Results from a random sample of 1,300 households in Louisiana suggest that seniors are the most frequent users of food labels, but they are also more likely to agree that labels are hard to interpret. Consumers in the 18-to-25 age group are more likely to use friends, relatives, and food-company publications as their main sources of nutritional information.Food Consumption/Nutrition/Food Safety,

McLean-Meyinsse, Patricia E.

Summers, Jock J.

English

Research Papers in Economics

Intergenerational Use of and Attitudes Toward Food Labels 
in Louisiana
Patricia E. McLean-Meyinsse and Jock J. Summers
Results from a random sample of 1,300 households in Louisiana suggest that seniors are the most frequent users of food 
labels, but they are also more likely to agree that labels are hard to interpret. Consumers in the 18-to-25 age group are 
more likely to use friends, relatives, and food-company publications as their main sources of nutritional information.
The United States is facing a serious health crisis be-
cause of the rising number of overweight and obese 
citizens. Although the country’s obesity problem did 
not occur overnight, it has now reached epidemic 
levels. Using data from the National Health and Nu-
trition Examination 2003–2004 Survey (NHANES), 
the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reported that 
66.5 percent of adults aged 20 years and older are 
either overweight or obese, and that 13.9 percent 
of children between 2 and 5 years old, 18.8 percent 
of children (6–11 years) and 17 percent of adoles-
cents (12–19 years) are overweight. Consequently, 
more than 12.5 million children and adolescents 
aged 2–19 years old were overweight, and more 
than 66 million adults were obese (32.2 percent of 
the population). Five percent of adults between 20 
and 74 years of age were excessively or morbidly 
obese (CDC 2006a, 2006b). The NHANES data 
also suggested that overweight and obesity rates 
increased from 1999 levels across gender, race, age, 
and ethnic groups (CDC 2006a, 2006b).
The prevalence of overweight among girls grew 
from 13.8 percent in 1999 to 16 percent in 2004, 
while that for boys rose from 14 to 18.2 percent over 
the same period. A higher percentage of African-
American girls were overweight compared to other 
ethnic groups; 30 percent of Caucasian adults were 
obese compared to 45 percent of African Americans; 
adolescents were less likely to be overweight than 
were children; and younger adults were less likely 
to be obese than older adults (CDC 2006b). Miech 
et al. found that associations between the prevalence 
of overweight adolescents and poverty status dif-
fered by age stratum. For example, there were no 
statistical differences in overweight and poverty 
status for 12–14-year-old adolescents. However, 
wide disparities existed between weight and pov-
erty status among all ethnic groups for adolescents 
aged 15 to17 years old (Miech et al. 2006).
Serious health problems have been associated 
with being overweight or obese. And research 
suggests that overweight or obese individuals 
have increased risks for hypertension, high cho-
lesterol, type-2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, 
cerebrovascular disease, stroke, gout, sleep apnea, 
osteoarthritis, gallbladder disease, and some forms 
of cancer (CDC 2004; Crane et al. 1997; Louisiana 
Department of Health and Hospitals 2006). Super-
sized fries, lack of sleep, and the disdain for exer-
cise have increased U.S. demand for super-sized 
wheelchairs, hospital beds, and caskets (Lamberg 
2006). Overweight children also are more likely to 
suffer from depression and low self-esteem and to 
become obese adults. The risks for childhood obe-
sity are linked to parental weight, working status 
of mothers, and number of hours spent watching 
television and playing video games, (Adachi-Mejia 
et al. 2007; Campbell, Crawford, and Ball 2006; 
Crepinsek and Burstein 2004; Gable, Chang, and 
Krull 2007; Variyam 2001). Additionally, young 
girls were more likely to have lower test scores 
if they were not overweight in kindergarten but 
became overweight by the end of the third grade 
(Datar and Sturm 2006). 
The situation is no different in Louisiana. Be-
tween 1991 and 2004, the state’s adult obesity rate 
grew from 16 to 27 percent, and the percentage 
of overweight or obese residents rose from 49 to 
63 percent (Louisiana Department of Health and 
Hospitals 2006). More recent information from the 
Trust for America’s Health (2007) suggests that the 
trend is continuing. Louisiana now ranks fourth in 
