Introduction

Diet-associated health issues have increased significantly over the last few years. As a result,
nutritional labeling has become an important feature of consumers food purchase decisions. The
regulatory system in various countries (e.g., USA), by enforcing the display of nutrition
information on the packaging og food products, has long acknowledged the prospect that the
conversion of the credence attribute of nutrition to a search attribute via nutritional labels may
assist consumers make better and healthier food choices and, therefore, help reduce diet-
associated diseases.
With rapid development in todays world, marketing strategies are also evolving. One of these
strategies used by the marketers is eye-catching product packaging and labeling to boost their
product sales. This strategy is becoming increasingly popular now days and involves a number of
factors working in the background. With a growing move towards self-service retailing, the
design of the packaging of products nowadays is set to limit the input of sales personnel at the
point-of-sale (Kuvykaite et al, 2009). In respect to food purchasing, food labels have therefore
probably become the most significant and most influential factor in consumer decision making
(Peters-Texeira & Badrie, 2005) because majority of the information that consumers need, like
branding and product ingredients, are printed on product labels (Kole et al, 2009) which are
attached prominently to the packaging, or makeup an essential part of the packaging. Food
labels, therefore, carry out an important communicative purpose by providing consumers with
information to choose the most suitable product option during the pre-purchase decision-making
period (Van der Merwe et al, 2010; Dimara & Skuras, 2005).
For goods and services, competition is intensifying day after day. As each company makes an
effort to be different from the others and consumers need more and more information pertaining
to the products they aim to purchase, it makes this information more complex each day. A label
might bear only the brand name or a great amount of information (Kotler, 2001). Point-of-sale
communications appear to be the most effective device to inform consumers about whatever
information producers desire to provide to potential buyers (McEachern & Warnaby, 2008). This
way, a label has become one of the most crucial criteria relied upon to differentiate between
products (Giraud, 2005), as a label helps the consumers to assess and evaluate the products he
selects and reassures them about their quality.
Nutritional labeling is found to affect the consumer purchase behavior significantly in different
researches carried out in different parts of the world. Some research evidence shows that
provision of nutrition information may allow consumers to switch consumption away from
unhealthy products and towards healthy products in food categories more easily (Anderson
and Zarkin, 1992). Improvements in the nutrient intake of the population depend upon the
demand and supply forces in food markets. On the demand side, consumers interest in
purchasing diets and products with superior nutritional profiles has a direct effect on their
nutrient intake. Consumers ability to select their diets depends partially on the quantity as well
as the quality of information available through various sources, including nutrition panel food
labels (Caswell and Padberg, 1999).
The regulation of food labeling in Pakistan commenced with the Pure Food Ordinance of 1960.
The most important purpose of this regulation was to eliminate and eradicate the doctoring of
food. All the rules of this ordinance were, afterwards, found in the sections 13&14 of the Pure
Food Rules of 1965. It was stated, in this regulation, that all pre-packaged foods should display
the name of the food, the ingredients present with the weight of the food and the manufacturers
address. The labels were restricted to make claims about minerals and vitamins present in the
food unless they were found enlisted in an approved list. It was also clearly stated that all the
labels should be, both, in English as well as Urdu. (Moore, 2001)








Literature Review
Food labels as a communication tool
Purchase decisions, In terms of food products, are primarily finalized in-store (Ampuero & Vila,
2006), and packaging as well as food labels play a crucial role at the point-of-sale to
communicate information about the products to the consumer that may aid in this process and
convince him to select particular products (Ali & Kapoor, 2009; Dimara & Skuras, 2005; Silayoi
& Speece, 2004). Apart from the functional protective value of packaging, the labeling on the
packaging has, in recent years, become progressively more significant as a marketing tool, for
reasons such as to signify status and quality (Rundh, 2005). Across the globe, companies are
subsequently spending more and more amount of money on food packaging (type, style and
design) than what they are spending on advertising as part of their marketing strategies (Hoffman
et al, 2005).
Visual elements, for instance colour, graphics, shape and the size of packaging, as well as
informational elements, like the product information printed on top of the labels or packaging
and technologies used, can potentially have an influence on consumers product decisions
(Silayoi & Speece, 2004). Despite large attention devoted to the visual attributes of food labels to
ensure that they capture attention and improve the products image in the presence of multiple
competitors on store shelves, some authors hold the opinion that the informational value of food
labels is still remains predominant during consumers decision-making process (Peters-Texeira
& Badrie, 2005).
Consumers demands for product information
From consumers point of view, though, it isnt always that easy to assess novel technologies and
to know if the new production or treatment methods are either safe or potentially harmful to their
health (Batrinou et al, 2008; Teisl et al, 2008). The emergence of genetically modified (GM)
foods is a modern case of technology that has given rise to much argument (Radas et al, 2008;
Teisl et al, 2008). Another health and safety concern, related to food, is the presence of allergens
like nuts in processed food, which might, potentially, have dangerous consequences if ingested
by allergic consumers who may b unaware of their presence (Voordouw et al, 2006; Miles et al,
2006). Manufacturers across the globe, therefore, must implement strict control over the contents
of processed food products, the presence of certain products and materials in the factory during
manufacturing and related food content information on food labels (Newman & Cullen, 2002).
