1993 12.4 36.0 2.7 3.6 0.2 19.8 12.4 24.0 43

1994 12.4 32.9 0.8 3.8 0.0 15.3 14.0 16.6 34

1995 9.8 30.5 1.0 3.7 0.0 14.6 21.1 13.9 34

1996 5.5 27.5 1.6 2.9 0.2 16.4 15.8 12.9 30

1997 8.4 26.7 1.9 4.3 0.0 12.5 14.0 13.3 3

Table continued on n
Notes. 

1

 Percentage of ads with a claim from the listed category of general nutrition claims. For specific definitions, 

Chapter 4.

 

2

 Other general claims includes any general nutrition claim not specifically listed.

 

3

 Includes all claims from the smart/right choice, good for you, and health/healthy categories.

 

4

 Includes all claims from the nutritious, wholesome, and enriched/fortified categories.

 

5

 Includes all claims from the light and lean categories.

 

6

 Core general claims includes all claims from the healthy/health, smart/right choice, good/better for you,

nutritious/nutrients, wholesome, enriched/fortified, light/lighter, lean/leaner, and youth/fitness/well-being claims. Th

category excludes fresh, natural/no artificial/real/pure, energy, guilt free/no guilt/cheating claims, as well as the

miscellaneous other category.
Any Disease/ Other Heart Heart Serum Blood B

Year Disease 3 Cancer Health2 Affiliated4 Health5 Disease (NFS)6 Chol. Pressure D

1977 1.8 0.0 0.3 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 

1978 3.5 0.8 1.4 2.0 0.8 0.3 1.4 0.0 0.0 

1979 3.4 0.5 1.1 2.3 0.5 0.2 1.1 0.0 0.2 

1980 2.0 0.5 1.1 0.8 0.2 0.0 0.8 0.3 0.2 

1981 1.9 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

1982 2.9 0.0 0.3 2.6 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 

1983 2.7 0.4 1.8 0.9 0.2 0.7 1.4 0.0 0.7 

1984 3.3 0.8 2.0 1.3 0.3 1.0 0.7 0.5 1.0 

1985 3.8 1.4 3.1 1.1 0.3 1.2 1.4 0.8 0.2 

1986 3.9 1.0 2.3 2.5 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.3 0.7 

1987 4.5 1.8 3.2 2.0 0.7 1.4 1.3 0.9 0.4 

1988 6.5 2.8 5.6 1.3 2.8 1.7 4.6 0.2 0.2 

1989 11.1 3.4 8.7 3.6 2.9 3.2 6.6 0.5 0.3 

1990 9.8 3.6 7.7 2.8 2.6 3.4 5.3 0.6 0.0 

1991 7.0 2.4 5.2 2.0 2.0 2.6 2.4 0.4 0.0 

1992 2.5 0.2 1.7 0.8 0.2 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 

1993 2.2 0.4 0.7 1.8 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 

1994 2.5 0.8 0.8 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 

1995 5.5 2.1 2.7 3.3 1.4 1.6 0.4 0.4 1.2 

1996 2.9 1.8 2.5 0.4 1.0 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.0 

1997 8.2 4.6 6.3 1.9 1.9 2.2 1.0 2.2 0.2 

Table continued on n
Regularity/ Cell Tooth Any A

Year Osteoporosis Bones Diabetes Other 7

Digestion Damage Decay Heart8 Bo

1977 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.8 0.3 0

1978 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.4 0

1979 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 2.1 1.1 0

1980 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.8 0

1981 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 0

1982 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.2 

1983 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.7 1.6 

1984 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.7 1.3 

1985 0.3 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.5 2.3 

1986 0.2 0.8 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.3 1.5 1.3 

1987 0.2 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.7 2.0 

1988 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.4 5.6 

1989 0.2 1.2 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.9 1.9 8.2 

1990 0.4 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.8 6.8 

1991 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 4.6 

1992 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.7 

1993 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.7 

1994 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 

1995 0.4 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 2.0 2.0 

1996 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 2.1 

1997 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 3.4 

Table continued on n
Notes. 