the country for obesity in its adult population (28.2 
The authors are professor and undergraduate student, 
respectively, Division of Agricultural Sciences, Southern 
University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 
        Financial support for the project was provided by the 
United States Department of Agriculture’s Cooperative State 
Research, Education, and Extension Service, and by Southern 
University Agricultural Research and Extension Center. McLean-Meyinsse and Summers Intergenerational Use of and Attitudes toward Food Labels in Louisiana   93
percent) and ninth in terms of overweight youths 
aged 10–17 (17.2 percent). The report also suggests 
that about 31.3 percent of adults in the state do not 
engage in any physical activity, compared to 22 
percent at the national level (Trust for America’s 
Health 2007).
Because of rising medical costs and research 
linking diet and health, Congress passed the Nutri-
tion Labeling and Education Act in 1990 to pro-
vide consumers with easier access to nutritional 
information. This Act was different from previous 
legislation because it regulated nutrition labeling 
and nutritional claims such as fat-free or low in fat. 
The new food labels were to provide information on 
serving size, servings per container, and the amount 
per serving of calories, total fat, cholesterol, sodium, 
total carbohydrate, dietary ﬁ  ber, sugars, protein, and 
other nutrients (Golan et al. 2000).  Nutritional Facts 
panels were introduced on most processed foods in 
mid-1994.  Consumers therefore had an easily ac-
cessible source of nutritional information for more 
than 13 years, yet overweight and obesity rates have 
been trending upwards. This suggests that consum-
ers may not be using the labels to make healthier 
food choices. 
Given the tripling in overweight and obesity rates 
in children and adults over the past 30 years, the 
difﬁ  culty in achieving long-term weight loss, and 
the increased costs associated with treating diet-re-
lated health problems, every step must be explored 
to avert these rates from rising any further. Our 
study examines nutritional practices and attitudes 
among four groups of consumers in Louisiana to 
determine whether additional strategies are needed 
to help consumers to make better food choices.
Objectives 
The study’s objectives are to assess levels of 
food-label use, attitudes toward food labels, and 
the sources used for nutritional information by 
Generation Next (18–25); Generation X (26–40); 
Baby Boomers (41–60); and Seniors (> 60) in 
Louisiana.
Data and Procedures
Data were compiled from a random sample of 
primary grocery shoppers and/or meal preparers 
in Louisiana’s 64 parishes in the fall of 2002. The 
survey was conducted by a market research ﬁ  rm 
and contained 1,300 participants. The comprehen-
sive data set included information on  nutritional 
awareness and knowledge of links between diet 
and health, use of Nutrition Facts panels in food 
buying and meal preparation decisions, levels of un-
derstanding of food-labeling information, primary 
sources of nutritional information, perceptions of 
overall diet and health, food-security issues, and 
respondents’ socioeconomic and demographic 
characteristics. 
This study reports information on how often re-
spondents read food labels (READ), the usefulness 
of the labeling information (USEFUL), levels of 
conﬁ  dence in using labels to choose a healthy diet 
(CONFIDENT), levels of difﬁ  culty in interpreting 
the labeling information (HARD), respondents’ 
interest in learning more about labels (LEARN), 
whether labeling information is superior to own 
knowledge (BETTER), and the main sources of 
nutritional information for the four age groups. 
The sources of nutritional information are doctor, 
nurse, or other health professional (DOCTOR); nu-
tritionist, dietitian, home economist, or extension 
agent (AGENT); relatives or friends (FRIENDS); 
radio or television programs (RADIO); newspa-
pers, magazines, or books (PAPER), government 
or health-organization publications (HEALTH); and 
food-company publications (FOOD).
 For label use and information sources, the 
response categories are (4) often, (3) sometimes, 
(2) rarely, and (1) never. The response categories 
for the other statements are (5) strongly agree, (4) 
somewhat agree, (3) neutral, (2) somewhat disagree, 
and (1) strongly disagree. Given the ordinal nature 
of the response categories, we employed the Krus-
kal-Wallis (K-W) rank test for differences in mean 
ranks among the four age groups. Triola (2001) 
expresses the K-W Rank Test as
(1)
      