Empirical evidence shows that certain demographic market segments, like higher income groups,
tend to demand comparatively more information about food products (Ali & Kapoor, 2009; Lin
& Yen, 2008; Dimara & Skuras, 2005). On the other hand, consumers from lower socio-
economic groups do not make use of food labels to the same degree and therefore have an
inclination towards making less healthy food choices (Giskes et al, 2007). The information
provided on food labels, sometimes, may be quite intimidating consumers with a lower level of
education, which explains the reason for consumers interest in the easier-to-understand traffic
light labeling system that was introduced in the UK and Europe in order to make food label
information little easier to understand (Pettigrew et al, 2011). Colour coding is used in this
system so that shoppers can effortlessly and conveniently spot the healthiest food options, such
as distinguishing between foods with high, medium and low sugar and fat content. Even if
consumers dont have much of an idea as how much fat is regarded as a high or low content, the
colour on the label will act as an indicator that certain products should be chosen with a certain
degree of caution.
Food labels and need recognition
There is a complex combination of internal and external factors that could impact or even trigger
food related needs in consumers. The visual aspect of the packaging matters because it promotes
implied messages; one of which is healthiness (Sioutis, 2011). Product logos, colours on
packaging, brand names, packaging types and labels may draw or deter consumers attention
regarding particular food products, causing a favorable behavior or rejection. During the process
of preparation of a dinner or a special meal for some guests, high value brands are preferred over
generic or national brands (Wyma et al, 2012). Merely on the bases of packaging, a product
could be rejected even in the case that the particular product had never been used before (Wells
et al, 2007). On the internal level, personal influences that are more of a physiological and
physical nature may potentially induce a product need, like low blood sugar levels, hunger, or
even just inquisitiveness on seeing product displays at some store.
Therefore, product labels are of significant importance (Peters-Texeira & Badrie, 2005) to
instigate and cater consumers needs, while the packaging of the food, that often carries labelling
information as the containers part, aids in promotion and acts a reminder on the POP(Point of
Purchase) (Mullins et al, 2005).
Characteristics of Nutrition Labeling
Label Formatting
The design and format of nutrition labels and health claims involves:
(1) The literal content of the labels
(2) The complexity of the information displayed
(3) The amount of product-related information on the package
With respect to information content, majority of studies have focused on the empirical analysis
of various different label formats in terms of stated consumer preferences, effects on product
ratings and purchase intentions and comprehension of information. Concerning the amount of
information a label should carry, some studies have found that consumers display distinct
preferences for particular nutrition information formats over others (Muller 1985). Labels that
contain detailed nutrient content information have, in general, been found to be favored by
consumers over summary ratings (like average values of a nutrient in a particular product
category) or adjectival descriptors (such as high/low in) with respect to information processing
comprehension (Viswanathan and Hastak 2002; Freiden 1981; Scammon 1977; Asam and
Bucklin 1973 and Lenahan et al. 1973). The actual cognitive processing of information like this,
however, has been found to happen in a different way. Along the lines of this, alternative
nutrition labels which included; a simplified nutritional index, the Recommended Daily
Allowances (RDA) Index, and a basic nutrition scoreboard stating a nutritional score for the
food product were tested by Venkatesan, Lancaster, and Kendall (1986), and they found that all
of them were seen as quite informative, especially the relatively more comprehensive RDA
Index. But on asking if they would use nutrition labels like these for choosing food products, the
study subjects reported a quite noticeable drop in the usage evaluation (p. 41). By using these
research findings as a baseline, Viswanathan, Hastak, and Gau (2009) advanced the insights on
label format even further when they distinguished among high, medium and low levels of
consumers literacy. While testing for summary information, the authors discovered the
helpfulness for comparatively high-literate participants to hold true while the participants low in
literacy could not gain much benefit from the formatting of this very type (p. 143). Therefore
augmenting the complexity of the issue as there is no defined and clear result on what should or
can be called the right format.
An assumption can be made that boosting concern amongst consumers to pay keen attention to
nutritional information and the following dietary importance may, best, be served by displaying
nutritional indices along with recommended daily values on the products packaging in detail.
Regarding the use of nutritional information to influence the consumers actual selection and
choice of food products, it appears as if the consumer prefers the relatively more simplified,
easy-to-use labels, and nutrition facts panels (cf. Burton and Andrews 1996, p. 82). These
findings line up with other empirical studies related to stated preferences of label formats.
Subjects depict a preference for the most amount of information offered, but it was revealed in
further tests that excessive amount of information can result in relatively poor performance
regarding the comprehension and ease-of-use while making food choices (Block and Peracchio
2006; Levy, Fein, and Schucker 1996; Burton, Biswas, and Netemeyer 1994; Hackleman 1981;
Jacoby, Chestnut, and Silberman 1977; Scammon 1977).
