Are Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Information Labels Well-Targeted

Are Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Information Labels Well-Targeted: Evidence and Welfare Implications

We will study the extent to which soft drink information labels -- designed to curb unhealthy consumption -- are well-targeted to the most biased consumers.The study team will deploy novel methods for evaluating the targeting properties of information labels via an incentive-compatible online shopping experiment. At a high-level, we will ask whether the treatment effects of the information labels are concentrated on individuals with the biggest self-control problems and with the least knowledge of nutrition. We will first use the methodology from Allcott et al. (2019) to estimate the internality for each participant. We will then have participants make shopping decisions for soft drinks, first absent any information labels and then, for those not in the control group, in the presence of an information label. The within-subject design of the soft drinks experiment will allow us to estimate how the effects of the labels covary with consumers' internalities, and thus to determine whether the labels are well-targeted.

Study Overview

• Status: Completed
• Conditions: Soft Drink Consumption; Sugar-sweetened Beverages; Information Labels
• Intervention / Treatment: Other: Nutrition Facts; Other: Text Warning; Other: Graphic Warning

Detailed Description

We will use online ads to recruit people who are shopping online for soda, and direct them to a two-stage online Qualtrics experiment. In the first stage (Part I), we will elicit subjects' nutritional literacy and self-control for resisting sugary drinks, following the methodology of Allcott et al. (2019). Allcott et al. (2019) show that these two measures explain 31% of sugary drinks consumption in a nationally-representative sample of approximately 20,000 households, after controlling for detailed demographic information and elicitations of "tastes" for various types of drinks. Additionally, Allcott et al. (2019) demonstrate how these measures can be used to provide an estimate of over-consumption of sugary drinks at the individual level. Consequently, the first stage allows us to obtain estimates of the internality.

A week later, we will recruit participants in the first stage to participate in the second stage of the experiment (Part II). We create a time delay to minimize the potential effect of the first-stage questions on the second-stage choices. In the second stage, we will first ask participants to select their three favorite sugary drinks from a list. We will then ask participants to make an initial set of choices between those drinks and sugar-free alternatives (e.g., Seagram's Ginger Ale versus 365 Ginger) at various relative prices. Specifically, we will elicit their willingness to pay using a multiple price list, as is standard in the behavioral economics literature, where consumers answer a series of questions about whether they would prefer to buy a sugar-sweetened beverage at price X or a sugar-free alternative at price Y. Choices will be incentive-compatible: for each consumer we will honor their choice in a randomly selected decision (i.e., we will purchase the chosen package of soft drinks for them plus award them any additional money associated with that choice).

Following an initial set of choices, we will ask subjects to choose again. In this second set of choices, we will randomize whether participants see the soft drink options paired with an information label. We will also randomize the types of labels, including: (i) an inflated nutrition label that draws attention to the differences in calories and sugar content, (ii) the stoplight warning label developed by Grummon, Hall, et al. (2019), and (iii) a graphic warning label developed by Donnelly et al. (2018). The control group will instead make the same choices without seeing any label. Leveraging the within-subject nature of design, we will then estimate how well-targeted each information label is by estimating how the subjects' internalities covary with their changes in the prices at which they are willing to buy soft drinks after seeing the information label.

• Study Type: Interventional
• Enrollment (Actual): 5845
• Phase: Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

Study Locations

• United States
  • California
    • Berkeley, California, United States, 94720
      • University of California, Berkeley

Participation Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

• Ages Eligible for Study: 18 years and older (Adult, Older Adult)
• Accepts Healthy Volunteers: Yes

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

• US resident
• Shopping online for sugar-sweetened beverages

Study Plan

How is the study designed?

Design Details

• Primary Purpose: Prevention
• Allocation: Randomized
• Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
• Masking: None (Open Label)