H
NN
R
n
R
n
R
n
N
k
k
=
+
++ +
⎛
⎝
⎜
⎞
⎠
⎟
−+
12
1
31
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
()
()
"
       
where N = total number of observations in all sam-
ples combined, K = number of samples, R1= sum of 
ranks for Sample 1, and n1 = number of observations 
in Sample 1. For Sample 2, the sum of ranks is R2 
and the number of observations is represented by Journal of Food Distribution Research 39(1) 94   March 2008
n2.  Similar notations apply to the other samples. If 
the data have ranks R instead of original values x, 
Triola (2001) suggests that many components are 
predetermined, and that the sum of all ranks can be 
expressed as N (N + 1) / 2.  The following expres-
sion combines the weighted variances of ranks to 
produce the test statistic H (Triola 2001):
(2)  H
NN
nR R ii =
+
− ⎛
⎝
⎜
⎞
⎠
⎟ ∑
= 12
1
2
()
,
where R
R
n
R
R
n
i
i
i
i
1 ==
∑
∑
=
.
Under the K-W test, the null hypothesis for a 
particular response category is that the rankings 
are the same across the age groups. The alternative 
hypothesis is that at least one of the rankings differs 
across groups. For large samples, the test statistic 
can be approximated by the chi-square distribution 
with k−1 degrees of freedom.  
Empirical Results and Discussion
Based on the age groupings, 13 percent of the 
respondents are classified as Generation Next 
(GenNext), 23 percent as Generation X (GenX), 
36 percent as Baby Boomers (GenBaby), and 26 
percent as seniors (Senior). Two percent of the 
respondents did not provide age information. The 
results in Table 1 suggest that there are no statisti-
cally signiﬁ  cant differences in the rankings for the 
frequency of using labels among the four groups of 
consumers. Although not statistically signiﬁ  cant, 
the mean rankings for label use are lower among 
the 18–25 and the 26–40 age groups than among 
older consumers. Compared to other age groups, 
members of Generation Next and Generation X are 
least likely to agree that the food-labeling informa-
tion is useful. Baby Bloomers are more conﬁ  dent 
that they know how to use labels to make better food 
choices than are other age groups. The younger age 
groups tend to ﬁ  nd food labels easier to interpret, but 
express some interest in learning more about labels. 
A lower percentage of consumers in the 18–25 age 
group agreed with the statement that using foods 
labels to choose foods was better than relying on 
their own knowledge about nutrition.  
Table 2 shows the rankings for the major sources 
consumers use for nutritional information. Overall, 
respondents get their nutritional information from 
healthcare professionals, friends and relatives, and 
from government and food-company publications. 
Radio, television, newspapers, magazines, and 
books do not statistically signiﬁ  cantly inﬂ  uence 
consumers’ rankings of nutritional sources. Thus 
these sources are not major players in the dissemina-
tion of nutritional information to consumers. Older 
respondents rely more on healthcare professionals 
for nutritional information than do younger consum-
ers. The main nutritional sources for 18–25-year-old 
respondents are friends, relatives, and food-com-
pany publications.  
Table 1. Label Use and Attitudes Toward Food Labeling Information.
Attributes
GenNext
(18–25)
GenX
(26–40)
GenBaby
(41–60)
Senior
(>60) χ2 P-value
Read 621.41 617.24 646.40 646.99 2.2190 0.5280
Useful 609.27 616.50 670.88 620.20 8.0550** 0.0450
Conﬁ  dent 565.84 618.94 661.83 651.92 11.5210*** 0.0090
Hard 589.86 627.09 630.06 676.43 7.4970** 0.0580
Learn 656.84 668.58 608.60 636.97 5.7930 0.1220
Better 601.13 652.44 658.76 609.88 6.7190* 0.0810
Note: (*), (**), and (***) denote statistical signiﬁ  cance at the 10-percent, 5-percent, and 1-percent levels of probability, respectively.McLean-Meyinsse and Summers Intergenerational Use of and Attitudes toward Food Labels in Louisiana   95
Conclusion
Louisiana now ranks fourth in the country in the 
level of obesity of its adult population (28.2 per-
cent) and ninth in terms of overweight youths aged 
10–17 (17.2 percent). About 31.3 percent of adults 
in the state do not engage in any physical activity, 
compared to 22 percent at the national level. Several 
studies have found strong links between watching 
television and obesity, and that watching television 
can elevate blood pressure in obese children and 
teenagers. However, it does not appear that this 
medium is being used to disseminate nutritional 
information. Our study suggests that consumers 
18–25 years old rank radio and television as their 
fourth source for nutritional information, and that 