Its, too, been seen that a relatively large amount of nutritional information can have a negative
impact and even deter subjects from utilizing this information in their decisions such as food
choice, purchase or consumption decisions (Brucks, Mitchell, and Staelin 1984). On the other
hand, generalized claims like no cholesterol can be a cause of considerable degree of
nutritional misunderstandings when presented on a package (Burke, Milberg, and Moe 1997) or
in advertising - as a promotional claim (Andrews, Netemeyer, and Burton 1998). Closely related
to this, a substantial amount of research has focused on the possible interactions between
nutritional information and (specific and/or general) health claims that are displayed on food
products. Ford et al. (1996, p. 24), in his study, showed that health claims and nutrition
information on a product had mutually independent effects, with health claims not having an
influence over the nutrition informations processing when both the sources of information were
available (Kozup, Creyer, and Burton 2003, Keller et al. 1997). Health claims had considerable
impact on health-related beliefs, when displayed alone (Ford et al. 1996; Mazis and Raymond
1997). As figured out by Ford et al., the independent-effects model of health claim and nutrition
information only holds if the health claim is correct (Ford et al. 1996; also cf. Keller et al. 1997).
Building along the line of this research, Burton, Andrews, and Netemeyer (2000) tested
mediation and interaction effects of nutritional information disclosure and health claims, in
context of advertising, on consumers evaluations and found out that information disclosure
displayed a strong single effect over health perceptions; it even subjugated any impact of the
claim(s) by disclosure interaction: nutritional information, itself, was able to substantially alter
the perceptions of a subject. These research findings emphasize the results of a previous study
where the same authors had revealed that nutrition information could assist to reduce misleading
general claims, resulting in considerable changes in product evaluation (Andrews, Netemeyer,
and Burton 1998; also cf. Mitra et al. 1999). In the face of previously mentioned dilemma of
excessive amounts of information deterring consumers and too little amount of information
potentially confusing and misleading them, Wansink (2003) carried out further research
regarding the optimal level of health claims and nutritional information on a product. When
making use of both front and back package labels, he showed that short and concise claims on
the front of the packaging combined with relatively larger, much more detailed claims and
nutritional information on the back of it, led the consumers to, considerably, better process and
believe the claims.
Label Wording
The wording of health claims and nutrition labels includes qualitative information regarding the
nature of the conveyed messages along with quantitative information such as reference values
and summary facts. Relative to the qualitative information, significant research has been focused
on health messages framing. Russo et al. (1986), in their study, tested different nutrition
information displays in supermarkets by making comparison between lists of minerals and
vitamins with the lists of added sugar. They discovered that neutral information on nutritional
contents did add to consumers nutrition knowledge but did not have an influence over actual
purchases, while the disclosure about negative food components (sugar) did lead to higher
purchases of same-category foods that were low in sugar content. Findings of similar sorts were
shown by Moorman (1990), who established a structured framework for nutrition information
utilization process. While analyzing the impact of negative consequence information
(information regarding the relationship between consumer and product-level consequences) on
consumers understanding and use of nutrition information, she discovered that as negative
consequence information turned more disturbing and explicit in instruction, the test subjects
were more inclined and able to process the information. Similar results were later obtained by
Bushman (1998) by making comparison between the effects of pure information labels that state
foods nutritional content with labels containing an additional warning (statements about risks
for disease-related conditions). It was found that participants in the warning label scenario were
more interested to sample the full-fat products than the participants who were in the information
label scenario. Though, contrasting results between preference and the actual purchase behavior
were also observed. Bushman, from his research, concluded that warning labels can have
substantial impact and influence on behavior if the risk is realistic and well-known. Relative to
the general nature of message contents, further research studies have focused on the use of added
specifications like low in. Wansink and Chandon (2006) focused on the impact of low-fat
nutrition labels on the consumers consumption behavior and carried out an experiment in which
they found out that, both for utilitarian and hedonic snacks, claims like that increased food intake
through a single consumption occasion (also cf. Geyskens et al. 2007). These findings align with
previous research carried out by Garretson and Burton (2000), in which they showed that health
related information about fat affected consumers perception and evaluation of risks of disease
while the information about fiber didnt. This particular difference in the influence has been
accredited to the lack in consumers nutrition knowledge (Howlett, Burton, and Kozup 2008),
which revealed that the effects of trans-fat labels on consumers product evaluation and risk
perception were vastly moderated by their knowledge on this nutrient, that led to considerable
misinterpretations of such products for the test subjects in low-knowledge condition. These
results fall in line with a related research on the effects of low-carbohydrate claims whereby
consumers who had a lower motivation to process nutrition information were found to be more
likely to get affected by the low-carb claims and, as a result, be more inclined to increase their
purchase intentions (Kemp et al. 2007).
In addition to analyzing qualitative information displayed on health claims and nutrition labels, a
significant amount of research has been focused on the quantitative information disclosure.
Viswanathan (1994), in his research, tested the effect of summary information on the usage of
nutrition labels. Through the results, he showed that providing summary information did
facilitate consumers utilization of numerical nutrition information (Viswanathan, 1994).
Building on the grounds of these findings, Barone et al. (1996) compared reference values such
as percentage daily value (%DV) with the average brand values regarding their effects on
consumers product evaluation and they showed that average-brand values were better at
boosting consumer discrimination between healthy and less healthy products (Barone et al. 1996;
cf. Viswanathan and Hastak 2002, p. 315). A general explanation for the poor performance
shown by recommended daily values to reduce overconsumption comes from the findings that
indicate consumers comprehension and understanding of such kind of nutritional information
being quite highly dependent on his knowledge of how to utilize these percentage values in the
evaluations of dietary recommendations (Li, Miniard, and Barone 2000).
