- Email: [email protected]
Issues in food advertising—The nutrition educator's viewpoint
~
s
~
R
Issues in Food AdvertisingThe Nutrition Educator's Viewpoint
c
Lynda Schwartzberg, Claire George and Margaret C. Phillips
H
A survey of SHE members' opinions on nutritional claims for food. Summary A survey of 291 SNE members obtained information on their attitudes and practices related to issues in food advertising. Comparisons between different categories of food, e.g., "natural" vs. engineered foods, were not generally favored. Misleadingfeatures in food ad comparisons were identified. Emphatic terminology, e.g., "excellent source of . .. ," was used by many respondents to describefoods, but many variables seemed to enter into the use of this descriptor. A majority of those surveyed used the term "nutritious" to describe foods, meals and/or diets. Several types of definitions of "nutritious" were offered. Four Food Groups type foods were generally rated "nutritious," while there was less certainty about highcalorie, high-sugar foods and fortified or fabricated foods. Respondents strongly favored the potentially informative role of nutrition advertising and supported the need for regulations governing voluntary nutritional claims. The information from this survey may be useful in discussions leading to agreed standards for using nutritional claims in both food advertising and nutrition education programs.
Nutritional Claims Studied Can the nutritional values of different foods usefully be compared? What kinds of comparisons are deceptive or misleading? Are emphatic nutrient claims-e.g., "pork is an excellent source of thiamin" -used in nutrition education? What nutrient level might quality a food for such a claim? Do nutrition educators use the term "nutritious"? If so, what foods might be described in this way? The above were some of the basic questions addressed in a survey recently completed by the Society for Nutrition Education (SNE) (1). The survey was part of a larger study of specific selected issues related to the Federal Trade Commission's proposed Trade Regulation Rule on Food Advertising (2-5). The study involved in addition to the survey, evaluation of current food composition data and review of information gathered from nutrition education materials, textbooks and advertisements. This article will discuss highlights of the attitudes! practices survey of nutrition educators. Further detailed information about the entire study and its recommendations is available in the full report (1).
Survey Design The sampling unit for the survey consisted of approximately 20070 of the U.S. SNE membership, excluding student members. SNE membership files are organized in zip code order, and every
THE AUTHORS are, respectively, Nutrition Consultant, 1519 Valley Rd., Kensington, CA 94707; Teaching Associate, Department of Nutritional Sciences, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720; and Associate Editor, Journal of Nutrition Education, 2140 Shattuck Ave., Suite 1110, Berkeley, CA 94704. 60
J oumal of Nutrition Education
Vol. 9
No.2
April-June 1977
seventh card was selected, resulting in a sample of 528. Geographic representation and breakdown by job description and place of employment were comparable to those of the total membership (Ref. 1, pp. 66-67). During development, the questionnaire was pretested with 20 persons in the professional nutrition field in the Berkeley area. It was reviewed for content and format by a five-member SNE Expert Panel advising on the study and by staff of the Survey Research Center, University of California, Berkeley. The questionnaire was divided into several sections: 1 comparison claims of advertisers 2 emphatic claims 3 the word "nutritious" 4 general statements about advertising 5 personal data. It was a mailed, self-administered questionnaire. Anonymity of the respondents was maintained throughout. Two hundred ninety-one questionnaires, representing a 55% return, were returned in time for inclusion in the tabulations of results. Respondents reached quite a wide variety of consumer audiences as shown in Table 1. Questionnaire responses were analyzed by computer.
Comparison Claims Respondents were asked to react to five comparison claims quoted directly from current food advertisements. They were asked to rate each claim "true," "false," "responsible," "misleading" or "deceptive." These were not mutually exclusive descriptors, and respondents were asked to check all the descriptions they felt applied to each claim. Table 1 Audiences and numbers of people directly reached in one year with nutrition information by survey respondents
Primary Audience Preschool! day care children Elementary and! or secondary school students University and! or college students Patients (in or out) Adults in informal setting Colleagues and co-professionals Paraprofessionals Others No answer
Percentages 4
8 28
22 16
10
3 6 3
Approximate number of people
1-50 50-200 200-500
500-1,000 1,000 and over No answer
9
21 21
18
28 3
Claims were selected for the questionnaire to represent specific types of comparisons. The claims and explanations of what types they represented are given in Table 2; the explanations were not included, however, on the questionnaire. Some of the claims. were rated as both "true" and "misleading." This may illustrate the importance of the implied message in the claim, or the total context of the claim, as opposed to the literal truth of a factual comparison.