Number of Arms

4

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm	Intervention / Treatment
No Intervention: Control Arm; In Part II of the experiment, subjects are not presented with nutrition or warning labels when choosing between beverages.
Experimental: Nutrition Labels Arm; In Part II of the experiment, subjects are shown enlarged nutrition labels when choosing between beverages.	Other: Nutrition Facts; The nutritional information label for each beverage is enlarged.
Experimental: Text Warning Labels Arm; In Part II of the experiment, subjects are shown a warning message about the health risks of sugary beverages when choosing between beverages.	Other: Text Warning; The health risks of sugary beverages are communicated to subjects using words/text and simple images.; Other Names: Stoplight Warning
Experimental: Graphic Warning Labels Arm; In Part II of the experiment, subjects are shown a graphic warning message about the health risks of sugary beverages when choosing between beverages. The message, for example, could include photos of tooth decay and other negative health outcomes.	Other: Graphic Warning; The health risks of sugary beverages are communicated to subjects using a combination of words/text and graphic images/photographs.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
Willingness to Purchase Sugar-sweetened Beverage vs. Sugar-free Alternative	How much consumers like, or are willing to pay for, sugar-sweetened beverages when compared to a sugar-free alternative. The survey instrument uses a multiple price list (MPL) to elicit each respondent's relative willingness to pay (WTP) for the sugary drink vs. the non-sugary alternative, a standard methodology in the economics literature where consumers answer a series of questions about whether they would prefer to buy a sugar-sweetened beverage at price X or a sugar-free alternative at price Y. For example, a relative WTP of $1.60 indicates a respondent is willing to pay an additional $1.60 for the sugary drink compared to the non-sugary alternative.	1 week after recruitment (during Part II of the experiment)
Willingness to Purchase Sugar-sweetened Beverage vs. Sugar-free Alternative, Among Adults Aged 65+	How much older adult consumers like, or are willing to pay for, sugar-sweetened beverages when compared to a sugar-free alternative. The survey instrument uses a multiple price list (MPL) to elicit each respondent's relative willingness to pay (WTP) for the sugary drink vs. the non-sugary alternative, a standard methodology in the economics literature where consumers answer a series of questions about whether they would prefer to buy a sugar-sweetened beverage at price X or a sugar-free alternative at price Y. For example, a relative WTP of $1.60 indicates a respondent is willing to pay an additional $1.60 for the sugary drink compared to the non-sugary alternative.	1 week after recruitment (during Part II of the experiment)

Other Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
Willingness to Purchase Sugar-sweetened Beverage vs. Sugar-free Alternative, by Subgroups	How much different groups of consumers like, or are willing to pay for, sugar-sweetened beverages when compared to a sugar-free alternative. The survey instrument uses a multiple price list (MPL) to elicit each respondent's relative willingness to pay (WTP) for the sugary drink vs. the non-sugary alternative, a standard methodology in the economics literature where consumers answer a series of questions about whether they would prefer to buy a sugar-sweetened beverage at price X or a sugar-free alternative at price Y. For example, a relative WTP of $1.60 indicates a respondent is willing to pay an additional $1.60 for the sugary drink compared to the non-sugary alternative.	1 week after recruitment (during Part II of the experiment)

Collaborators and Investigators

• Sponsor: National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
• Collaborators: University of California, Berkeley; National Institute on Aging (NIA)
• Investigators: Principal Investigator: Dmitry Taubinsky, PhD, UC Berkeley and NBER

Publications and helpful links

General Publications

• Allcott H, Lockwood BB, Taubinsky D. Regressive Sin Taxes, with an Application to the Optimal Soda Tax. Quarterly Journal of Economics. 2019; 134(3).
• Grummon AH, Hall MG, Taillie LS, Brewer NT. How should sugar-sweetened beverage health warnings be designed? A randomized experiment. Prev Med. 2019 Apr;121:158-166. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2019.02.010. Epub 2019 Feb 14.
• Donnelly GE, Zatz LY, Svirsky D, John LK. The Effect of Graphic Warnings on Sugary-Drink Purchasing. Psychol Sci. 2018 Aug;29(8):1321-1333. doi: 10.1177/0956797618766361. Epub 2018 Jun 18.

Study record dates

Study Major Dates

• Study Start (Actual): October 18, 2021
• Primary Completion (Actual): December 22, 2021
• Study Completion (Actual): December 22, 2021

Study Registration Dates

• First Submitted: August 31, 2021
• First Submitted That Met QC Criteria: September 7, 2021
• First Posted (Actual): September 8, 2021

Study Record Updates

• Last Update Posted (Actual): July 20, 2023
• Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria: June 28, 2023
• Last Verified: June 1, 2023

More Information

Terms related to this study

• Other Study ID Numbers: 2020-08-13558; P30AG034532 (U.S. NIH Grant/Contract)

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

• Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?: YES
• IPD Plan Description: De-identified IPD will be posted to ClinicalTrials.gov and Open Science Framework within 12 months of the primary completion date or the resulting paper's online publication date, whichever comes first.
• IPD Sharing Time Frame: Within 12 months of the primary completion date or the resulting paper's online publication date, whichever comes first.
• IPD Sharing Supporting Information Type: STUDY_PROTOCOL; SAP; ICF; ANALYTIC_CODE

Drug and device information, study documents

• Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product: No
• Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product: No