Block and Peracchio (2006) revealed that even the physicians werent able to convert %DV from
the nutrition facts panel into standard milligrams. When making a comparison between verbal
and numerical nutrition information, studies show that qualitative information such as (very)
low or (very) high has numerous different advantages in terms of the weight ascribed to the
product information over the quantitative information when the consumer is evaluating and
judging food products. Advantages like these are there due to the descriptive nature of that
information and even tend to persist if the numerical information is displayed with summary
information to aid consumer interpretation (Burton, Biswas, and Netemeyer 1994; Scammon
1977; Viswanathan 1994, 1996).
Label characteristics that may cause consumer dissatisfaction
The expectation of one would be that the labels physical attributes should be satisfactory; it
means that the product label should be visible, readable and understandable. However in case of
some products, the size of the labels presents some difficulty to people with vision impairment in
reading labels. Certain market segments, therefore, have increasingly raised questions about font
size and colour differentiation (Doyle et al, 2005), like the consumers who are health conscious
or elderly (Dimara & Skuras, 2005; Silayoi & Speece, 2004). Uncertainty and skepticism in
consumers still remains regarding the scientific validity and credibility of health-related claims
on food labels, regardless of food regulations (Worsley & Lea, 2008; Silayoi & Speece, 2004). A
couple of studies report that a number of consumers also find the food labels a bit too time-
consuming to read and hard to follow (Peters-Texeira & Badrie, 2005; Silayoi & Speece, 2004).
The consumers are not also clear on the fundamental principles of the way product information is
presented (for example, that ingredients are listed in a descending order in terms of quantities)
(McEachern & Warnaby, 2008; Doyle et al, 2005). Consumers, from an informational
viewpoint, may possibly turn excessively frustrated in case if they could not find the expected
information on products (such as information about country of origin and food allergens, expiry
dates); or in the case when the content and weight on imported food products are displayed in
imperial and not in metric units (De Magistris & Gracia, 2008; Peters-Texeira & Badrie, 2005);
or if they are not familiar with the symbols or terminology that is used (Mannel et al, 2006;
Miles et al, 2006). Consumers who extensively read food labels and those having very specific
nutrition, food and health-related interests most of the times expect more extensive and
comprehensive information than what is the norm and could possibly get upset in case the
information is not there, like a products connection to a geographic region, its production
methods and traceability (McEachern & Warnaby, 2008; Teisl et al, 2008; Dimara & Skuras,
2005). Excessive information, meanwhile, could also produce negative impact and might result
in information overload (Kimura et al, 2008; Silayoi & Speece, 2004), which give rise to a quite
strong controversy regarding what has to be included in order to please all consumer segments
(Feunekes et al, 2008). At the core, food choices are notably biased if consumers fail to
comprehend label information (Jacobs et al, 2010), because typically in such a case consumers
ignore and overlook the information or might even go as far as rejecting the product to opt for
another, the label information of which seems more useful and elaborate (Silayoi & Speece,
2004). Dissatisfaction among consumers regarding a food label could potentially result in
reduction in preference for a product and perhaps overall product dissatisfaction.
Significance of food labels during pre-purchase evaluation
As compared to most other products, clearly expressed solid and actual product attributes are
displayed on the labels of packaged foods to help customers make a rational and objective
evaluation of the product while shopping in the store. Product information aids in the creation of
awareness and the product specific knowledge, making consumers able to reduce their
consideration set, uncomplicating the product purchase process, improving consumers ability to
limit cognitive dissonance and making improved and well calculated choices (Ladipo et al.,
2012). On the bases of familiarity, decisions on food products could be made precipitately
(Singla, 2010), or after making a more careful comparison between the different alternatives
(Mullins et al, 2005:116). It is somewhat reassuring to have the knowledge that food labels are
regulated and reliable. The pre-purchase evaluation of food products that are purchased regularly
in an in-store setting can be carried out less alertly and rather quickly, without going through the
evaluation of several different alternatives (Silayoi & Speece, 2004). Along with time, the
purchasing of a number of food products and groceries turns habitual, becoming purchase
decisions of low-involvement for majority of households, such as decisions like purchasing sugar
and tea (Adamowicz & Swait, 2011). The process of evaluation, though, could be rather complex
in case a consumer needs to check information on the label and if it happens to be difficult to
analyze and understand (Miles et al, 2006), for instance the units that were used to show the
grading and nutritional information, which are different across different food genres. If the label
information was utilized in selecting a product, the particular information sets a consumers
expectations and the performance of the product would be judged, most probably, in comparison
to the label information (like nutritional information) (Silayoi & Speece, 2004) and would be
decisive in the post-purchase satisfaction of the consumer with the product and his future intent
to repurchase it or not (Schiffman & Kanuk, 2010).
