The Impact of Nutrition Labels on Food Sales: An In-Store Experiment in a Turkish Supermarket

Author/s Sedef Akgungor, Andrea Groppel-Klein, Joerg Koenigstorfer, Yaprak Gulcan, Yesim Kustepeli
Publishing Year 2016 Issue 2016/2
Language English Pages 22 P. 207-228 File size 210 KB
DOI 10.3280/ECAG2016-002006
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

Nutrition information is a policy tool that aims to guide consumers towards healthier diets, thus preventing further increases in obesity. This study focuses on the impact of front-of-pack nutrition labels on Turkish consumers’ purchase decisions. In particular, the study investigates whether both the presence of the label itself and the content provided on the label (here: the presence [vs. absence] of health ticks) impact on consumer demand for food products. The authors propose two hypotheses that are grounded in cue utilization and consumer behaviour theories and conducted an experiment in a Turkish supermarket to test the hypotheses. They manipulated the product packages of three brands offering wafers (including a variety of flavours) to contain a nutrition label on front of the package with information on calories, fat, saturated fat, sugars and salt (in kcal and g per 100 g, respectively). The nutrition information was complemented with either a health tick (56% of the products were eligible) or a placeholder for products that failed eligibility criteria (44%). Total daily in-store sales of wafers were monitored before, during and after the manipulation. The results of the study showed that the presence of the label itself increased consumer demand for the follower brand (but not for the leader brands). The presence (vs. absence) of a health tick on the nutrition labels did not affect sales of more (vs. less) healthful foods. The findings thus indicate that consumers were partly more responsive to the nutrition label per se as opposed to the presence of a health tick on the label. The authors derive implications for implementation efforts of nutrition labels.

Keywords: Nutrition label, nutrition information, consumer demand, health tick, health mark, supermarket

