Popcorn - Nutrition Labels and SES

In a study currently published in the journal Appetite, researchers Crockett, Jebb, Hankins and Marteau (2014) tested the effect of a low fat and a high fat label placed on a bucket of popcorn and the amount of calories consumed.  In other words, will the amount of popcorn calories be different based on whether a person has a low fat, high fat or no label?  In the study, the researchers also tested to see if there was a relationship between a persons’ BMI; concern about their weight (either they said that they were dieting to lose weight or that they were trying to maintain their weight); or their socioeconomic status (a combined measure of educational attainment and income, which in this case was ascertained by zip code, so more of a neighborhood SES).  The researchers looked at two way (e.g., did the effect of the label play out differently based on whether or not someone was concerned about their weight) and three way (e.g., did the outcome depend on whether a person was concerned about their weight, but only if that person was also low SES (i.e., poor)) interactions. 

The study took place in the UK, and though the researchers did what they could to mask the experiment (i.e., they told people that they were assessing how emotion affects taste), it was still unnatural (i.e., 1) they knew they were in a study and that researchers were going to collect the popcorn buckets at the end, and 2) they had to fill out a questionnaire at 3 time  points during their stay at the cinema).  Nonetheless, and taken with a little popcorn salt, the findings were interesting.

First, the use of labels in general, a RED high fat or a GREEN low fat did not change consumption.  Whether a person got a bucket of popcorn with no label, a red label or a green, they ate on average 549 calories if it was toffee flavored and 242 calories if it was salt flavored (from this I am guessing butter was not involved!).  There was not an interaction between label and BMI or label and weight concern.  So for the basic question of whether labeling led to a difference in the amount of calories consumed, segmenting people based on BMI or weight concern didn’t change the outcome - there was no effect.

However, when looking at 3 way interactions, the researchers found some interesting paradoxes ~ though not necessarily new ones.  SES does seem to matter when you also consider weight concern.  Interestingly, a person who was concerned about their weight and was more affluent ate more popcorn when they had a low fat label than a similar person who was not concerned about their weight.  The higher SES person who was concerned about their weight ate MORE with a low fat label; on the other hand, a low SES person who was concerned about their weight ate less popcorn whether the label said low fat or high fat.  In other words, when they had a popcorn with a label on it, they ate LESS than if they had a popcorn without a label.  The researchers expect that the label is a prompt - a reminder that calories matter. 

What does all this mean?  Well, you have to answer that question for yourself and do read the study if you are so inclined, because I am not sure that I interpreted everything correctly.  My thought, much in line with the researchers, is that nutrition labeling can work, but we need to understand more about how it works and for whom.  I also think that the type of label is of utmost importance.  I did not like these  because low or high fat doesn't tell you anything about calories.

Crockett, R. A., Jebb, S. A., Hankins, M.,& Marteau, T. M. (2014). The impact of nutritional labels and socioeconomicstatus on energy intake: an experimental field study. Appetite.

M&Ms: Labels, Calorie Estimates, and Calories Eaten

   This month, researchers Ebneter et al published the results of a study that explored 4 outcomes related to labeling and calorie disclosure.  I am only going to tell you about 2 of the outcomes. One is the amount of calories consumed and the other is the amount of calories the people 'guessed' were in a serving size.  Outcomes 3 and 4 are not a research interest of mine.  For your information, they were 'taste perception' and 'perception of healthiness.'

   The study was an experiment that took place outside of a natural setting.  The people involved in the study were all undergraduate female college students attending a Hawaiian university.  I tell you this so you can consider how much you are like the people who were in the study.

   For the experiment, the researchers placed the women in one of 4 rooms.  Each room had a bowl of uniquely colored M&Ms.  The women were told that they were taking part in a taste test.  A card was set next to each bowl of M&Ms. One card said Low Fat M&Ms and nothing more.  One card said Low Fat M&Ms and one serving (~55 pieces) has 240 calories.  A third card said Regular M&Ms and nothing more and the last card said Regular M&Ms and gave the same calorie information.  (There was no actual difference in the M&Ms).

   The researchers weighed the bowl before and after each of the 175 women went into a room (one woman at a time per room). They gave the women 15 minutes to do the taste test and then removed the items. When the items were gone, the researchers asked the women to estimate the number of calories in a serving of the M&Ms they had tasted. 

   Here is what they learned. (NOTE: the differences might have been by chance alone, i.e., there was not a statistically significant difference between the numbers).

   People with a low fat label ate more calories than those in the regular label group. People without a calorie label in the low fat condition guessed the calories per serving lower than 240.  People without a calorie label in the regular label condition guessed the calories too high (more than 240).

   I will let you think about that.  My concern is the focus on high and low fat when the problem (in general) is consuming too many calories.  I am especially concerned that people mistakenly think low fat is low calorie AND that people do not know how many calories is low or high.  I believe that this study doesn't support the use of low fat labels as much as it supports the use of a traffic light label.  With a traffic light label we can put a big red circle around the fat grams and the calories.

    Here is a nutrition facts panel for a bag of M&Ms - I don't think they make 'low fat' ones.  M&Ms are high in fat - but have 3 times as much sugar as fat!

   There are several labels out there, but according to Mars, the maker of M&Ms, a package this size has 240 calories, 10 grams of fat and 30 grams of sugar.

Here is the study citation.

Ebneter, D. S., Latner, J. D., & Nigg, C. R. (2013). Is less always more? The effects of low-fat labeling and caloric information on food intake, calorie estimates, taste preference, and health attributions. Appetite, 68(0), 92-97. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2013.04.023