Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Access
  • Cited by 12
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Crosetto, Paolo Muller, Laurent and Ruffieux, Bernard 2016. Réponses des consommateurs à trois systèmes d’étiquetage nutritionnel face avant. Cahiers de Nutrition et de Diététique, Vol. 51, Issue. 3, p. 124.

    Kleef, Ellen Van and Dagevos, Hans 2015. The Growing Role of Front-of-Pack Nutrition Profile Labeling: A Consumer Perspective on Key Issues and Controversies. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, Vol. 55, Issue. 3, p. 291.

    Lwin, May O. Vijaykumar, Santosh and Chao, Jiang 2015. “Natural” and “Fresh”: An Analysis of Food Label Claims in Internationally Packaged Foods in Singapore. Journal of Food Products Marketing, Vol. 21, Issue. 6, p. 588.

    Vanderlee, Lana White, Christine M. Bordes, Isabelle Hobin, Erin P. and Hammond, David 2015. The efficacy of sugar labeling formats: Implications for labeling policy. Obesity, Vol. 23, Issue. 12, p. 2406.

    Yuri Seo, Dr. Angela Gracia B. Cruz, Dr. and Lwin, May O. 2015. Comparative practices of food label claims from US, EU and selected Southeast Asian countries. Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 32, Issue. 7, p. 530.

    Maubach, Ninya Hoek, Janet and Mather, Damien 2014. Interpretive front-of-pack nutrition labels. Comparing competing recommendations. Appetite, Vol. 82, p. 67.

    Rampersaud, Gail C. Kim, Hyeyoung Gao, Zhifeng and House, Lisa A. 2014. Knowledge, perceptions, and behaviors of adults concerning nonalcoholic beverages suggest some lack of comprehension related to sugars. Nutrition Research, Vol. 34, Issue. 2, p. 134.

    Hawley, Kristy L Roberto, Christina A Bragg, Marie A Liu, Peggy J Schwartz, Marlene B and Brownell, Kelly D 2013. The science on front-of-package food labels. Public Health Nutrition, Vol. 16, Issue. 03, p. 430.

    Pettigrew, Simone and Pescud, Melanie 2013. The Salience of Food Labeling Among Low-income Families With Overweight Children. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, Vol. 45, Issue. 4, p. 332.

    Sacco, Jocelyn E. Sumanac, Dunja and Tarasuk, Valerie 2013. Front-of-Package References to Fiber on Foods in Canadian Supermarkets Highlight the Need for Increased Nutrition Knowledge Among Consumers. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, Vol. 45, Issue. 6, p. 518.

    Harris, Jennifer L Thompson, Jacqueline M Schwartz, Marlene B and Brownell, Kelly D 2011. Nutrition-related claims on children's cereals: what do they mean to parents and do they influence willingness to buy?. Public Health Nutrition, Vol. 14, Issue. 12, p. 2207.

    Pomeranz, Jennifer L. 2011. Front-of-Package Food and Beverage Labeling. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Vol. 40, Issue. 3, p. 382.


Testing consumer perception of nutrient content claims using conjoint analysis

  • Adam Drewnowski (a1), Howard Moskowitz (a2), Michele Reisner (a2) and Bert Krieger (a2)
  • DOI:
  • Published online: 15 January 2010

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) proposes to establish standardized and mandatory criteria upon which front-of-pack (FOP) nutrition labelling must be based. The present study aimed to estimate the relative contribution of declared amounts of different nutrients to the perception of the overall ‘healthfulness’ of foods by the consumer.


Protein, fibre, vitamin A, vitamin C, calcium and iron were nutrients to encourage. Total fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, total and added sugar, and sodium were the nutrients to limit. Two content claims per nutrient used the FDA-approved language. An online consumer panel (n 320) exposed to multiple messages (n 48) rated the healthfulness of each hypothetical food product. Utility functions were constructed using conjoint analysis, based on multiple logistic regression and maximum likelihood estimation.


Consumer perception of healthfulness was most strongly driven by the declared presence of protein, fibre, calcium and vitamin C and by the declared total absence of saturated fat and sodium. For this adult panel, total and added sugar had lower utilities and contributed less to the perception of healthfulness. There were major differences between women and men.