Emphatic Claims Respondents were asked to indicate what terminology, e.g., "excellent," "good," they might use to describe to a consumer the value of listed foods as sources of a specific nutrient. Various foods were listed for the following nutrients: protein, calcium, iron, vitamin A, vitamin C, thiamin, riboflavin, niacin. Data were provided on the % U.S. RDA per stated serving for respondents' optional use. Items listed in the questionnaire were chosen to represent a wide range of nutrient levels and types of foods. Respondents selected the emphatic terms "excellent" and "good" frequently for many of the nutrient sources. However, terminology did not appear to be applied consistently according to any single criterion. Table 3 summarizes responses for three selected nutrients. Thirty-eight percent of the respondents chose to write comments on emphatic claims in space provided on the questionnaire. Although comments were open ended, it was possible to group together similar types of comments by the major issues addressed. Respondents tended to comment on mOre than one
Table 2
issue. The comments offer explanations for the diversity of responses:
I
Serving size was mentioned by 32% of the respondents. For example, one cup of dried peaches or almonds, the amount given on the questionnaire, is not a representative serving size. • Frequency of consumption was another variable, mentioned by 24% of the respondents. For example, wholewheat bread containing 6% U.S. RDA of thiamin per slice was rated considerably higher than one sweet potato, also containing 6% U.S. RDA. Bread is a food consumed more frequently and might be considered to be a significant contributor of thiamin, even though a single slice does not contribute very much. • Socioeconomic factors, such as cost, role of the food in the usual U.S. diet or cultural dietary patterns, were mentioned by 8%. Swiss chard and sardines, for example, are not very commonly consumed and hence might be considered of limited significance as nutrient providers. • Bioavability of nutrients was mentioned by 4%. Almond protein is of lower biological value than milk protein, for example. Even though the protein quality difference is taken into account in setting the protein U.S. RDA, the difference between the ratings for milk and almonds for protein may be explained partly by this factor. • Nutrient density-the amount of fat, sugar or calories in relation to the nutrient content-was commented on by 3% of the respondents. This factor may explain the low rating for ice cream as a source of protein. •
Comparison claims and survey responses
Type a/Claim'
Description
Percentage l Response
"Fresh whole milk ... An important food for children. With proteins, vitamins, minerals, but not much iron ... And you need iron to help build healthy red blood. It would take 35, 8-ounce glasses of milk every day ... 35 ... to give you all the iron you get in one serving of enriched Cream of Wheat Cereal."
Spurious3 Comparison
Misleading True Deceptive Responsible False
65 36 25 8 6
"Welch's Sunshake is the rousing breakfast drink that'll wake you up with its refreshing eye-opening taste. Sunshake's Breakfast Orange, with more vitamin C than fresh orange juice ... "
"Natural"4 compared with engineered
Misleading Deceptive True Responsible False
61 31 25 8 6
"Carnation Instant nonfat dry milk has all the calcium, protein, B-vitamins of whole milk ... "
"Natural" with "natural"
True Responsible Misleading Deceptive False
76 38
Advertising Claim
11
4 3
"Have you considered comparing whole wheat Total with the leading natural cereals? You'll see there's a big difference. One ounce of fortified Total gives you 1000/0 of the Recommended Daily Allowance of all these important vitamins 5 and iron. One ounce of the leading natural cereals gives you no more than 6% ... "
"Natural" with fortified
Misleading True Deceptive Responsible False
50 43 18 14 7
"Borden cuts cheese calories in half with Lite-line slices. Lite-line slices give you the mellow flavor of process American cheese but only half the calories. Lite-line is lower in fat ... high in protein ... "
"Dangling"6 comparison
True Misleading Responsible Deceptive False
46 33 30 13 5
ISince it was possible to respond with more than one descriptor, the percentages do not total I 00"70. Rather, they reflect the percentage of those surveyed who checked that response. Many respondents checked only one answer. 2The information on types of claims was not included in the questionnaire 3"Spurious"-comparison ofa food's nutrient level with a recognized poor source of that nutrient 4"Natural" for the purpose of this study refers to a traditional, basic food that is not highly processed 5Vitamins A, C, E, B-6, B-12, thiamin, riboflavin, niacin and folic acid 6" Dangling" -comparison of the nutrient level of a food to a nonspecified or unclear st.,::lard or reference
April-June 1977
Vol. 9
No.2
Journal of Nutrition Education
61
•
"Trigger levels"-minimum levels of the nutrient per serving of food-were mentioned by a few respondents as their sole criterion for rating food items. These comments illustrate that nutrition educators consider factors other than nutrient levels important in their overall assessment of emphatic claims for foods as nutrient sources.