When making the selection of a best suited alternative among various different options, the
evoked set, specific to the food products, of a consumer would comprise of products with certain
characteristics that are most preferred, like the country of origin, ease of preparation or
nutritional content (Mullins et al, 2005). Generally, product attributes and its benefits are
compared in the context of their relative importance via use of a specific decision rule. For
instance a non-compensatory rule would signify that the production of food must be through
organic ways no other attractive aspect such as low price could license bypassing it (Schiffman
& Kanuk, 2010; De Magistris & Gracia, 2008; Mullins et al, 2005). The evaluation of food
products is usually done quite speedily in comparison to the time required to for the evaluation of
other product categories. In a familiar product category, features of any new product are usually
also compared with the products which the consumer has previously purchased (Klein, 2005),
and this comparison can be done without premonition at the POP.



Do consumers use nutrition labels while making food purchase decisions?
A substantial body of work is present, with varied findings, that has examined the predictors and
motivators of nutrition labels use by the consumers. Many studies have suggested that the food
labels carry the potential to affect and change consumer purchasing behaviour (Mackison et al
2008; Mhurchu and Gorton 2007; Drichoutis et al 2006). However, the point has been made that
the consumers should be able to conveniently substitute a less healthy product with a healthier
one (Jensen 2011).
Consumers, in general, report having interest in nutrition labels, think of them as credible
sources of nutrition information and claim they use them frequently (Grunert and Wills 2007;
Mackison et al 2008; Campos et al 2011). As consumers have become more and more concerned
regarding what they eat and how it, in turn, affects their health, the food industry has also
responded to it by providing much more detailed and explicit nutrition information on their food
labels (Petrovici et al. 2012). Nutrition information, however, isnt the most dominant when it
comes to purchase motivations (Grunert and Wills 2007) and the actual label usage falls quite
short of the selfreported use (Grunert et al 2010a; Grunert et al 2010b; Malam et al 2009;
Mhurchu and Gorton 2007; Cowburn and Stockley 2005). Related to this, Grunert et al (2010b)
found that selfreported label use was double the actual use when they were monitoring purchase
behavior within the same product category in the United Kingdom (UK). In line with this, a
couple of studies showed that a minority of consumers look at nutrition labels when shopping
(Bialkova and van Trijp 2010; Wills et al. 2009). Cowburn and Stockley (2005) elaborated that
even if consumers claim and report using labels, what they may do is, in fact, simply look at the
panel carrying nutrition information but not process it further.
This ambiguity about whether and how consumers make use of nutrition labels may be because
of the fact that other motivators like taste, price and time pressure also compete with the amount
of effort linked with the use of nutrition labels (Grunert et al 2010b; Berning et al 2009; Grunert
and Wills 2007; Drichoutis et al 2006). Furthermore, label use inter-relates with other factors
such as whether its the first time selection of the product (and is, therefore, unfamiliar and new
to the consumer), while the labels on routinely purchased products are seldom consulted.
According to Washi (2012) the UAEs consumers only tend to give importance to the nutritional
labeling during first time use and most of them only check the expiry and the manufacturing date
on priority bases. Labels on products considered to be a treat are generally not used either
(Grunert and Wills 2007; Malam et al 2009). Buyers likewise have a tendency to be less
intrigued by nutrition labelling connected to fresh items, for example vegetables, fruits and meat,
while displaying much more interest in getting information regarding processed food items like
readytoeat meals, products where the transparency level was lower i.e. where is it not evident
what the food item comprises of (Grunert and Wills 2007). The authors, Grunert and Wills
(2007), further recommended that variable behaviors and attitudes towards nutrition labels can
include imperiousness to "scientific" information that could be imposing anything which might
decrease the level of enjoyment of food.
Impact on dietary intake
The different research techniques like the questionnaires, surveys and interviews, can potentially
be subject to a bit of bias and cannot apply reliably to real life purchase behaviour over a period
of time or the actual intake of food after the purchase. Furthermore, using cross-sectional data
limits conclusions concerning the causal relationships amongst different variables, such as diet
and label use (and ultimately health). Cowburn and Stockley (2005) in their review couldnt find
much evidence to be present in the scientific literature that links nutrition label use in actual real
shopping situations to improved diet on the community level. Grunert and Wills (2007) also
pointed out this serious gap in scientific research, pointing towards the analysis of product sales,
analysis of consumers willingness to pay and experiments on instore choice as potential future
avenues for reaping further critical information regarding the assessment of whether labels play
any part in the purchase decisions and have any broad effect on community diet. Drichoutis et al,
(2006) discovered that providing nutrition information had a positive relationship with the intake
of healthier nutrients and an inverse (negative) relation with non-healthy components present in
foods, but with that they also acknowledged the study limitation that even though a healthier diet
trend was apparent in few individuals; the particular trend could not be generalized to the whole
society or the population. In their study, Campos et al, (2011) also suggest that even though
package labels may bring out relatively healthier food purchase behavior, there wasnt enough
firm ground to establish it and more work was needed on it.