Conjoint analysis can lead to a better understanding of how consumers process information about the full nutrition profile of a product, and is a powerful tool for the testing of nutrient content claims. Such studies can help the FDA develop science-based criteria for nutrient profiling that underlies FOP and shelf labelling.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Testing consumer perception of nutrient content claims using conjoint analysis
      Available formats
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Testing consumer perception of nutrient content claims using conjoint analysis
      Available formats
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Testing consumer perception of nutrient content claims using conjoint analysis
      Available formats
Corresponding author
*Corresponding author: Email
Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

1.A Drewnowski & F Fulgoni (2008) Nutrient profiling of foods: creating a nutrient-rich food index. Nutr Rev 66, 2339.

7.B Krieger , R Cappuccio & H Moskowitz (2003) Next generation healthy soup: an exploration using conjoint analysis. J Sens Stud 18, 249268.

10.H Moskowitz , A Gofman , B Itty (2001) Rapid, inexpensive, actionable concept generation and optimization: the use and promise of self-authoring conjoint analysis for the food service industry. Food Service Technol 1, 149167.

12.A Gofman (2006) Emergent scenarios, synergies and suppressions uncovered within conjoint analysis. J Sens Stud 21, 373414.

14.VL Fulgoni 3rd, DR Keast & A Drewnowski (2009) Development and validation of the nutrient-rich foods index: a tool to measure nutritional quality of foods. J Nutr 139, 15491554.

15.N Darmon , F Vieux , M Maillot (2009) Nutrient profiles discriminate between foods according to their contribution to nutritionally adequate diets: a validation study using linear programming and the SAIN,LIM system. Am J Clin Nutr 89, 12271236.

18.G Cowburn & L Stockley (2005) Consumer understanding and use of nutrition labelling: a systematic review. Public Health Nutr 8, 2128.

19.AC Drichoutis & P Lazaridis (2005) Nutrition knowledge and consumer use of nutritional food labels. Eur Rev Agric Econ 32, 93118.

20.S-Y Kim , RM Nayga Jr & O Capps Jr (2001) Health knowledge and consumer use of nutrition labels: the issue revisited. Agric Resource Econ Rev 30, 1019.

21.S Burton & JC Andrews (1996) Age, product nutrition, and label format effects on consumer perceptions and product evaluations. J Consum Aff 30, 6989.

22.RJ Nayga (2000) Nutrition knowledge, gender, and food label use. J Consum Aff 34, 97112.

24.JA Garretson & S Burton (2003) Effects of nutrition facts panel values, nutrition claims, and health claims on consumer attitudes, perceptions of disease-related risks, and trust. J Public Policy Mark 19, 213227.

25.J Kozup , E Creyer & S Burton (2003) 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 67, 1934.

26.C Mhurchu & D Gorton (2007) Nutrition labels and claims in New Zealand and Australia: a review of use and understanding. Aust N Z J Public Health 31, 105112.

27.DR Luce & JW Tukey (1964) Simultaneous conjoint measurement: a new type of fundamental measurement. J Math Psychol 1, 127.

28.PE Green , AM Krieger & Y Wind (2001) Thirty years of conjoint analysis: reflections and prospects. Interfaces 31, S56S73.

29.DR Wittink & P Cattin (1989) Commercial use of conjoint analysis: an update. J Mark 53, 9196.

30.DR Wittink , M Vriens & W Burhenne (1994) Commercial use of conjoint analysis in Europe: results and critical reflections. Int J Res Mark 11, 4152.

31.RW Harrison & E McLennon (2004) Analysis of consumer preferences for biotech labelling formats. J Agric Appl Econ 36, 159171.

32.W Hu , MM Veeman & WL Adamowicz (2005) Labelling genetically modified food: heterogeneous consumer preferences and the value of information. Can J Agric Econ 53, 83102.

33.I Pardoe & DK Simonton (2008) Applying discrete choice models to predict academy award winners. J R Stat Soc Ser D, The Statistician 171, 375394.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Public Health Nutrition
  • ISSN: 1368-9800
  • EISSN: 1475-2727
  • URL: /core/journals/public-health-nutrition
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *