TY - JOUR
T1 - “Sugary drinks” and graphic warning labels
T2 - Critique of a recent U.S. study of parents' beverage choices for their children
AU - Rossiter, John R.
N1 - Funding Information:
Open access publishing facilitated by University of Wollongong, as part of the Wiley - University of Wollongong agreement via the Council of Australian University Librarians.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 The Author. Journal of Consumer Behaviour published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
PY - 2023/1
Y1 - 2023/1
N2 - A laboratory experiment by U.S. public health researchers Hall et al. claimed to demonstrate that a graphic picture-and-text warning label placed on so-called sugary drinks would substantially reduce parents' purchase of them for their children. Hall et al., however, misclassified the alleged “sugary drinks,” omitting those containing natural but equally harmful sugars such as fructose in fruit juice and lactose in milk. They also implied that artificially sweetened “non-sugary” drinks are harmless when available research indicates otherwise. The experiment was further invalidated by the fact that warning labels are illegal in the U.S., and those that Hall et al. used would not be permitted in any case because they partially obscured the manufacturer's brand label. There were many other methodological problems with Hall et al.'s experiment, among them the failure to do what any competent consumer researcher would do—namely ask the parents afterwards why they made the choices that they did.
AB - A laboratory experiment by U.S. public health researchers Hall et al. claimed to demonstrate that a graphic picture-and-text warning label placed on so-called sugary drinks would substantially reduce parents' purchase of them for their children. Hall et al., however, misclassified the alleged “sugary drinks,” omitting those containing natural but equally harmful sugars such as fructose in fruit juice and lactose in milk. They also implied that artificially sweetened “non-sugary” drinks are harmless when available research indicates otherwise. The experiment was further invalidated by the fact that warning labels are illegal in the U.S., and those that Hall et al. used would not be permitted in any case because they partially obscured the manufacturer's brand label. There were many other methodological problems with Hall et al.'s experiment, among them the failure to do what any competent consumer researcher would do—namely ask the parents afterwards why they made the choices that they did.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85135061165&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85135061165&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1002/cb.2092
DO - 10.1002/cb.2092
M3 - Review article
AN - SCOPUS:85135061165
SN - 1479-1838
VL - 22
SP - 170
EP - 176
JO - Journal of Consumer Behaviour
JF - Journal of Consumer Behaviour
IS - 1
ER -