Do Nutritional Labels Affect Caloric Intakes

1
Do Nutritional Labels Affect Caloric Intakes?

• Dr. Rodolfo M. Nayga, Jr.
• Professor
• Department of Agricultural Economics Texas AM
  University
• Rnayga_at_tamu.edu

2
Presentation Outline

• NLEA
• Motivation
• Dietary Impact Study
• Objectives What do we want to know?
• Empirical Framework, Estimation, Data, Findings
• Another Area of Focus Child Nutrition and
  Obesity Project

3
Aims of NLEA

• promote consumer nutritional education
• enable consumers to make more healthful food
  choices
• provide incentive to food industry to create
  innovative and healthier new products for
  consumers

4
Types of Nutritional Information on Food Labels

• nutrition panel
• list of ingredients
• serving size and no. of servings
• nutrient content claims
• health claims

5
(No Transcript)
6
(No Transcript)
7
(No Transcript)
8
(No Transcript)
9
(No Transcript)
10
(No Transcript)
11
Motivation?

• only 12 of Americans eating healthfully
• 4 of the top 10 causes of death (heart disease,
  cancer, stroke, diabetes) are associated with
  poor diets
• diet-related health conditions cost society 250
  billion annually in medical costs and lost
  productivity

12
The Global Epidemic
Slide 12 is The Global Epidemic 3D projections
graph which is too big to store with this file
apologies. It is on the disk as project.wmf
and can be inserted as a picture on a slide. It
can also be accessed through our Web Site and
copied from there. http/www.rri.sari.ac.uk/iotf
13
(No Transcript)
14

• cost to food industry 1.4- 2.3 Billion
• Issue - does it affect consumer choice and
  caloric intake?
• improved dietary patterns could save 43B in
  medical care costs (Frazao)

15
What do we want to know?

• the effect of general nutritional label use on
  consumers caloric intakes (calories from total
  fat, calories from saturated fat, total calories)
  

16
Empirical Framework

• Stiglers economics of information search
• information search factors (Moore and Lehmann
  Katona and Mueller Park et al Becker Beatty
  and Smith Guthrie et al)
• environment - urbanization, region
• individual differences - demographic factors
• behavioral variables - special diet, smoking,
  exercise

17
Empirical Framework

• Grossmans health demand model
• consumers produce commodities with inputs of
  market goods and their own time
• these goods are inputs into a production
  function of commodities
• Example
• commodity good health
• input nutrition/ diet

18

• Data
• Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals
  (CSFII) and Diet and Health Knowledge Survey
  (DHKS)
• nationally representative sample
• in-person 2 nonconsecutive day 24 hour recall and
  telephone interviews
• sample persons 20 years of age and older
• sample size about 5,400

19
Endogenous Switching Regression Model

• Econometric problem
• sub-sample heterogeneity between label users and
  non-label users
• unobservable correlation between label use
  decision and nutrient intakes demand
• Sample selection corrected nutrient intakes
  equation
  
• N1 X?1 ?1u?(Z?)/?(Z?) ?1 if I1
• N0 X?0 - ?0u?(Z?)/1-?(Z?) ?0 if
  I0
• Estimation procedure FIML

20
Calculation of the Effect of Label Use

• Average nutrient intakes when using the label
  EN1I1 X?1 ?1u?(Z?)/?(Z?)
• Average potential nutrient intakes when not using
  the label
• EN0I1X?0 ?0u?(Z?)/?(Z?)
• Total effect of label use
• ?EEN1I1- EN0I1

21
Calories from Total Fat Model Non-Label Users

• Age nonlinear (/-)
• Females gt males by 1.6
• Whites gt others by 4.8
• Employed gt unemployed by 1.5
• Suburban residents gt city residents by 1.6
• Western residents gt Southern residents by 2
• Regular exercisers gt non-exercisers by 2.2