  1. A.C. Nielsen (2010). Nielsen Markalar Araştırması yayınlandı. Retrieved from
  2. Akerlof, G.A. (1970). The market for lemons. Quality uncertainty and market mechanism. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84(3), 488-500.
  3. Aprile, M.C., Caputo, V., & Nayga, R.M. (2012). Consumers’ valuation of food quality labels: The case of the European geographic indication and organic farming labels. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 36(2), 158-165.
  4. Aygen, G. (2012). Turkish consumers’ understanding and use of nutrition labels on packaged food products. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(6), 171-184.
  5. Baltacı, G., Ersoy, G., Karaağaoğlu, N., Derman, O., & Kanbur, N. (2008).
  6. Ergenlerde Sağlıklı beslenme ve hareketli yaşam. T.C. Sağlık Bakanlığı, Ankara, Turkey. Bao, Y., Sheng, S., Bao, Y., & Stewart, D. (2011). Assessing quality perception of private labels: intransient cues and consumer characteristics. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 28(6), 448-458.
  7. Bauer, H.H., Heinrich D., & Schaefer, D.B. (2013). The effects of organic labels on global, local, and private brands: More hype than substance? Journal of Business Research, 66(8), 1035-1043.
  8. Bayar, E. (2009). The importance of nutrition label usage in the context of obesity study in Turkey. Pediatrics Intarnational, 50, 356-362.
  9. Berning, J., Chouinard, H.H., & McCluskey J.J. (2010). Do positive nutrition shelf labels affect consumer behavior? Findings from a field experiment with scanner data. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 92(6),
  10. Bialkova, S.K., Grunert, K.G., & van Trijp, H. (2013). Standing out in the crowd: The effect of information clutter on consumer attention for front of pack nutrition labels. Food Policy, 41, 65-74.
  11. Brendahl, L. (2004). Cue utilization and quality perception with regard to branded beef. Food Quality and Preference, 15, 65-75.
  12. Brunso, K., Fjord, T.A., & Grunert, K.G. (2002). Consumers’ food choice and quality perception. Working Paper No. 77, The Aarhus School of Business.
  13. Capital-Brand Finance (2007). Türkiye’nin En Değerli Markaları.-- Retrieved from
  14. Carpenter, M., & Larceneux F. (2008). Label equity and the effectiveness of valuesbased labels: An experiment with two French PGI labels. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 32(5), 499-519.
  15. Caswell, J.A., & Mojduszda, E.M. (1996). Using informational labeling to influence the market for quality in food products. American Journal of Agricultural economics, 78(5), 1248-1253.
  16. Cox, D.F. (1967). The sorting rule model of the consumer product evaluation process. In D.F. Cox (Ed.), Risk Taking and Information Handling in Consumer Behaviour, Boston, MA: Harvard University (pp. 324-369).
  17. Deloitte (2010). Türkiye Gıda Sektörü Raporu. T.C. Başbakanlık Yatırım, Destek ve Tanıtım Ajansı. Ankara.
  18. EU (2011). Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on the Provision of Food Information to Consumers. Brussels: EU.
  19. Jakob, M., Hawkins, L., Loring, B., Tello, J., Erguder, T., Kontas, M. (2014). Bulaşıcı Olmayan Hastalıklarda Daha Iyi Sonuclar: Türkiye Ulke Degerlendirmesi. Dunya Saglık Orgutu Avrupa Bolge Ofisi (World Health Organization, European Charter), Denmark.
  20. dhhs, & fda (2014). Food Labeling: Revision of the Nutrition and Supplement Facts Labels. College Park, MD: Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human Services.
  21. Ford, G.T., Smith D.B., & Swasy, J.L. (1990). Consumer scepticism of advertising claims: Testing hypotheses from economics of information. Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 421-433.
  22. Gorton, D., Ni Mhurchu, C., Chen, M., & Dixon, R. (2008). Nutrition labels: A survey of use, understanding and preferences among ethnically diverse shoppers in New Zealand. Public Health Nutrition, 12, 1359-1365. Grunert, K.G. (2005). Food quality and safety: Consumer perception and demand. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 32(3), 369-391.
  23. Grunert, K.G., & Wills, J.M. (2007). A review of European research on consumer response to nutrition information on food labels. Journal of Public Health, 15, 384-399.
  24. Grunert, K.G., Fernandez-Celemin, L., Wills, J.M., Storcksdieck genannt Bonsmann, S., & Nureeva, L. on behalf of the flabel consortium (2010). Use and understanding of nutrition information on food labels in six European countries. Journal of Public Health, 18, 261-277.
  25. Higginson, C.S., Kirk, T.R., Rayner, M.J. & Draper, S. (2002). How do consumers use nutrition label information? Nutrition & Food Science, 32(4), 145-152.
  26. Ippolito, P.M., & Mathios, A.D. (1995). Information and advertising: The case of fat consumption in the United States. The American Economic Review, 85(2), 91-95.
  27. Keller, S.B., Landry, M., Olson, J., Velliquette, A.M., Burton, S., & Andrews, J.C. (1997). The effects of nutrition package claims, nutrition facts panels, and motivation to process nutrition information on consumer product evaluations. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 16(2), 256-269.
  28. Kiesel, K., McCluskey, J.J., & Villas-Boas, S.B. (2011). Nutritional labeling and consumer choices. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 3(17), 1-17.
  29. Kirmani, A., & Rao, A.K. (2000). No pain, no gain: A critical review of the literature on signaling unobservable product quality. Journal of Marketing, 64, 66-79.
  30. Koenigstorfer, J., Groeppel-Klein, A., & Kamm, F. (2014). Healthy food decision making in response to traffic light color-coded nutrition labeling. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 33(1), 65-77.
  31. Konigstorfer, J., & Groppel-Klein, A. (2012). Wahrnehmungs- und Kaufverhaltenswirkungen von Nahrwertkennzeichnungen auf Lebensmitteln. Marketing ZFP – Journal of Research and Management, 34(3), 213-226.