1

 Percentage of ads with a claim from the listed category of health claims. For definitions, see Chapter 5.

 

2

 Percentage of ads with any type of health claim, that is, any statement or term referring to specific health effects of

nutrients or foods.

 

3

 Disease claims specifically refer to diseases, such as “saturated fat has been linked to heart disease.”

 

4

 Disease and affiliated claims includes disease claims and claims closely affiliated with diseases, specifically serum

cholesterol claims, general heart claims, such as “heart smart,” and high blood pressure claims.

 

5

 Other health claims includes all health claims that are not disease or affiliated claims. These are often structure-fu

claims in FDA terminology.

 

6

 NFS is not further specified.

 

7

 Includes all health claims other than the specific categories listed.

 

8

 Combines heart disease, heart (NFS), and the serum cholesterol claims.

 

9

 Combines osteoporosis and bone claims.

1

 This list contains all FTC food advertising cases during the years listed. 

of claim at issue in the case is noted in the parentheses.

Appendix C 

FTC Food Advertising Cases1

January 1977 - April 2002

Interstate Bakeries Corp., C-4043 (April 16, 2002) (consent) (a

unsubstantiated claims that its Wonder Bread containing add

calcium could improve children’s brain function and memor

Abbott Laboratories, C-3745 (May 30, 1997) (consent) (many d

recommend Ensure nutritional beverages as a meal suppleme

replacement for healthy adults)

Gerber Products Co., C-3744 (May 27, 1997) (consent) (4 out o

pediatricians recommend Gerber baby food)

Pizzeria Uno Corp., C-3730 (Apr. 4, 1997) (consent) (fat conten

thin crust pizzas)

Conopco, Inc., C-3706 (Jan. 23, 1997) (consent) ("Get Heart Sm

campaign for Promise margarines and spreads)

Mrs. Fields Cookies, Inc., C-3657 (May 13, 1996) (consent) (fa

content of new line of fresh-baked cookies)

Mama Tish’s Italian Specialties, Inc., C-3644 (Mar. 19, 1996) 

(consent) (calorie content of flavored ice-cup desserts)
198 / ADVERTISING NUTRITION AND HEALTH

The Dannon Co., C-3643 (Mar. 18, 1996) (consent and $150,000 

disgorgement) (fat and calorie content of Pure Indulgence fro

yogurt)

Eggland's Best, Inc., US v., No. 96 CV-1983 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 12, 

(stipulated permanent injunction and $100,000 civil penalty 

violation of previous order, below) (effect of its eggs on ser

cholesterol)

Good News Products, Inc., C-3642 (Feb. 22, 1996) (consent) (fa

content of its eggs; effect of its eggs on risk factors for heart 

and blood cholesterol levels)

The Eskimo Pie Corp., C-3597 (Aug. 11, 1995) (consent) (calo

content of Sugar Freedom line of frozen dessert products, an

American Diabetes Association endorsement)

Haagen Dazs Co., C-3582 (June 2, 1995) (consent) (fat content o

frozen yogurt line of products)

Stouffer Foods Corp., D. 9250 (Sept. 26, 1994) (Commission

Decision) (sodium content of Lean Cuisine frozen entrees)

Eggland's Best, Inc., C-3520 (Aug. 15, 1994) (consent) (effect o

eggs on serum cholesterol)

Presto Food Products, Inc., C-3480 (Feb. 23, 1994) (consent) (f

content of Mocha Mix non-dairy creamer products)

Gracewood Fruit Co., 116 F.T.C. 1262 (1993) (consent) (health

benefits of grapefruit, such as reduction of risk of cancer, str

heart attack; and reduction of serum cholesterol)
REFERENCES 

The Clorox Co., 116 F.T.C. 346 (1993) (consent) (fat content of 

Heart salad dressing)

