The Experts below are selected from a list of 3870 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Joel Huber - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Unintended Nutrition Consequences: Firm Responses to the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act
Marketing Science, 2012Co-Authors: Christine Moorman, Rosellina Ferraro, Joel HuberAbstract:This paper investigates how firms responded to standardized Nutrition labels on food products required by the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA). Using a longitudinal quasi-experimental design, we test our predictions using two large-scale samples that span 30 product categories. Results indicate that the NLEA reduced brand Nutritional quality relative to a control group of products not regulated by the NLEA. At the same time, among regulated products, brand taste increased. Although this reduction in Nutrition represents an unintended consequence of regulation, there were a set of category, firm, and brand conditions under which the NLEA produced a positive effect on brand Nutritional quality. We find that firms were more likely to improve brand Nutrition when firm risk or firm power is low. Lower risk occurs when the firm is introducing a new brand rather than changing an existing brand, and weaker power in a category is reflected by lower market share in a category. Furthermore, firms competing in low-health categories (e.g., potato chips) or small-portion categories (e.g., peanut butter) improved Nutrition more than firms competing in high-health categories (e.g., bread) or large-portion categories (e.g., frozen dinners). Recommendations for firm strategy and the design of consumer information policy are examined in light of these surprising firm responses.
-
commentaries and reply to unintended Nutrition consequences firm responses to the Nutrition Labeling and education act by christine moorman rosellina ferraro and joel huber
Social Science Research Network, 2012Co-Authors: Dondeena Bradley, Rosellina Ferraro, Christine Moorman, Janis K Pappalardo, Brian T Ratchford, Joel HuberAbstract:This series of discussions presents commentaries and a response on the impact the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990 has had on brand Nutritional quality and taste as raised in Moorman et al. (Moorman C, Ferraro R, Huber J (2012) Unintended Nutrition consequences: Firm responses to the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act. Marketing Sci. 31(5):717-737).
-
unintended Nutrition consequences firm responses to the Nutrition Labeling and education act
Social Science Research Network, 2011Co-Authors: Christine Moorman, Joel Huber, Rosellina FerraroAbstract:This paper investigates how firms responded to standardized Nutrition labels on food products required by the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA). Using a longitudinal quasi-experimental design, we test our predictions using two large-scale samples that span thirty product categories. Results indicate that the NLEA reduced brand Nutritional quality relative to a control group of products not regulated by the NLEA. At the same time, among those regulated products, brand taste increased. While this reduction in Nutrition represents an unintended consequence of regulation, there were a set of category, firm, and brand conditions under which the NLEA produced a positive effect on brand Nutritional quality. We find that firms were more likely to improve brand Nutrition when firm risk or firm power is low. Greater risk occurs when the firm is introducing a new brand rather than changing an existing brand and weaker power in a category is reflected by total market share in a category. Further, firms competing in low-health categories (e.g., potato chips) or small-portion categories (e.g., peanut butter) improved Nutrition more than firms competing in high-health categories (e.g., bread) or large-portion categories (e.g., frozen dinner). Recommendations for firm strategy and the design of consumer information policy are examined in light of these surprising firm responses.
Rosellina Ferraro - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Unintended Nutrition Consequences: Firm Responses to the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act
Marketing Science, 2012Co-Authors: Christine Moorman, Rosellina Ferraro, Joel HuberAbstract:This paper investigates how firms responded to standardized Nutrition labels on food products required by the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA). Using a longitudinal quasi-experimental design, we test our predictions using two large-scale samples that span 30 product categories. Results indicate that the NLEA reduced brand Nutritional quality relative to a control group of products not regulated by the NLEA. At the same time, among regulated products, brand taste increased. Although this reduction in Nutrition represents an unintended consequence of regulation, there were a set of category, firm, and brand conditions under which the NLEA produced a positive effect on brand Nutritional quality. We find that firms were more likely to improve brand Nutrition when firm risk or firm power is low. Lower risk occurs when the firm is introducing a new brand rather than changing an existing brand, and weaker power in a category is reflected by lower market share in a category. Furthermore, firms competing in low-health categories (e.g., potato chips) or small-portion categories (e.g., peanut butter) improved Nutrition more than firms competing in high-health categories (e.g., bread) or large-portion categories (e.g., frozen dinners). Recommendations for firm strategy and the design of consumer information policy are examined in light of these surprising firm responses.