Recognizing the gaps present in the knowledge, a few studies are present that have looked and
tried to measure the actual reallife purchase behaviour (Sacks et al 2011; Vyth et al 2010;
Sutherland et al 2010; Grunert et al 2010a; Grunert et al 2010b; Sacks et al 2009; Malam et al
2009; Reid et al 2004). There are varied results that could be found and they do not provide a
sufficient amount of evidence for detecting a rather wide and lasting positive impact over
community diet. On the other hand there is also some research present that shows that even some
poor diet related behavior might be induced by some bad nutrition labeling initiative(s) (Wansink
and Chandon, 2006). Nutrition labelling may potentially make consumers able to make healthier
and quicker choices about food, provided that they notice, comprehend, like and trust the
labelling, make actual use of it in crafting their ultimate purchase decision, and they can
conveniently substitute a non-healthy or a less healthy food product with a healthier option
(Jensen 2011; Koenigstorfer and GroeppelKlein 2010; van Trijp 2009; Grunert and Wills 2007).
External influences impacting consumers labeling requirements
External influences, such as economic, marketing and socio-cultural factors, influence the
products that are selected.
1. Economic factors
Economic factors refer to the various implications of general financial situation and purchasing
power of the consumer in terms of the purchase decisions and consumer behaviour. Lower
income groups, seemingly, spend relatively more of their income (household income) on food as
compared to the higher income groups (Du Plessis & Rousseau, 2003) and, as a result, might
face greater levels of financial risk while purchasing food. When they are experiencing some sort
of financial difficulty, consumers tend to spend their money more carefully, and are more likely
to look for quality guarantees and demand value for money (Lamb et al, 2010). In this regard,
product label information is quite helpful in reducing consumers risk perception and to increase
the level of consumer satisfaction. Sadly, the same is not essentially true for consumers from
lower income group with lower levels of education, who dont fully possess the abilities to
optimize product information which would make them able to make more informed switch to
comparatively more affordable and better value for money product options (Lamb et al, 2010).
Consumers, those belonging to lower income group, non-use of much more affordable generic
food products (Wyma et al, 2012) elaborates this dilemma. Consumers with higher income are
certainly more exposed to new and innovative products as they have easier access and better
exposure to media, stores and marketing influences (There is growth in healthy food and
beverages, 2005).
Consumers belonging to the higher income group, who mostly are more educated too as
compared to the lower income groups (Lamb et al, 2010), are more likely to choose more reliable
food products, for example specific brands and grades (Sanlier & Karakus, 2010); are probably
more aware of product alternatives; are more expected to display significant product demands
and product preferences; and would consequently, most probably, make use of food label
information to govern their product choices (Lin & Yen, 2008; Dimara & Skuras, 2005).
2. Socio-demographic Factors
In order to expand the range of possible predictors concerning nutrition information use, socio-
demographic factors have also been made use of. Such factors include demographics such as
gender, age, family size and living situation as well as socioeconomic aspects like income,
education and occupation. Findings about age as a factor influencing nutrition information use
have been controversial to a certain degree. Researchers; Nayga (2000), Wang, Fletcher, and
Carley (1995b) and Klopp and McDonald (1981) all reported from their findings that the age of
the head of a household isnt a key determinant affecting consumer use of food labels, while
Cole and Balasubramanian (1993) reveled an inverse relationship between the age factor and the
success of nutrition information use. They stated that elderly consumers are likely to search
relatively less intensely and accurately as compared to a younger demographic. The findings
backed the results of Moorman (1990), who discovered that aging can enhance consumers
perception of their information processing ability but actually worsens levels of comprehension.
Cole and Gaeth (1990), in their study, showed that age wasnt solely responsible, but it was
along with perceptual ability that it was responsible for the decrease in the accuracy of choice
task. Both the factors, though, were found to be closely related.
Not much research has been carried out about family or household size as a factor in consumers
use of nutrition labels. From whatever work is present, however, studies show that there is
consistency regarding the effects that number of family members living together shows on label
information use in a shopping environment: larger households with greater number of members,
particularly in the presence of small children, will use food labels more than smaller households
(Feick, Herrmann, and Warland 1986; Wang, Fletcher, and Carley 1995a, 1995b).
As a socioeconomic predictor, gender has not been the focus of much research attention and
from whatever work has been done, conflicting results have came to light. Kasapila and Shawa
(2011) found that women were more likely to consult nutrition labels when purchasing food
products than men. Researchers; Nayga (2000), Nayga, Lipinski, and Savur (1998) and Klopp
and McDonald (1981) failed to find any differences regarding the likelihood of them (male and
female shoppers) using nutrition labels. This is in total contrast to the area of economic studies
where the scanner data analysis usually shows significant coefficients for the relationship
between female shoppers and label use (cf. Mathios 1996).
Concerning the socioeconomic aspects, a great deal of research emphasis has been on education
and income as the two key predictors of nutrition information use. In many different settings, it
has been found that education is associated with information seeking, acquisition and healthy
behavior. Klopp and McDonald (1981) did the work that was one of the firsts to report that food
label users were more likely to be relatively more highly educated as compared to the non-users.
