Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Food Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foodpol Change is good!? Analyzing the relationship between attention and nutrition facts panel modifications Carola Grebitus a, ⁎ , George C. Davis b a Arizona State University, W. P. Carey School of Business, Morrison School of Agribusiness, 7231 E. Sonoran Arroyo Mall, Mesa, AZ 85212, United States b Virginia Tech University, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Department of Human Nutrition, Foods, and Exercise, 4 Hutcheson Hall, Blacksburg, VA 24061, United States ARTICLE INFO Keywords: Calories per serving Eye tracking Healthy choice Nutrition information Serving size U.S JEL Code: Q18 I12 ABSTRACT Many consumers do not pay attention to nutrition information, a necessity to make healthy food choices. We measure attention to a Nutrition Facts Panel (NFP) currently used in the U.S. and to a modified NFP that em- phasizes key information, using eye-tracking in a between-subjects experiment. We test for differences between attention to the current and modified NFP but also for differences across food items. We find asymmetric effects, depending on the product. For healthier items more attention is paid to the modified NFP than to the current NFP. For less healthy items less attention is paid to the modified NFP than to the current NFP. Results suggest that a single modified design may not be uniformly effective. 1. Introduction Given the societal and economic impacts of overweight and obesity, governments are searching for solutions to guide individuals towards making healthier food choices. Food labeling is designed to inform consumers on the healthiness of a product. It is a common approach to provide consumers with relevant information on the packaging itself to assist with healthy food choices. Regardless, consumers need also to attend to the information provided in order to make an informed de- cision. Since nutrition information is often ignored, we investigate if, and if so, how format (design) changes to a common Nutrition Facts Panel (NFP) affects attention to a variety of healthy and unhealthy food products. Reliable information that is easy to comprehend is necessary to make good health decisions. This information is important for all in- dividuals, not only the overweight and obese. Information can be pro- vided on either the front or the back of the packaging. Front of packaging labeling is usually comprised of optional information left to the discretion of the food manufacturer, whereas mandatory NFPs are located on the back or side of a food product. For instance, in the U.S. the National Labeling and Education Act requires product specific in- formation related to nutrition to be displayed in a NFP. NFPs are also mandatory in countries, such as, Canada, Mexico, and the EU member states (e.g., Cowburn and Stockley, 2005; Banterle and Cavaliere, 2014; Regulation (EU) No. 1169/2011, for more information see European Food Information, 2014). While the NFP has been mandatory in the U.S. for almost three decades, European Countries have not had mandatory labeling for such an extensive period of time. Nonetheless, the EU has a number of standards and voluntary labels to provide nutrition information (Jo et al., 2016). For example, the EU recently introduced three regulations related to food labeling policy (Regulations No. 1924/2006, 1169/ 2011, and 432/2012). The regulations address nutrition facts (or de- clarations), and nutrition claims on food packaging, as well as health claims. The food product’s nutritional content (e.g., fat content, car- bohydrates, and proteins) is provided with Regulation No. 1169/2011. This regulation became obligatory in December 2016, and includes key changes such as improved legibility of information by using a minimum font size for mandatory information. Maybe the most important part of the regulation is that it makes nutritional facts mandatory for producers http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2017.10.002 Received 14 February 2017; Received in revised form 2 October 2017; Accepted 7 October 2017 ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: carola.grebitus@asu.edu (C. Grebitus), georgedavis@vt.edu (G.C. Davis). Food Policy 73 (2017) 119–130 0306-9192/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. MARK