  32. Teisl, M.F., Bockstael, N.E., & Levy, A. (2001). Measuring the welfare effects of nutrition labeling. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 83, 133-149.
  33. Lee, H.-J., & Yun, Z.-S. (2015). Consumers’ perceptions of organic food attributes and cognitive and affective attitudes as determinants of their purchase intentions toward organic food. Food Quality and Preference, 39, 259-267.
  34. Lofgren, K.-G., Persson, T., & Weibull, W.J. (2002). Markets with asymmetric information: The contributions of George Akerlof, Michael Spence and Joseph Stiglitz. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 104(2), 195-211.
  35. Meyers-Levy, J., & Malaviya, P. (1999). Consumers’ processing of persuasive advertisements: An integrative framework of persuasion theories. Journal of Marketing, 63, 45-60.
  36. Ministry of Health of Turkey (2010). Obesity prevention and control program of Turkey (2010-2014). Ankara, Turkey.
  37. Olsen, J.C., & Jacoby, J. (1972). Cue utilization in the quality perception process. In M. Venkatesan (Ed.), SV - Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference of the Association for Consumer Research. Chicago, IL: Association for Consumer Research (pp. 167-179).
  38. Orta Anadolu İhracatçı Birlikleri Genel Sekreterliği (2010). Unlu Mamuller Sektör Raporu. Ankara.
  39. Resmi Gazete (2011). Turk Gıda Kodeksi Etiketleme Yonetmeliği. Sayı. 28157 (29. Aralık. 2011).
  40. Özgül, E., & Aksulu, İ (2006). Ambalajlı Gıda Ürünlerinde Tuketicilerin Etiket Duyarlılığındaki Değişimler. Ege Academic Review, 6(1), 1-10. Petty, R.E., & Cacioppo, J.T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion.
  41. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19. San Diego, CA: Academic Press (pp. 123-205).
  42. Rao, A., & Monroe, K.B. (1988). The moderating effect of prior knowledge on cue utilization in product evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 19, 253-264.
  43. Roe, B.E., Teisl, M.F., & Deans, C.R. (2014). The economics of voluntary versus mandatory labels. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ., 6(1), 407-427.
  44. Rothman, R.L., Hausam, R., Weiss, H., Davis, D., Gregory, R., Gebretsadık, T., Shintani, A., & Elasy, T.A. (2006). Patient understanding of food labels: The role of literacy and numeracy. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 31, 391-398.
  45. Rothschild, M., & Stiglitz, J.E. (1976). Equilibrium in competitive insurance markets: An essay on economics of imperfect information. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 90, 630-649.
  46. Sacks, G., Rayner, M., & Swinburn, B. (2009). Impact of front-of-pack traffic-light nutrition labeling on consumer food purchases in the UK. Health Promotion International, 24(4), 344-352.
  47. Sacks, G., Tikellis, K., Millar, L., & Swinburn, B. (2011). Impact of “traffic-light” nutrition information on online food purchases. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 35(2), 122-126.
  48. Saracoglu, B. & Kose, N. (2000). Bazı Gıda Sanayilerinin Uluslararası Rekabet Gucu.: Makarna, Biskuvi ve Un Sanayi. Proje Raporu 2000-2, Ankara.
  49. Selsoe, S.H., Clement, J., & Gabrielsen, G. (2012). Food labels – an exploratory study into label information and what consumers see and understand. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 22(1), 101-114.
  50. Spence, M. (1973). Job market signaling. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87(3), 355-374.
  51. Storcksdieck genannt Bonsmann, S., Fernandez-Celemin, L., Larranaga, A., Egger, S., Wills, J.M., & Hodgkins, C., & Raats, M.M. on behalf of the flabel consortium (2010). Penetration of nutrition information on food labels across the EU-27 plus Turkey. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 64(12), 1379-1385.
  52. Tonsor, G. (2011). Consumer inferences of food safety and quality. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 32, 347-368.
  53. Traill, B.W. (2012), Presidential Address: Economic Perspectives on Nutrition Policy Evaluation. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 63(3), 505-527.
  54. Verbeke, W. (2005). Agriculture and the food industry in the information age. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 32, 347-368.
  55. Verbeke, W. (2012). Food quality policies and consumer interests in the EU. In M. Klopčič, A. Kuipers, & J.F. Hocquette (Eds.), Consumer Attitudes to Food Quality Products: Emphasis on Southern Europe. eaap Publication No. 133.
  56. Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers (pp. 13-22).
  57. Verbeke, W., & Ward, R.W. (2006). Consumer interest in information cues in denoting quality, traceability and origin: An application of ordered probit models to beef labels. Food Quality and Preference, 17, 453-467.
  58. Walters, A., & Long, M. (2011). The effect of food label cues on perceptions of quality and purchase intentions among high involvement consumers with varying levels of nutrition knowledge. Journal of Nutrition Education and Knowledge, 44(4), 350-354.
  59. who (2000). Obesity: Preventing and managing the global epidemic. Report of a who Consultation, who Technical Report Series 894, Geneva: who.
  60. who (2008). who European action plan for food and nutrition policy 2007-2012. Copenhagen: who Regional Office for Europe.
  61. who (2014). Obesity and overweight. Fact sheet No. 311. Geneva: who.
  62. Williams, P.G. (2005). Consumer understanding and use of health claims for foods. Nutrition Review, 63(7), 256-264.
  63. Zeithaml, V.A.C. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality and value: A means end model and systems of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52, 2-22.

Sedef Akgungor, Andrea Groppel-Klein, Joerg Koenigstorfer, Yaprak Gulcan, Yesim Kustepeli, The Impact of Nutrition Labels on Food Sales: An In-Store Experiment in a Turkish Supermarket in "ECONOMIA AGRO-ALIMENTARE" 2/2016, pp 207-228, DOI: 10.3280/ECAG2016-002006