A higher level of education is seen as a predictor in nutrition information usage as more educated
consumers are likely to be more knowledgeable of the nutritional value and have higher
comprehension capabilities to interpret this kind of specific information in general terms (Nayga,
Lipinski, and Savur 1998; Feick, Herrmann, and Warland 1986; Wang, Fletcher, and Carley
1995a, 1995b). Further making an input to this consistency between education and use of
nutrition labels, Viswanathan et al. (2009) analyzed the consumer ability further by narrowing
his focus on the idea of literacy. The authors found that just the participants with high literacy
found the summary information provided on food labels to be useful (Viswanathan, Hastak, and
Gau 2009). Seen in reference to these such findings, Moormans (1990) finding that education
had a negative impact over consumers motivation to process the nutrition information as they
thought of their own set of knowledge to be enough, along with her proposition that consumers
should be targeted I informational campaigns based on their educational level depicted a good
deal of foresight.
On the other hand, mixed results have been seen coming from the studies in income. A study in
this regard found that income only had an effect on consumers nutrition knowledge but not the
usage of nutrition label (Nayga, 2000). Evidence can be seen, though, of income having some
positive effects on nutrition label use: Nayga, Lipinski, and Savur (1998), and Wang, Fletcher,
and Carley (1995a, 1995b) all reported that consumers with greater incomes were much more
likely to make use of and comparison between nutrition information labels during household use
of nutrition label is also found to have a positive effect on food expenditure (Wang, Fletcher, and
Carley 1995a, 1995b). Alongside such socioeconomic factors, another factor that has been
studied as a possible predictor in food label use is the employment. Contradictory results happen
to exist, athough, Klopp and McDonald (1981) failed in finding any noteworthy effect that
employment had on the usage of nutrition labels, Nayga (2000) and Nayga, Lipinski, and Savur
(1998) found this effect in their particular studies. There was a higher degree of likelihood
amongst unemployed people to make use of nutrition information labels for making a
comparison between food products as they didnt have noticeable time constraints during
shopping.
3. Personal Factors
Personal factors, such as ability, motivation, knowledge levels, have an influence over
consumers comprehension and understanding of nutrition information. Comprehension is
regarded as a significantly important factor while analyzing enduring ability (nutrition
knowledge) and enduring motivation (involvement) to process the information on nutrition
labels.
Moorman (1990), in her study, examined how both the consumer characteristics and stimulus
impacted the use of nutrition information and found that the harmful consequence information
displayed over the product labels resulted in higher degree of consumer motivation and the
nutrition information processing ability. This result happens to be in-line with the prior research
which showed that format changes in nutrition labels have positive impact on consumers
nutrition data processing ability (Muller 1985), which sequentially puts a considerable effect on
the usage of information like this while evaluation of perceptions about disease risk and making
decisions concerning purchase (Kemp et al. 2007, p. 68).
Wang, Fletcher, and Carley (1995a) found, in their study, the overlaying concept of the long-
term nutrition importance (a characteristic consisting of both ability and motivation) being an
important positive predictor concerning consumers search for nutrition information and its use.
Formerly, Feick, Herrmann, and Warland (1986) had shown that the importance of food
consumption on future health significantly affected consumer nutrition information search and
use. In a proposed model of the use of package claims and nutrition labels, Szykman, Bloom, and
Levy (1997) found significant effects of improved nutrition knowledge of consumers as regards
to cancer, blood pressure and heart disease on both the self-reported use of label and the
situations where study subjects had reported change in their purchase decision following the
getting exposed to the nutrition label (Klopp and McDonald 1981). Though, in contrast, studies
performed by Nayga (2000) and Nayga, Lipinski, and Savur (1998) reported not finding whether
nutrition knowledge had any particular direct effects on the possibility of label use, concluding
from both of them that nutrition knowledge failed to effectively guage consumers nutrition
information evaluation ability; the information which was present on food labels (Nayga,
Lipinski, and Savur, 1998), or the consumers just werent capable of translating the knowledge
they had got into sufficient deal of behavior (Nayga 2000).
In the light of the previous results, Moorman et al, (2004) tried to examine the consumers
research process and the information use in further detail and they found that subjective kind of
knowledge considerably impacted search locations in the manner that it improved the probability
of the test subjects to place them close to rather constant stimuli. Such results clarify, even more,
the basic influences that appear during the nutrition information use phase, signifying the fact
that the consumers may just read the sort of information, and then process it that is in-line with
their own personal belief sets and systems.
To a large extent, the personality of a consumer determines his/her preferences regarding the
products he chooses to buy or consume (Blythe, 2008), together with the preferred packaging
and label formats, and impacts the intricacy of the process of product evaluation. Usually, the
more innovative of the consumers are generally low on risk averseness and are found to be more
willing to try out new products and different product alternatives (Schiffman & Kanuk, 2010;
Blythe, 2008). The urge for adventure and curiosity found in their nature would thus push them
on to test out different new products that may include a careful inspection of label information in
order to ascertain that at least fulfill a certain set of minimum conditions. Whereas, Laggards are
quite traditional and feel hesitant in accepting new products and are much more likely to not opt
for unfamiliar labels that they dont know much about (Schiffman & Kanuk, 2010). Personality
types of different sorts may even exhibit different and somewhat contradicting views regarding
the fonts and colours they prefer on food labels and also the label formats. Therefore the
manufacturers make an effort to limit characteristics of label to the set of colours that, in general,
are linked with the acceptable of the product characteristics, such as the use of white and blue
colours predominantly on the detergents packaging containers (Schiffman & Kanuk, 2010).