The Isalay Klondike Co., 116 F.T.C. 74 (1993) (consent) (fat an

calorie content of Klondike Lite frozen dessert bars)

Pompeian, Inc., 115 F.T.C. 933 (1992) (consent) (effect of olive 

blood cholesterol and heart health in comparison with vegeta

Campbell Soup Co., 115 F.T.C. 788 (1992) (consent) (effect of 

cholesterol content of soups on risk of heart disease; high so

content not disclosed)

Pacific Rice Products, Inc., 115 F.T.C. 763 (1992) (consent) (e

Vita-Fiber Rice Bran on blood cholesterol and risk of heart d

Bertolli USA, Inc., 115 F.T.C. 774 (1992) (consent) (effect of o

on blood pressure and blood sugar; and effect on cholesterol 

comparison to other oils)

Nestle Food Co., 115 F.T.C. 67 (1992) (consent) (fat content of

Carnation Coffee-mate Liquid)

The Perrier Group of America, Inc., 114 F.T.C. 486 (1991) (co

(sparkling mineral water is not processed or filtered before b

Kraft Inc., 114 F.T.C. 40 (1991), aff'd, 970 F.2d 311 (7th Cir. 19

cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 1254 (1993) (calcium content of Kra

Singles cheese slices compared to milk and compared to mo

imitation cheese slices) 

CPC International, Inc., 114 F.T.C. 1 (1991) (consent) (effect o

Mazola Corn Oil and Mazola Margarine on serum cholestero

levels)
200 / ADVERTISING NUTRITION AND HEALTH

Meadow Fresh Farms Inc. (Roy and Larry Brog), 108 F.T.C. 

(1986) (consent) (effect of dry milk substitute on cardiovasc

disease)

Estee Corp., 102 F.T.C. 1804 (1983) (consent and $25,000 to Am

Diabetes Association for research) (calorie content of specia

health-related foods appropriate for diabetics)

Standard Brands, Inc., C-3060 (March 17, 1981) (consent) (twi

many doctors use and recommend Fleischmann’s Margarine

California Milk Producers Advisory Board, 8988 (September 

1979) (final order dismissing complaint) (“Every body needs 

ad campaign)

ITT Continental Baking Company, Inc., C-2989 (August 24, 1

(consent) (dietary fiber in Fresh Horizons bread, and other s

products)

National Commission on Egg Nutrition, 8987 (November 17, 1

(modifying order based on 7th Cir. decision) (effect of eating 

on likelihood of heart disease and arteriosclerosis)

California and Hawaiian Sugar Co., C-2858 (January 6, 1977)

(consent) (C&H sugar is different from and superior to other 

brands)

Ad agencies

Campbell Mithun LLC C-4043 (April 16, 2002) (consent) (ad a

for Interstate Bakeries Corp.[IBC], advertiser of Wonder Bre
REFERENCES 

Grey Advertising, Inc., C-3691 (Oct. 30, 1996) (consent) (ad ag

for The Dannon Co., advertiser of Pure Indulgence frozen yo

N.W. Ayer & Son, Inc., C-3660 (May 31, 1996) (consent) (ad ag

for Eggland’s Best, Inc., advertiser of Eggland’s Best eggs)

BBDO Worldwide, Inc., C-3637 (Jan. 24, 1996) (consent) (ad ag

for Haagen Dazs, advertiser of frozen yogurt line of product

Ted Bates & Company, Inc., C-3059 (March 17, 1981) (consent

agency for Standard Brands, Inc., advertiser of Fleischmann

Margarine)

Foote, Cone & Belding/Honing, Inc., C-2858 (January 6, 1977)

(consent) (ad agency for California and Hawaiian Sugar Com

advertiser of C&H sugar)
202 / ADVERTISING NUTRITION AND HEALTH
References

Bagwell, Kyle, “The Economics of Advertising, Introduction,” in 

Economics of Advertising, Kyle Bagwell, Editor, Northampt

MA: Edward Elgar, 2001.

