Nutr Res Pract.  2020 Jun;14(3):286-297. 10.4162/nrp.2020.14.3.286.

Customers' perception of the attributes of different formats of menu labeling: a comparison between Korea and the U.S.

• Bosselman R
• Choi HM
• Lee KS
• Kim E
• Cha J
• Jeong JY
• Jo M
• Ham S

• KMID: 2502488
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4162/nrp.2020.14.3.286

Abstract

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES
This study compared the perception of customers from Korea and the U.S. on the attributes of different formats of menu labeling The specific objectives were 1) to compare the customers' perceived usefulness, ease-of-understanding, clarity, and attractiveness of different formats of menu labeling between Korea and the U.S.; and 2) to compare the customers' use intention to different formats of menu labeling between Korea and the U.S.
SUBJECTS/METHODS
A survey was conducted in Korea and the U.S. The participants were allocated randomly to view 1 of the 7 restaurant menus that varied according to the following types of menu labeling formats: (type 1) kcal format, (type 2) traffic-light format, (type 3) percent daily intake (%DI) format, (type 4) kcal + traffic-light format, (type 5) kcal + %DI format, (type 6) traffic-light + %DI format, and (type 7) kcal + traffic-light + %DI format. A total of 279 Koreans and 347 Americans were entered in the analysis. An independent t-test and 1-way analysis of variance were performed.
RESULTS
Koreans rated type 4 format (kcal + traffic light) the highest for usefulness and attractiveness. In contrast, Americans rated type 7 (kcal + traffic light + %DI) the highest for usefulness, ease-of-understanding, attractiveness, and clarity. Significant differences were found in the customers' perceived attributes to menu labeling between Korea and the U.S. Americans perceived higher for all the 4 attributes of menu labeling than Koreans.
CONCLUSIONS
The study is unique in identifying the differences in the attributes of different formats of menu labeling between Korea and the U.S. Americans rated the most complicated type of menu labeling as the highest perception for the attributes, and showed a higher use intention of menu labeling than Koreans. This study contributes to academia and industry for practicing menu labeling in different countries using different formats.

Keyword

Restaurants; food labeling; perception; health behavior

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Types of menu-labeling formats.Type 1, kcal menu labeling; Type 2, traffic-light menu labeling; Type 3, %DI menu labeling; Type 4, kcal + traffic-light menu labeling; Type 5, kcal + %DI menu labeling; Type 6, traffic-light + %DI menu labeling; Type 7, kcal + traffic-light + %DI menu labeling. (%DI, percent daily intake).1)Number (%): percent of Recommended Dietary Allowance.

Reference

1. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Obesity update 2017 [Internet]. Paris: OECD;2017. cited 2019 December 15. Available from: https://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/Obesity-Update-2017.pdf.

2. Gil JM, Gracia A, Sanchez M. Market segmentation and willingness to pay for organic products in Spain. Int Food Agribus Manag Rev. 2000; 3:207–226.

3. Chen MF. The joint moderating effect of health consciousness and healthy lifestyle on consumers' willingness to use functional foods in Taiwan. Appetite. 2011; 57:253–262. PMID: 21609743.

4. Food Safety Korea. Menu labeling guide [Internet]. Cheongju: Food Safety Korea;2019. cited 2019 December 15. Available from: https://www.foodsafetykorea.go.kr/main.do.

5. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for Industry: Food Labeling Guide [Internet]. U.S. Food and Drug Administration;2013. cited 2019 December 15. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/guidance-industry-food-labeling-guide.

6. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Food Labeling & Nutrition: U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 2004. cited 2019 December 15. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/food/food-labeling-nutrition.

7. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Food labelling: nutrition labelling of standard menu items in restaurants and similar retail food establishments [Internet]. Silver Spring (MD): U.S. Food and Drug Administration;2014. cited 2019 December 15. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/media/116833/download.

8. Burton S, Creyer EH, Kees J, Huggins K. Attacking the obesity epidemic: the potential health benefits of providing nutrition information in restaurants. Am J Public Health. 2006; 96:1669–1675. PMID: 16873758.