this group is more likely to rely on relatives, friends, 
and food-company publications for nutritional in-
formation. Given the rising rates of overweight and 
obesity among Generation Next, every effort should 
be made to educate these consumers and their par-
ents on how to use food labels to make healthier 
food choices. Additionally, radio, television, and the 
Internet also must be used extensively to dissemi-
nate the nutritional information to consumers.
References
Adachi-Mejia, A.M., M. R. Longacre, J. J. Gib-
son, M. L. Beach, L. T. Titus-Ernstoff, and M. 
A. Dalton. 2007. “Children with a TV in Their 
Bedroom at Higher Risk for Being Overweight.”  
International Journal of Obesity 31:644–651. 
Campbell, K. J., D. A. Crawford, and K. Ball. 2006. 
“Family Food Environment and Dietary Behav-
iors Likely to Promote Fatness in 5–6 Year-Old 
Children.” International Journal of Obesity 30:
1272–1280. 
Centers for Disease Control, National Center for 
Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promo-
tion, Nutrition & Physical Activity. 2004. “Over-
weight and Obesity: Health  Consequences.” 
http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/obesity/
consequences.htm.  Accessed June 22, 2004.
Centers for Disease Control, National Center for 
Health Statistics. 2006a.  “Overweight.” http:
//www.cdc.gov/nchs/faststats/overwt.htm. Ac-
cessed June 21, 2006.
Centers for Disease Control, National Center for 
Health Statistics. 2006b “Obesity is Still a  Major 
Problem.” http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/
06facts/obesity03_04.htm. Accessed June 21, 
2006.
Crane, S. S., M. A. Wojtowycz, T. D. Dye, R. H. 
Aubry, and R. Artal. 1997. “Association between 
Pre-Pregnancy Obesity and the Risks of Cesar-
ean Delivery.” Obstetrics and Gynecology 89(2):
213–216.  
Crepinsek, M. K., and N. Burstein. 2004. Maternal 
Employment and Children’s Nutrition: Volume 
II, Other Nutrition-Related Outcomes. E-FAN-
04-006-2, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 
Table 2.  Rankings for Sources of Nutritional Information.
Attributes
GenNext
(18–25)
GenX
(26–40)
GenBaby
(41–60)
Senior
(>60) χ2 P-value
Doctor 591.77 591.31 663.86 660.10 12.0570*** 0.0070
Agent 599.08 608.90 661.24 644.93 6.4130* 0.0930
Friends 700.27 656.32 658.21 558.31 25.1070*** 0.0000
Radio 612.52 629.96 649.28 636.51 1.4960 0.6830
Paper 631.60 639.93 648.17 620.04 1.3390 0.7200
Health 599.97 599.75 664.88 647.39 8.4380** 0.0380
Food 717.51 641.12 652.52 570.63 22.4550*** 0.0000
Note: (*), (**), and (***) denote statistical signiﬁ  cance at the 10-percent, 5-percent, and 1-percent levels of probability, respectively.Journal of Food Distribution Research 39(1) 96   March 2008
Economic Research Service. 
Datar A. and  R. Sturm. 2006. “Childhood Over-
weight and Elementary School Outcomes.” In-
ternational Journal of Obesity 30:1449–1460.
Gable, S.,Y. Chang, and J. L. Krull.  2007. “Televi-
sion Watching and Frequency of Family Meals 
Are Predictive of Overweight, Onset and Per-
sistence in a National Sample of School-Aged 
Children.” Journal of the American Dietetic 
Association 107(1):53–61. 
Golan, E., F. Kuchler, and L. Mitchel, with con-
tributions from C. Greene and A. Jessup. 2000. 
Economics of Food Labeling. U.S. Department 
of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Ag-
ricultural Economic Report, Number 793.
Lamberg, L. 2006. “Rx for Obesity: Eat Less, Ex-
ercise More, and—Maybe—Get More Sleep.” 
Journal of the American Medical Association 
295(20):2341–2344. 
Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals. 
2006. Louisiana Health Report Card 2005. http:
//www.dhh.louisiana.gov/ofﬁ  ces/publications/
pubs-275/health  report card2005.pdf. Accessed 
June 21, 2006.
Meich, R.A., S. K. Kumanyika, N. Stettler, B.G. 
Link, J.C. Phelan, and V.W. Chang. 2006. 
“Trends in the Association of Poverty with Over-
weight among U.S. Adolescents, 1971–2004.”  
Journal of the American Medical Association 
295(20):2385–2393. 
Triola, M. F. Elementary Statistics. 2001. Eighth 
Edition. Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.
Trust for America’s Health. 2007. “Louisiana 
Adults 4th Most Obese in Country; Youth 9th  
Most Overweight.” http://healthyamericans.org/
reports/obesity2007/release.php?StateID=LA. 
Accessed December 12, 2007
Variyam, J. N. 2001. “Overweight Children: Is Pa-
rental Nutrition Knowledge a Factor?” Amber 
Waves 24(2):18–22.

Intergenerational Use of and Attitudes Toward Food Labels in Louisiana

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Research Papers in Economics