Beales, J. Howard and Timothy J. Muris, State and Federal Regu

of National Advertising, AEI Studies in Regulation and Fede

Washington, DC: The AEI Press, 1993.

Becker, Gary S. and Kevin M. Murphy, “A Simple Theory of

Advertising As a Good or Bad,” Quarterly Journal of Econo

58 November 1993.

Benham, Lee, “The Effects of Advertising on the Price of Eyegla

Journal of Law and Economics, 15 October 1972.

Bond, Ronald S., John E. Kwoka, John J. Phelan, and Ira Taylor, 

of Restrictions on Advertising and Commercial Practice in t

Professions: The Case of Optometry, Bureau of Economics S

Report, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC, Septe

1980.

Butters, Gerard R., “Equilibrium Distribution of Sales and Adver

Prices,” The Review of Economic Studies, 44 October 1977.

Cady, John, “An Estimate of the Price Effects of Restrictions on 

Price Advertising,” Economic Inquiry, 14 December 1976.

Calfee, John E. and Debra Jones Ringold, “The 70% Majority: En

Consumer Beliefs About Advertising,” Journal of Public Po

Marketing, 13 Fall 1994.
204 / ADVERTISING NUTRITION AND HEALTH

Crespi, John M., “Promotion Checkoffs, Why So Controversial? 

Evolution of Generic Advertising Battles,” National Institute 

Commodity Promotion Research & Evaluation Research Bu

No. 2001-04, September 2001.

Derby, Brenda M. and Alan S. Levy, “Do Food Labels Work? G

the Effectiveness of Food Labels Pre- and Post-NLEA,” in

Handbook of Marketing and Society, Paul N. Bloom and Gre

Gundlach, Editors, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 

Dixon, William D., Report of the Presiding Officer, Proposed Tr

Regulation Rule: Food Advertising, Federal Trade Commiss

Washington, D.C., 1978.

Dowling, Grahame R., “Information Content in U.S. and Australi

Television Advertising,” Journal of Marketing, 44 Fall 1980

Ehrlich, Isaac and Lawrence Fisher, “The Derived Demand for

Advertising: A Theoretical and Empirical Investigation,” Th

American Economic Review, 72 June 1982.

Glickman, Secretary of Agriculture, v. Wileman Brothers & Ellio

et al., 521 U.S. (1997).

Glazer, Amihai, “Advertising, Information, and Prices – A Case S

Economic Inquiry, 19 October 1981.

Greene, William H., Econometric Analysis, 3rd ed., Upper Saddle 

NJ: Prentice Hall, 1997.

Grossman, Gene M. and Carl Shapiro, “Informative Advertising W

Differentiated Products,” Review of Economic Studies, 51,

January1984.

Grossman, Sanford J., “The Informational Role of Warranties and

Private Disclosure About Product Quality,” Journal of Law 

Economics, 24, December 1981.
REFERENCES 

Heimbach, James T., “The Growing Impact of Sodium Labeling o

Foods,” Food Technology, 40 December 1986.

Hickman, Beth Wallace, Gail E. Gates, and Richard P. Dowdy,

“Nutrition Claims in Advertising: A Study of Four Women’s

Magazines,” Journal of Nutrition Education, 225 September

October 1993.

Ippolito, Pauline M., “How Government Policies Shape the Food 

Nutrition Information Environment,” Food Policy, 24 April/

1999.

_____, “Bonding and Nonbonding Signals of Product Quality,” T

Journal of Business, 63, January 1990.

Ippolito, Pauline M. and Alan D. Mathios, Health Claims in Adve

and Labeling: A Study of the Cereal Market, Bureau of Econ

Staff Report, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, D.C.,

August 1989.

_____, “Information, advertising and health choices: a study of t

cereal market,” RAND Journal of Economics, 21 Autumn 19

_____, “New Food Labeling Regulations and the Flow of Nutritio

Information to Consumers,” Journal of Public Policy and

Marketing, 12 Fall 1993.

_____, "Information and Advertising: The Case of Fat Consumpt

the United States," American Economic Review, 85 May 199

_____, Information and Advertising Policy, A Study of Fat and

Cholesterol Consumption in the United States, 1977-1990, B

of Economics Staff Report, Federal Trade Commission, Sep

1996.

Kassarjian, Harold H., “Content Analysis in Consumer Research,

Journal of Consumer Research, 4 June 1977.
206 / ADVERTISING NUTRITION AND HEALTH

Kihlstrom, Richard E. and Michael H. Riordan, “Advertising As 

Signal,” Journal of Political Economy, 92 June 1984.

Klein, Benjamin and Keith B. Leffler, “The Role of Market Force

Assuring Contractual Performance,” Journal of Political Eco

89 August 1981.

Laband, David N., “The Durability of Informational Signals and t

Content of Advertising,” Journal of Advertising, 18, Spring 

Leading National Advertisers, Inc., Ad $ Summary, New York: L

National Advertisers, Inc., various years.

Lord, John B., Joseph O. Eastlack, and John L. Stanton, “Health 

in Food Advertising: Is There a Bandwagon Effect?” Journa

Advertising Research, 27 April/May 1987.

_____, “The Bandwagon Isn’t Rolling ...Yet,” Journal of Adverti

Research, 28 April/May 1988.

Maurizi, Alex R., “The Effect of Laws Against Price Advertising

Case of Retail Gasoline,” Western Economic Journal, 10 Se

1972.

Milyo, Jeffrey and Joel Waldfogel, “The Effect of Price Advertis

Prices: Evidence in the Wake of 44 Liquormart,” The Amer

Economic Review, 89 December 1999.

Moorman, Christine, “Market-Level Effects of Information: Com

Responses and Consumer Dynamics,” 35 Journal of Market

Research, 1998.

National Research Council, Committee on Diet and Health, Diet 

Health, Implications for Reducing Chronic Disease Risk, Na

Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1989.

Nelson, Phillip, “Information and Consumer Behavior,” Journal o

Political Economy, 78 March-April 1970.
REFERENCES 

_____, “Advertising as Information,” Journal of Political Econom

July-August 1974.

Pappalardo, Janis Kohanski and Debra Jones Ringold, “Regulatin

Commercial Speech in a Dynamic Environment: Forty Years 

Margarine and Oil Advertising Before the NLEA,” Journal o

Public Policy and Marketing, 19 Spring 2000.

Parker, Philip M., “Sweet Lemons: Illusory Quality, Self-Deceive

Advertising, and Price,” 32 Journal of Marketing Research, 

1995.

Pratt, Charlotte A. and Cornelius B. Pratt, “Comparative Content

Analysis of Food and Nutrition Advertisements in Ebony, Es

and Ladies Home Journal,” Journal of Nutrition Education, 

January/February 1995.

Resnik, A. J. and B. L. Stern, “An Analysis of Information Conte

Television Advertising,” Journal of Marketing, 41 January 1

Ringold, Debra Jones and John E. Calfee, “What Can We Learn F

the Informational Content of Cigarette Advertising? A Repl

Further Analysis,” Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 

1989.

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

Economy, 69 June 1961.

Teisl, Mario F., Alan S. Levy, and Brenda M. Derby, “The Effec

Education and Information Source on Consumer Awareness 

Diet-Disease Relationships,” 18 Journal of Public Policy &

Marketing, Fall 1999.

Telser, Lester G., “Advertising and Cigarettes,” Journal of Politi

Economy, 70 October 1962.
208 / ADVERTISING NUTRITION AND HEALTH

Weimer, Jon, “Accelerating the Trend Towards Healthy Eating,” 

America’s Eating Habits, Change and Consequence, Elizabe

Frazao Editor, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic R

Service, Agr. Info. Bul. No. 750, 1999.