Nutrition terminology should be consistent in nutrition education and food advertising.
"Nutritious" Claims Respondents were requested to state their frequency of use of the word "nutritious" to describe foods, meals and diets. A high proportion indicated that they used the term frequently or sometimes. Meals were described as "nutritious" most frequently, followed closely by individual foods, then a person's dietary pattern. Responses to this question are given in Table 4. In response to an open-ended question asking for a personal definition of "nutritious," answers were many and varied. However, there were certain identifiable themes, and the definitions could be classified into categories representing the major themes. The most frequent response embodied the concept of "high in nutrients, containing one or more nutrients" (28%), followed by "for health, growth and! or well being" (16070), and incorporating a nutrient density concept (15070). Eight foods were listed on the questionnaire for classification as "nutritious" or "not nutritious." Apple, enriched rice, peanut butter, ground beef and tomato were rated "nutritious" by a high proportion of respondents. A lower rating was given to chocolate pudding-a high-calorie, high-sugar food. Fortified/ fabricated foods were classified as "not nutritious" by slightly more respondents than those classifying the foods as "nutritious." These foods also received high '. 'don't know" replies. Table 5 gives the breakdown of responses on the food classification question. From the nature of the responses and survey respondents' comments on the questionnaire, it was evident that factors other than nutrient content also played a part in use of the word "nutritious"-from concern about sugar intake and fortification to the question of an individual's nutritional needs.
Table 3
Table 4
Respondents' use of the term "nutritious"
Percentages
Use ojthe term "Nutritious"
Frequently
Individual foods Meals A person's dietary pattern
Table 5
Rarely
Never
46 48
30 38
20 11
3 2
37
22
23
16
No Answer
2
Classification of foods as "nutritious" or "not nutritious"
Nutritious Tang l Enriched rice Chocolate pudding Fresh apple Peanut butter Ground beef Breakfast Squares l Fresh tomato I Brand
Sometimes
34 72
56 75 84 84 31 81
Percentages Not Don't Nutritious Know
36 7 21 6
No Answer
11
3 4 2 1 1 18 1
33 2
19 18 20 17 15 15 18 16
name
Survey responses on selected emphatic claims
Percentage oj Responses Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
21 67
61
46 23 36 31 1 28
28 8 40 6 6 8
5 2 12 1 91 1
84
13
1 2 31 14 23 1
1 4 93
1 28 39 40
2 55 32
Don't Know or No Response
U. S. RDA Data Given on Questionnaire!
Food as source of protein Almonds Eggs Ice cream Milk Mustard greens Sardines
11
62
1 2 1
60070 15070 15070 20070 4070 30070
per cup, 142 g per egg, 50 g per cup, 244 g per cup, 244 g per cup, 140 g per 2 OZ, 57 g
Food as source of vitamin A Swiss chard Flank steak Pink grapefruit Dried peaches Sweet red pepper Baked potato
1 5 31 50 1
1
54 19
95 60
2 2 1 4 5
190070 per cup, 175 g 0070 per 3 OZ, 85 g 10070 per 1/2 fruit, 241 g 120070 per cup, 160 g 70070 per 1 pod, 90 g 0070 per large potato, 202 g
Food as source of thiamin Pork loin Navy beans Sweet potato Whole-wheat bread
86 10
11
57 4 23
5
1 1 2 1
60070 per 3 OZ, 85 g 20070 per cup, 180 g 6070 per medium potato, 146 g 6070 per slice, 28 g
IAll U.S. RDA data were taken from Nutrition Labeling: Tools for its Use. Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 382, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Washington, D. c., 1975.
62
Journal of Nutrition Education
Vol.9
No.2
April-June 1977
General Statements The questionnaire incorporated four statements ranked on a five-point Agree/Disagree scale. Responses to these statements gave strong support to the potentially informative role of food advertising and to the need for regulations covering nutritional claims: • 94070 strongly agreed or agreed that food advertising could give consumers useful nutrition information • 92070 strongly agreed or agreed that if a nutrient claim is made for a food in an ad, the amount or 070 U.S. RDA of that nutrient per serving should be stated • 870/0 strongly agreed or agreed that terminology for voluntary nutrition claims in food advertising should be regulated for accuracy and consistency • 60070 strongly agreed or agreed that much of the current food advertising is not nutritionally accurate.
Implications for Advertising and Education This survey has drawn together the first known body of information on nutrition educators' attitudes and practices regarding ways of communicating the nutritional value of food. It provides data on current usage of nutrition terminology and insights into the varied factors influencing attitudes and practices. In order to provide consumers with accurate and consistent food and nutrition information, there is a need for agreement on conditions for use of nutritional claims. Nutrition terminology should be consistent in nutrition education and food advertising. This would be an important step for nu~rition educators, industry and government toward improving the nutritionalliteracy of the consumer. 0 Acknowledgements This survey was supported by the Federal Trade Commission program of compensation for participation in rulemaking. Thanks are due to the members of the Society for Nutrition Education who participated in the survey, and to the members of the
1977
SNE Expert Panel: Ann L. Burroughs, Dr.P.H., Assistant Director, Human Resources, Cooperative Extension, University of California, Berkeley; Johanna Dwyer, D.Sc., Director, Frances Stern Nutrition Center, New England Medical Center Hospital and Associate Professor, Tufts University Medical School, Boston, Mass.; Joan D. Gussow, Ed.D., Chairperson, Nutrition Program, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, N.Y.; Helen A. Guthrie, Ph.D., Professor of Nutrition, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pa.; and Jerry L. Moore, Ph.D., Associate Director of Nutrition, The Pillsbury Company Research and Development Laboratories, Minneapolis, Minn. Helen D. Ullrich, SNE Executive Director, directed the project. Katherine A. Cooper, SNE Consultant, acted as a consultant.
Notes The use of specifIc products or brand names as food examples in this article should not be construed as criticism or endorsement of these foods. The complete report of this study, Nutritional Claims for Food, is available from the Society for Nutrition Education, 2140 Shattuck Ave., Suite 1110, Berkeley, CA 94704, 180 pp., $20.00, Copies of the Executive Summary of the study, 4 pp., are available from the same address for 50C!: plus self-addressed return envelope with thirteen-cent stamp afftxed. The questionnaire used in the survey is available from SNE on request; include a self-addressed return envelope with twentyfour cents in stamps afftxed.
References 1 Society for Nutrition Education, Nutritional Claims for Food, Berkeley, Calif., 1976. 2 Federal Trade Commission, Food advertising: Proposed Trade Regulation Rule, Federal Register, 39(No. 218):39842, Nov. 11, 1974. 3 Society for Nutrition Education, Proposed food advertising regulations, SNE Communicator, 5(No. 4):4, Dec. 1974. 4 Federal Trade Commission, Food advertising: Final notice regarding proposed Trade Regulation Rule, Federal Register, 41(No. 42): 8980, March 2, 1976. 5 Society for Nutrition Education, Hearings set for proposed FTC food advertising regulations, SNE Communicator, 7(No. 1):7, March 1976.
Challenge of Change TENTH ANNUAL MEETING
See Page56A
April-June 1977
VoI.9
No.2
Journal of Nutrition Education
63
s
~
R
Issues in Food AdvertisingThe Nutrition Educator's Viewpoint
c
Lynda Schwartzberg, Claire George and Margaret C. Phillips
H
A survey of SHE members' opinions on nutritional claims for food. Summary A survey of 291 SNE members obtained information on their attitudes and practices related to issues in food advertising. Comparisons between different categories of food, e.g., "natural" vs. engineered foods, were not generally favored. Misleadingfeatures in food ad comparisons were identified. Emphatic terminology, e.g., "excellent source of . .. ," was used by many respondents to describefoods, but many variables seemed to enter into the use of this descriptor. A majority of those surveyed used the term "nutritious" to describe foods, meals and/or diets. Several types of definitions of "nutritious" were offered. Four Food Groups type foods were generally rated "nutritious," while there was less certainty about highcalorie, high-sugar foods and fortified or fabricated foods. Respondents strongly favored the potentially informative role of nutrition advertising and supported the need for regulations governing voluntary nutritional claims. The information from this survey may be useful in discussions leading to agreed standards for using nutritional claims in both food advertising and nutrition education programs.
Nutritional Claims Studied Can the nutritional values of different foods usefully be compared? What kinds of comparisons are deceptive or misleading? Are emphatic nutrient claims-e.g., "pork is an excellent source of thiamin" -used in nutrition education? What nutrient level might quality a food for such a claim? Do nutrition educators use the term "nutritious"? If so, what foods might be described in this way? The above were some of the basic questions addressed in a survey recently completed by the Society for Nutrition Education (SNE) (1). The survey was part of a larger study of specific selected issues related to the Federal Trade Commission's proposed Trade Regulation Rule on Food Advertising (2-5). The study involved in addition to the survey, evaluation of current food composition data and review of information gathered from nutrition education materials, textbooks and advertisements. This article will discuss highlights of the attitudes! practices survey of nutrition educators. Further detailed information about the entire study and its recommendations is available in the full report (1).
Survey Design The sampling unit for the survey consisted of approximately 20070 of the U.S. SNE membership, excluding student members. SNE membership files are organized in zip code order, and every
THE AUTHORS are, respectively, Nutrition Consultant, 1519 Valley Rd., Kensington, CA 94707; Teaching Associate, Department of Nutritional Sciences, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720; and Associate Editor, Journal of Nutrition Education, 2140 Shattuck Ave., Suite 1110, Berkeley, CA 94704. 60
J oumal of Nutrition Education
Vol. 9
No.2
April-June 1977
seventh card was selected, resulting in a sample of 528. Geographic representation and breakdown by job description and place of employment were comparable to those of the total membership (Ref. 1, pp. 66-67). During development, the questionnaire was pretested with 20 persons in the professional nutrition field in the Berkeley area. It was reviewed for content and format by a five-member SNE Expert Panel advising on the study and by staff of the Survey Research Center, University of California, Berkeley. The questionnaire was divided into several sections: 1 comparison claims of advertisers 2 emphatic claims 3 the word "nutritious" 4 general statements about advertising 5 personal data. It was a mailed, self-administered questionnaire. Anonymity of the respondents was maintained throughout. Two hundred ninety-one questionnaires, representing a 55% return, were returned in time for inclusion in the tabulations of results. Respondents reached quite a wide variety of consumer audiences as shown in Table 1. Questionnaire responses were analyzed by computer.
Comparison Claims Respondents were asked to react to five comparison claims quoted directly from current food advertisements. They were asked to rate each claim "true," "false," "responsible," "misleading" or "deceptive." These were not mutually exclusive descriptors, and respondents were asked to check all the descriptions they felt applied to each claim. Table 1 Audiences and numbers of people directly reached in one year with nutrition information by survey respondents
Primary Audience Preschool! day care children Elementary and! or secondary school students University and! or college students Patients (in or out) Adults in informal setting Colleagues and co-professionals Paraprofessionals Others No answer
Percentages 4
8 28
22 16
10
3 6 3
Approximate number of people
1-50 50-200 200-500
500-1,000 1,000 and over No answer
9
21 21
18
28 3
Claims were selected for the questionnaire to represent specific types of comparisons. The claims and explanations of what types they represented are given in Table 2; the explanations were not included, however, on the questionnaire. Some of the claims. were rated as both "true" and "misleading." This may illustrate the importance of the implied message in the claim, or the total context of the claim, as opposed to the literal truth of a factual comparison.
Emphatic Claims Respondents were asked to indicate what terminology, e.g., "excellent," "good," they might use to describe to a consumer the value of listed foods as sources of a specific nutrient. Various foods were listed for the following nutrients: protein, calcium, iron, vitamin A, vitamin C, thiamin, riboflavin, niacin. Data were provided on the % U.S. RDA per stated serving for respondents' optional use. Items listed in the questionnaire were chosen to represent a wide range of nutrient levels and types of foods. Respondents selected the emphatic terms "excellent" and "good" frequently for many of the nutrient sources. However, terminology did not appear to be applied consistently according to any single criterion. Table 3 summarizes responses for three selected nutrients. Thirty-eight percent of the respondents chose to write comments on emphatic claims in space provided on the questionnaire. Although comments were open ended, it was possible to group together similar types of comments by the major issues addressed. Respondents tended to comment on mOre than one
Table 2
issue. The comments offer explanations for the diversity of responses:
I
Serving size was mentioned by 32% of the respondents. For example, one cup of dried peaches or almonds, the amount given on the questionnaire, is not a representative serving size. • Frequency of consumption was another variable, mentioned by 24% of the respondents. For example, wholewheat bread containing 6% U.S. RDA of thiamin per slice was rated considerably higher than one sweet potato, also containing 6% U.S. RDA. Bread is a food consumed more frequently and might be considered to be a significant contributor of thiamin, even though a single slice does not contribute very much. • Socioeconomic factors, such as cost, role of the food in the usual U.S. diet or cultural dietary patterns, were mentioned by 8%. Swiss chard and sardines, for example, are not very commonly consumed and hence might be considered of limited significance as nutrient providers. • Bioavability of nutrients was mentioned by 4%. Almond protein is of lower biological value than milk protein, for example. Even though the protein quality difference is taken into account in setting the protein U.S. RDA, the difference between the ratings for milk and almonds for protein may be explained partly by this factor. • Nutrient density-the amount of fat, sugar or calories in relation to the nutrient content-was commented on by 3% of the respondents. This factor may explain the low rating for ice cream as a source of protein. •
Comparison claims and survey responses
Type a/Claim'
Description
Percentage l Response
"Fresh whole milk ... An important food for children. With proteins, vitamins, minerals, but not much iron ... And you need iron to help build healthy red blood. It would take 35, 8-ounce glasses of milk every day ... 35 ... to give you all the iron you get in one serving of enriched Cream of Wheat Cereal."
Spurious3 Comparison
Misleading True Deceptive Responsible False
65 36 25 8 6
"Welch's Sunshake is the rousing breakfast drink that'll wake you up with its refreshing eye-opening taste. Sunshake's Breakfast Orange, with more vitamin C than fresh orange juice ... "
"Natural"4 compared with engineered
Misleading Deceptive True Responsible False
61 31 25 8 6
"Carnation Instant nonfat dry milk has all the calcium, protein, B-vitamins of whole milk ... "
"Natural" with "natural"
True Responsible Misleading Deceptive False
76 38
Advertising Claim
11
4 3
"Have you considered comparing whole wheat Total with the leading natural cereals? You'll see there's a big difference. One ounce of fortified Total gives you 1000/0 of the Recommended Daily Allowance of all these important vitamins 5 and iron. One ounce of the leading natural cereals gives you no more than 6% ... "
"Natural" with fortified
Misleading True Deceptive Responsible False
50 43 18 14 7
"Borden cuts cheese calories in half with Lite-line slices. Lite-line slices give you the mellow flavor of process American cheese but only half the calories. Lite-line is lower in fat ... high in protein ... "
"Dangling"6 comparison
True Misleading Responsible Deceptive False
46 33 30 13 5
ISince it was possible to respond with more than one descriptor, the percentages do not total I 00"70. Rather, they reflect the percentage of those surveyed who checked that response. Many respondents checked only one answer. 2The information on types of claims was not included in the questionnaire 3"Spurious"-comparison ofa food's nutrient level with a recognized poor source of that nutrient 4"Natural" for the purpose of this study refers to a traditional, basic food that is not highly processed 5Vitamins A, C, E, B-6, B-12, thiamin, riboflavin, niacin and folic acid 6" Dangling" -comparison of the nutrient level of a food to a nonspecified or unclear st.,::lard or reference
April-June 1977
Vol. 9
No.2
Journal of Nutrition Education
61
•
"Trigger levels"-minimum levels of the nutrient per serving of food-were mentioned by a few respondents as their sole criterion for rating food items. These comments illustrate that nutrition educators consider factors other than nutrient levels important in their overall assessment of emphatic claims for foods as nutrient sources.