Particular characteristics like these would most probably change and differ from culture to
culture, Like the preference to traffic light labeling by German consumers opposed to the
preference given to Guideline Daily Amount labelling by the Belgium customers (Mser et al,
2010). Therefore a significant difference between the packaging of local and imported products
could be noticed, even though legislation still enforces certain amount of minimum requirements
over all the food products which are sold in the country.
Consumers perception is another key influencing factor. It is the process through which
selection, categorization and interpretation of sensory stimuli is carried out, and is dependent on
the prior experiences and senses of the consumers (Schiffman & Kanuk, 2010; Hoffman et al,
2005; Mullins et al, 2005), such as the understanding of cues and the capacity to differentiate
visual cues like font sizes and colours on the labels. Some characteristics of the product act as
guidelines during decision making process of a consumer, which minimizes the amount of effort
needed to scrutinize the labelling information, like making an assumption regarding imported
chocolates being of better quality or that certain wine brands are exceptional (Lamb et al, 2010).
Attitudes of the consumers are enduring emotions or the negative or positive assessments that
establish the like/dislike or their liking for specific products and consequently their intentions
(Schiffman & Kanuk, 2010). Consumers product knowledge, therefore, influences their attitudes
(Schiffman & Kanuk, 2010) and consumers attitudes could be changed through new and
updated knowledge about products, which could be provided by means of food labels and
encouragement to consult and trust label information. Consumers product preferences actually
signify their atti-tudes towards products (Blackwell et al, 2006:88), based on a greater interest,
desirabil-ity and liking of one product over another (Hornby, 2005:1142) that might increase pur-
chase intentions (Schiffman & Kanuk, 2010:481). Labels of food products can be used to shape
consumers beliefs and/or feelings about a product, for example claiming that a par-ticular food
product is fat free or nutritious. Similarly, certain types of information such as genetically
modified might evoke extreme neg-ative attitudes (Batrinou et al, 2008). Food la-belling
legislation (Regulations relating to the labeling and advertising of foodstuffs, 2010) has become
particularly strict and limits any claims that could induce unfounded positive attitudes to increase
product sales.
4. Marketing related influences
Marketing related influences stem from consumers direct contact to the companies or their
products and marketing efforts like advertising, personal selling and sales promotions (Kole et
al, 2009). When all the products are displayed together alongside on another, the visible graphics
and the product information displayed on food labels like the name of the product, brand, colours
and logo communicate, along with others, the products quality and image and to a large extend
determine the products success in comparison to the competition present (Wright, 2006;
Arnould et al, 2004). To boost sales, smarter strategies have been crafted over time. Such as the
utilization of kaleidoscope packaging which proposes making changes to the packaging of the
products frequently to augment a demand regarding the packaging instead of the product. Often
the children are the ones who get targeted in this way, like for instance when the manufacturers
of breakfast cereals print various famous television characters on the packaging to persuade
children about collecting all of them (Lamb et al, 2010).
Marketing efforts play a helpful role in communicating with the consumers and are specifically
crafted to impact and even trigger needs of the consumers, at the same time making an influence
on the consumers product decisions (the products consumers purchase and why) along with
their loyalty with the store and the product (Wright, 2006).
Nutrition labeling in Pakistan
Almost no other literature could be found on the subject of nutrition labeling in Pakistan other
than the work of Hassan and Bakhatir (2012). They focused their study to find out the awareness
among the Pakistani people regarding nutrition labeling and their labeling usage patterns. As
reported in studies of Washi (2012) and a few others authors in different markets, It was reported
that most of the Pakistani people not only considered nutritional labeling while considering a
completely new brand but also while making a purchase for the first time of a known brand, but
they do not repeat this behavior for frequent purchases after that. (Hassan and Bakhatir, 2012).
Requirements Specific to Nutritional Labeling
As per the food and drug regulatory environment in Pakistan, it is not mandatory to display
nutrition information on product labels but U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
regulations are generally accepted as guidelines. Based upon FDA and Codex revisions, Pakistan
Standards and Quality Control Authority updates its nutrition labeling guidelines continuously
(FAIRS Country Report, 2011).
The key features are:
Nutritional labels are optional, on the decree of the supplier, and not a regulatory
requirement (FAIRS Country Report, 2011).
If it meets the FDA regulations, the standard U.S. nutritional fact panel is generally
acceptable. (FAIRS Country Report, 2011)
No regulatory restrictions can be found on the importing of products with nutritional or
nutrient claims. They are seen as marketing tools by the Pakistani regulatory authorities
and, hence, do not require them to be based upon specific scientific evidence. (FAIRS
Country Report, 2011)
Along with explicit claims, there is also no restriction over implied claims.
In case of a products claim to be a source or provider of vitamins or minerals, it has to be
registered, both in the name of the manufacturer and importer, with the federal
government before its arrival. (FAIRS Country Report, 2011)
Key Words: Nutrition labelling, Food labeling, Nutrion knowledge, Purchase behavior,
Consumer, Packaging