22
Calories from Total Fat Model Label Users

• Age nonlinear (/-)
• Males gt females by 1
• African Americans gt whites by 1
• Whites gt others by 3.2
• Non-metro residents gt suburban residents by 1.6
• Midwest residents gt Southern residents by 1
• Not on Special diet gt special diet by 4.7
• Smokers gt non-smokers by 1.3
• Non-exercisers gt Regular exercisers by 1.4
• Non-vegetarians gt vegetarians by 3

23
Calories from Saturated Fat Model Non-Label
Users

• Age nonlinear (/-)
• Whites gt others by 2
• Schooling in years - positive effect (0.10/yr)
• Midwest residents gt Southern residents by 0.8
• Not on special diet gt special diet by 1.5
• Regular exercisers gt non-exercisers by 0.6

24
Calories from Saturated Fat Model Label Users

• Whites gt others by 1.6
• Nonmetro residents gt suburban residents by 0.6
• Schooling in years - negative effect (-0.08 /
  yr)
• Food stamp recipients gt non-food stamp recipients
  by 0.7
• Knowledge about diet-disease linkage negative
  effect
• Not on special diet gt special diet by 2.1
• Smokers gt non-smokers by 0.6
• Non-regular exercisers gt regular exercisers by
  0.5
• Non-vegetarians gt vegetarians by 1.8

25
Total Calories Non-Label Users

• Age - nonlinear (-/)
• Males gt females by 464 calories
• Whites gt blacks by 379 calories
• Regular exercisers gt non-regular exercisers by
  180 calories
• Non-vegetarians gt vegetarians by 1.8

26
Total Calories Label Users

• Age - nonlinear (-/)
• Males gt females by 688 calories
• South gt West by 167 calories
• Not on special diet gt special diet by 167 calories

27
Nutritional Label Use and Changes in Nutrient
Intakes
28
Individuals Meeting the Dietary Guidelines
Calories from Total Fat
29
Individuals Meeting the Dietary Guidelines
Calories from Saturated Fat
30
Nutritional Label Use and Changes in Total
Calories, Weight, and BMI
31

• Next Area of Research Focus
• Child Nutrition Project

32
Objectives

• We want to know the effect of these factors
  (economic, sociological, psychological) on
  childrens diets and risk of obesity
• maternal and paternal time allocation and
  pressure, work schedule and work commitment
• Maternal and paternal earned, unearned income
• financial structure of the household
• parenting style
• role strains and conflicts job stress, marital
  strains, work spillover to home

33
Research Team

• 2 economists
• 2 sociologists
• 2 nutritionists
• 2 PhD students

34
Data Collection

• Collected economic, sociological, and nutrient
  intake data from 325 families in Houston, Texas
• Sample obtained thru random digit dialing
• Components of Survey
• Children (9-11 and 13-15 year olds)
• Parents

35
Child Interview Personal Interview

• Sociological and nutritional questions
• Parenting style
• Efforts to lose weight
• Exercise
• Health habits
• Use of vitamin- mineral supplements
• Family meal rituals
• About 1 hour and 15 minutes in duration

36
Child Interview Physical Exam

• Height
• Weight
• Triceps skinfold
• Subscapular skinfold
• Waist circumference
• Hip circumference
• Tanner

37
Child Interview 24-Hour Recall

• Three-day food intake diary
• Two-day activity diary

38
Parents Telephone Interview

• Sociological and economic questions
• Both parents (dual-headed households)
• Single parent (female-headed households)
• Work hours
• Work schedule regularity, predictability,
  flexibility
• Personal health habits
• Childs health history
• Family rituals
• Approximately 30 minutes in duration

39
Parents Self-Administered Questionnaire

• Earned income
• Unearned income
• Expenditures food and non-food items
• Financial structure question
• Two-day Time diary
• Part of objective - test income-pooling
  hypothesis and time-pooling hypothesis

40
Models we are developing

• Child BMI (continuous, obesity in percentile)
• Waist/hip ratio
• Bodyfat waistsubscaptriceps
• Various Nutrients
• Diet quality (Healthy Eating Index)