Nutrition terminology should be consistent in nutrition education and food advertising.
"Nutritious" Claims Respondents were requested to state their frequency of use of the word "nutritious" to describe foods, meals and diets. A high proportion indicated that they used the term frequently or sometimes. Meals were described as "nutritious" most frequently, followed closely by individual foods, then a person's dietary pattern. Responses to this question are given in Table 4. In response to an open-ended question asking for a personal definition of "nutritious," answers were many and varied. However, there were certain identifiable themes, and the definitions could be classified into categories representing the major themes. The most frequent response embodied the concept of "high in nutrients, containing one or more nutrients" (28%), followed by "for health, growth and! or well being" (16070), and incorporating a nutrient density concept (15070). Eight foods were listed on the questionnaire for classification as "nutritious" or "not nutritious." Apple, enriched rice, peanut butter, ground beef and tomato were rated "nutritious" by a high proportion of respondents. A lower rating was given to chocolate pudding-a high-calorie, high-sugar food. Fortified/ fabricated foods were classified as "not nutritious" by slightly more respondents than those classifying the foods as "nutritious." These foods also received high '. 'don't know" replies. Table 5 gives the breakdown of responses on the food classification question. From the nature of the responses and survey respondents' comments on the questionnaire, it was evident that factors other than nutrient content also played a part in use of the word "nutritious"-from concern about sugar intake and fortification to the question of an individual's nutritional needs.
Table 3
Table 4
Respondents' use of the term "nutritious"
Percentages
Use ojthe term "Nutritious"
Frequently
Individual foods Meals A person's dietary pattern
Table 5
Rarely
Never
46 48
30 38
20 11
3 2
37
22
23
16
No Answer
2
Classification of foods as "nutritious" or "not nutritious"
Nutritious Tang l Enriched rice Chocolate pudding Fresh apple Peanut butter Ground beef Breakfast Squares l Fresh tomato I Brand
Sometimes
34 72
56 75 84 84 31 81
Percentages Not Don't Nutritious Know
36 7 21 6
No Answer
11
3 4 2 1 1 18 1
33 2
19 18 20 17 15 15 18 16
name
Survey responses on selected emphatic claims
Percentage oj Responses Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
21 67
61
46 23 36 31 1 28
28 8 40 6 6 8
5 2 12 1 91 1
84
13
1 2 31 14 23 1
1 4 93
1 28 39 40
2 55 32
Don't Know or No Response
U. S. RDA Data Given on Questionnaire!
Food as source of protein Almonds Eggs Ice cream Milk Mustard greens Sardines
11
62
1 2 1
60070 15070 15070 20070 4070 30070
per cup, 142 g per egg, 50 g per cup, 244 g per cup, 244 g per cup, 140 g per 2 OZ, 57 g
Food as source of vitamin A Swiss chard Flank steak Pink grapefruit Dried peaches Sweet red pepper Baked potato
1 5 31 50 1
1
54 19
95 60
2 2 1 4 5
190070 per cup, 175 g 0070 per 3 OZ, 85 g 10070 per 1/2 fruit, 241 g 120070 per cup, 160 g 70070 per 1 pod, 90 g 0070 per large potato, 202 g
Food as source of thiamin Pork loin Navy beans Sweet potato Whole-wheat bread
86 10
11
57 4 23
5
1 1 2 1
60070 per 3 OZ, 85 g 20070 per cup, 180 g 6070 per medium potato, 146 g 6070 per slice, 28 g
IAll U.S. RDA data were taken from Nutrition Labeling: Tools for its Use. Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 382, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Washington, D. c., 1975.