9. Boger CA. Food labeling for restaurants. Cornell Hotel Restaur Adm Q. 1995; 36:62–70.

10. Conklin MT, Lambert CU, Cranage DA. Nutrition information at point of selection could benefit college students. Topics Clin Nutr. 2005; 20:90–96.

11. Hwang J, Lorenzen CL. Effective nutrition labeling of restaurant menu and pricing of healthy menu. J Foodserv. 2008; 19:270–276.

12. Kozup JC, Creyer EH, Burton S. Making healthful food choices: the influence of health claims and nutrition information on consumers' evaluations of packaged food products and restaurant menu items. J Mark. 2003; 67:19–34.

13. Kral TV, Roe LS, Rolls BJ. Does nutrition information about the energy density of meals affect food intake in normal-weight women? Appetite. 2002; 39:137–145. PMID: 12354682.

14. Milich R, Anderson J, Mills M. Effects of visual presentation of caloric values on food buying by normal and obese persons. Percept Mot Skills. 1976; 42:155–162. PMID: 1256970.

15. Roe B, Levy AS, Derby BM. The impact of health claims on consumer search and product evaluation outcomes: results from FDA experimental data. J Public Policy Mark. 1999; 18:89–105.

16. Drichoutis AC, Lazaridis P, Nayga RM. Consumers' use of nutritional labels: a review of research studies and issues. J Acad Mark Sci. 2006; 9:93–118.

17. Cranage DA, Conklin MT, Lambert CU. Effect of nutrition information in perceptions of food quality, consumption behavior and purchase intentions. J Foodserv Bus Res. 2005; 7:43–61.

18. Liu PJ, Roberto CA, Liu LJ, Brownell KD. A test of different menu labeling presentations. Appetite. 2012; 59:770–777. PMID: 22918176.

19. Kim E, Tang LR, Meusel C, Gupta M. Optimization of menu-labeling formats to drive healthy dining: an eye tracking study. Int J Hospit Manag. 2018; 70:37–48.

20. Niven P, Morley B, Dixon H, Martin J, Jones A, Petersen K, Wakefield M. Effects of health star labelling on the healthiness of adults' fast food meal selections: an experimental study. Appetite. 2019; 136:146–153. PMID: 30684644.

21. Ham S, Lee HJ, Kim S, Park Y. Customers' use of menu labeling in restaurants and their perceptions of menu labeling attributes. J Korean Diet Assoc. 2017; 23:106–119.

22. Almanza BA, Hsieh HM. Consumer preferences among nutrition labeling formats in a restaurant. J Am Diet Assoc. 1995; 95:83–85. PMID: 7798586.

23. Paivio A. Mental Representations: a Dual Coding Approach. New York (NY): Oxford University Press;1990.

24. Moreno R, Mayer RE. Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: the role of modality and contiguity. J Educ Psychol. 1999; 91:358–368.

25. Morley B, Scully M, Martin J, Niven P, Dixon H, Wakefield M. What types of nutrition menu labelling lead consumers to select less energy-dense fast food? An experimental study. Appetite. 2013; 67:8–15. PMID: 23523666.

26. Variyam JN. Nutrition Labeling in the Food-Away-from-Home Sector: an Economic Assessment. Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Agriculture;2005.

27. Healthy Dining. Nutrition criteria: the healthy dining recommended nutrition criteria [Internet]. place unknown: Healthy Dining;2019. cited 2019 December 15. Available from: https://www.healthydiningfinder.com/nutrition-criteria/.

28. Guthrie JF, Fox JJ, Cleveland LE, Welsh S. Who uses nutrition labeling, and what effects does label use have on diet quality? J Nutr Educ. 1995; 27:163–172.

29. Campbell MK, DeVellis BM, Strecher VJ, Ammerman AS, DeVellis RF, Sandler RS. Improving dietary behavior: the effectiveness of tailored messages in primary care settings. Am J Public Health. 1994; 84:783–787. PMID: 8179049.

30. Srivastava K, Sharma NK. Service quality, corporate brand image, and switching behavior: the mediating role of customer satisfaction and repurchase intention. Serv Mark Q. 2013; 34:274–291.

31. Cortina JM. What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. J Appl Psychol. 1993; 78:98–104.