-
commentaries and reply to unintended Nutrition consequences firm responses to the Nutrition Labeling and education act by christine moorman rosellina ferraro and joel huber
Social Science Research Network, 2012Co-Authors: Dondeena Bradley, Rosellina Ferraro, Christine Moorman, Janis K Pappalardo, Brian T Ratchford, Joel HuberAbstract:This series of discussions presents commentaries and a response on the impact the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990 has had on brand Nutritional quality and taste as raised in Moorman et al. (Moorman C, Ferraro R, Huber J (2012) Unintended Nutrition consequences: Firm responses to the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act. Marketing Sci. 31(5):717-737).
-
unintended Nutrition consequences firm responses to the Nutrition Labeling and education act
Social Science Research Network, 2011Co-Authors: Christine Moorman, Joel Huber, Rosellina FerraroAbstract:This paper investigates how firms responded to standardized Nutrition labels on food products required by the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA). Using a longitudinal quasi-experimental design, we test our predictions using two large-scale samples that span thirty product categories. Results indicate that the NLEA reduced brand Nutritional quality relative to a control group of products not regulated by the NLEA. At the same time, among those regulated products, brand taste increased. While this reduction in Nutrition represents an unintended consequence of regulation, there were a set of category, firm, and brand conditions under which the NLEA produced a positive effect on brand Nutritional quality. We find that firms were more likely to improve brand Nutrition when firm risk or firm power is low. Greater risk occurs when the firm is introducing a new brand rather than changing an existing brand and weaker power in a category is reflected by total market share in a category. Further, firms competing in low-health categories (e.g., potato chips) or small-portion categories (e.g., peanut butter) improved Nutrition more than firms competing in high-health categories (e.g., bread) or large-portion categories (e.g., frozen dinner). Recommendations for firm strategy and the design of consumer information policy are examined in light of these surprising firm responses.
Christine Moorman - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Unintended Nutrition Consequences: Firm Responses to the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act
Marketing Science, 2012Co-Authors: Christine Moorman, Rosellina Ferraro, Joel HuberAbstract:This paper investigates how firms responded to standardized Nutrition labels on food products required by the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA). Using a longitudinal quasi-experimental design, we test our predictions using two large-scale samples that span 30 product categories. Results indicate that the NLEA reduced brand Nutritional quality relative to a control group of products not regulated by the NLEA. At the same time, among regulated products, brand taste increased. Although this reduction in Nutrition represents an unintended consequence of regulation, there were a set of category, firm, and brand conditions under which the NLEA produced a positive effect on brand Nutritional quality. We find that firms were more likely to improve brand Nutrition when firm risk or firm power is low. Lower risk occurs when the firm is introducing a new brand rather than changing an existing brand, and weaker power in a category is reflected by lower market share in a category. Furthermore, firms competing in low-health categories (e.g., potato chips) or small-portion categories (e.g., peanut butter) improved Nutrition more than firms competing in high-health categories (e.g., bread) or large-portion categories (e.g., frozen dinners). Recommendations for firm strategy and the design of consumer information policy are examined in light of these surprising firm responses.
-
commentaries and reply to unintended Nutrition consequences firm responses to the Nutrition Labeling and education act by christine moorman rosellina ferraro and joel huber
Social Science Research Network, 2012Co-Authors: Dondeena Bradley, Rosellina Ferraro, Christine Moorman, Janis K Pappalardo, Brian T Ratchford, Joel HuberAbstract:This series of discussions presents commentaries and a response on the impact the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990 has had on brand Nutritional quality and taste as raised in Moorman et al. (Moorman C, Ferraro R, Huber J (2012) Unintended Nutrition consequences: Firm responses to the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act. Marketing Sci. 31(5):717-737).
-
unintended Nutrition consequences firm responses to the Nutrition Labeling and education act
Social Science Research Network, 2011Co-Authors: Christine Moorman, Joel Huber, Rosellina FerraroAbstract:This paper investigates how firms responded to standardized Nutrition labels on food products required by the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA). Using a longitudinal quasi-experimental design, we test our predictions using two large-scale samples that span thirty product categories. Results indicate that the NLEA reduced brand Nutritional quality relative to a control group of products not regulated by the NLEA. At the same time, among those regulated products, brand taste increased. While this reduction in Nutrition represents an unintended consequence of regulation, there were a set of category, firm, and brand conditions under which the NLEA produced a positive effect on brand Nutritional quality. We find that firms were more likely to improve brand Nutrition when firm risk or firm power is low. Greater risk occurs when the firm is introducing a new brand rather than changing an existing brand and weaker power in a category is reflected by total market share in a category. Further, firms competing in low-health categories (e.g., potato chips) or small-portion categories (e.g., peanut butter) improved Nutrition more than firms competing in high-health categories (e.g., bread) or large-portion categories (e.g., frozen dinner). Recommendations for firm strategy and the design of consumer information policy are examined in light of these surprising firm responses.
-
a quasi experiment to assess the consumer and informational determinants of Nutrition information processing activities the case of the Nutrition Labeling and education act
Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 1996Co-Authors: Christine MoormanAbstract:The author reports a longitudinal quasi experiment that uses the implementation of the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA) to examine the consumer and information determinants of Nutrition ...
Scot Burton - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
front of package Nutrition Labeling which labels benefit consumers the most and why do they help
Social Science Research Network, 2017Co-Authors: Christopher L Newman, Elizabeth Howlett, Scot BurtonAbstract:Consumers are increasingly exposed to Nutrition and health information on food packages. In particular, front-of-package (FOP) Nutrition Labeling has become a popular way for food marketers to communicate information to customers about the healthfulness of their products. With so many disparate types of FOP Labeling systems currently in the marketplace, it is not clear which types of FOP labels might be most helpful to consumers for certain types of evaluative tasks. However, new research sheds light on this issue and offers important implications for food manufacturers, food retailers, and consumers’ health.
-
shopper response to front of package Nutrition Labeling programs potential consumer and retail store benefits
Journal of Retailing, 2014Co-Authors: Christopher L Newman, Elizabeth Howlett, Scot BurtonAbstract:Abstract A myriad of front-of-package (FOP) Nutrition Labeling systems have been developed by both food retailers (e.g., Walmart, Safeway, Hannaford) and manufacturers (e.g., Kellogg's, General Mills) to help consumers identify more healthful options at the point-of-purchase. Given the uniqueness of these different approaches, two studies examine the effects of alternative FOP systems on shoppers’ product evaluations, choices, and retailer evaluations. When a single food item is evaluated in isolation, both the reductive and evaluative systems had a positive effect on product evaluations. However, when several choice options are presented simultaneously in a realistic retail environment, the evaluative (reductive) system has a stronger (weaker) influence on product evaluation and choice. Results also show that FOP Nutrition Labeling systems have both direct and moderating effects on attitude toward the retailer and perceived retailer concern for shoppers. These retailer-related outcomes, in turn, mediate the effects of the Labeling system on shoppers’ intentions to patronize the retailer. Results suggest that FOP Nutrition Labeling may help retailers build a non-price competitive advantage.
-
consumer generalization of nutrient content claims in advertising
Journal of Marketing, 1998Co-Authors: Craig J Andrews, Richard G Netemeyer, Scot BurtonAbstract:Although considerable research exists on consumer processing of Nutrition Labeling and package claims, less is known about consumer interpretation of nutrient content claims in advertising. This is...
-
effects of alternative Nutrition label formats and Nutrition reference information on consumer perceptions comprehension and product evaluations
Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 1994Co-Authors: Scot Burton, Abhijit Biswas, Richard G NetemeyerAbstract:The authors examine some potential effects of changes in Nutrition labels associated with the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990. They report a study in which effects of basic label forma...
-
preliminary assessment of changes in labels required by the Nutrition Labeling and education act of 1990
Journal of Consumer Affairs, 1993Co-Authors: Scot Burton, Abhijit BiswasAbstract:Since food labels first became required on certain consumer packaged food products 18 years ago, researchers have been concerned with consumers' perceptions and use of Nutrition information on food labels (Asam and Bucklin 1973; Brown, Kelley, and Lee 1991; Daly 1976; Cole and Gaeth 1990; Lenahan et al. 1973; Levy et al. 1985; Moorman 1990). Results concerning the effectiveness of disclosure of Nutrition information has often been equivocal; for example, in summarizing results from six studies Jacoby, Chestnut, and Silberman concluded that "the vast majority of consumers neither use nor comprehend Nutrition information in arriving at good purchase decisions" (1977, 126). Additional concerns arose in 1987 when the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) lifted its ban on the use of health claims on food labels which led to some exaggerated use of terms as "high fiber," "low fat," "low sodium," and "lite." Summarizing current Nutrition Labeling conditions, U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Louis Sullivan referred to the supermarket as "a Tower of Babel |where~ consumers need to be linguists, scientists, and mind readers" (Consumer Reports 1990, 326). Such concerns led to the passage of the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990. While this Act does not specify the structural format required for presenting Nutrition information, it identifies several changes concerning Nutrition information that should be available on a label. A primary objective of the Act is to permit consumers to make more informed decisions about food purchases. The government has estimated that improvements in the quality of consumers' diets could result in $100 billion in reduced health care costs over 20 years (Ingersoll 1991). The primary purpose of this study is to provide a preliminary comparison of consumer attitudes and perceptions between Nutrition labels consistent with Nutritional requirements in the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act and a label consistent with regulatory requirements prior to the NLEA. Two alternative labels that comply with the 1990 amendment were tested against the type of label in use at the time of the study. These three types of Nutrition labels were tested across conditions where the Nutritional value provided was varied along with inclusion or exclusion of a "warning" that focused on potential risks associated with poor Nutrition. BACKGROUND Overview of the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990 The Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990 (NLEA) contains a number of important provisions for consumers and food marketers. These provisions include the specification of minimum Nutrition information that must be available on all processed foods, delineation of authority of the FDA, federal preemption of state food Labeling and health claims jurisdictions, and the establishment of operational definitions of frequently used terms such as "lite," "low fat," and "reduced calories" (Mueller 1991). The law allows claims of the presence (absence) of any nutrient as relating to disease or health-related conditions only when "there is significant scientific agreement, among experts qualified by scientific training and experience to evaluate such claims, that the claim is supported by such evidence" (Best 1991; Nutrition Labeling and Education Act 1990, 6). Also, legitimacy of claims about specific nutrients will be contingent upon the presence or absence of other specified nutrients. For example, under most conditions a "no cholesterol" content claim will not be allowed if the food in question contains a level of saturated fat determined to increase the risk of a disease or health-related condition. Such regulations will require changes in the on-package claims for health benefits by many food manufacturers (Colford 1991). Of particular interest in this study are the provisions for the Nutrition information required on a label found in section 2 of the Act. It specifies that labels must include (1) serving sizes (expressed in common household measures), (2) number of servings per container, (3) total number of calories (derived from all sources), (4) calories derived from total fat, and (5) amounts of each of the following nutrients in each serving: total fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, sodium, total carbohydrates, complex carbohydrates, sugars, dietary fiber, and total protein. …
Dondeena Bradley - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
commentaries and reply to unintended Nutrition consequences firm responses to the Nutrition Labeling and education act by christine moorman rosellina ferraro and joel huber
Social Science Research Network, 2012Co-Authors: Dondeena Bradley, Rosellina Ferraro, Christine Moorman, Janis K Pappalardo, Brian T Ratchford, Joel HuberAbstract:This series of discussions presents commentaries and a response on the impact the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990 has had on brand Nutritional quality and taste as raised in Moorman et al. (Moorman C, Ferraro R, Huber J (2012) Unintended Nutrition consequences: Firm responses to the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act. Marketing Sci. 31(5):717-737).