62
Journal of Nutrition Education
Vol.9
No.2
April-June 1977
General Statements The questionnaire incorporated four statements ranked on a five-point Agree/Disagree scale. Responses to these statements gave strong support to the potentially informative role of food advertising and to the need for regulations covering nutritional claims: • 94070 strongly agreed or agreed that food advertising could give consumers useful nutrition information • 92070 strongly agreed or agreed that if a nutrient claim is made for a food in an ad, the amount or 070 U.S. RDA of that nutrient per serving should be stated • 870/0 strongly agreed or agreed that terminology for voluntary nutrition claims in food advertising should be regulated for accuracy and consistency • 60070 strongly agreed or agreed that much of the current food advertising is not nutritionally accurate.
Implications for Advertising and Education This survey has drawn together the first known body of information on nutrition educators' attitudes and practices regarding ways of communicating the nutritional value of food. It provides data on current usage of nutrition terminology and insights into the varied factors influencing attitudes and practices. In order to provide consumers with accurate and consistent food and nutrition information, there is a need for agreement on conditions for use of nutritional claims. Nutrition terminology should be consistent in nutrition education and food advertising. This would be an important step for nu~rition educators, industry and government toward improving the nutritionalliteracy of the consumer. 0 Acknowledgements This survey was supported by the Federal Trade Commission program of compensation for participation in rulemaking. Thanks are due to the members of the Society for Nutrition Education who participated in the survey, and to the members of the
1977
SNE Expert Panel: Ann L. Burroughs, Dr.P.H., Assistant Director, Human Resources, Cooperative Extension, University of California, Berkeley; Johanna Dwyer, D.Sc., Director, Frances Stern Nutrition Center, New England Medical Center Hospital and Associate Professor, Tufts University Medical School, Boston, Mass.; Joan D. Gussow, Ed.D., Chairperson, Nutrition Program, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, N.Y.; Helen A. Guthrie, Ph.D., Professor of Nutrition, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pa.; and Jerry L. Moore, Ph.D., Associate Director of Nutrition, The Pillsbury Company Research and Development Laboratories, Minneapolis, Minn. Helen D. Ullrich, SNE Executive Director, directed the project. Katherine A. Cooper, SNE Consultant, acted as a consultant.
Notes The use of specifIc products or brand names as food examples in this article should not be construed as criticism or endorsement of these foods. The complete report of this study, Nutritional Claims for Food, is available from the Society for Nutrition Education, 2140 Shattuck Ave., Suite 1110, Berkeley, CA 94704, 180 pp., $20.00, Copies of the Executive Summary of the study, 4 pp., are available from the same address for 50C!: plus self-addressed return envelope with thirteen-cent stamp afftxed. The questionnaire used in the survey is available from SNE on request; include a self-addressed return envelope with twentyfour cents in stamps afftxed.
References 1 Society for Nutrition Education, Nutritional Claims for Food, Berkeley, Calif., 1976. 2 Federal Trade Commission, Food advertising: Proposed Trade Regulation Rule, Federal Register, 39(No. 218):39842, Nov. 11, 1974. 3 Society for Nutrition Education, Proposed food advertising regulations, SNE Communicator, 5(No. 4):4, Dec. 1974. 4 Federal Trade Commission, Food advertising: Final notice regarding proposed Trade Regulation Rule, Federal Register, 41(No. 42): 8980, March 2, 1976. 5 Society for Nutrition Education, Hearings set for proposed FTC food advertising regulations, SNE Communicator, 7(No. 1):7, March 1976.
Challenge of Change TENTH ANNUAL MEETING
See Page56A
April-June 1977
VoI.9
No.2
Journal of Nutrition Education
63