Research paper

2

Research Report: Reading Nutrition Facts Label

Hypothesis Statement: The goal of this research is to assess participants’ awareness and knowledge about Nutrition Facts Labels and identify factors associated with reading Nutrition Facts Labels. Null hypothesis: Adults living in America will not read food label when they do not have nutrition knowledge. Alternative hypothesis: Adults living in America will tend to read food label when they have nutrition knowledge.

Method: Sample and Survey Administration

This study uses simple random sampling method to collect survey data. The participants in the study were chosen anonymously and voluntarily and permission from Cedar Crest College Institutional of review board was obtained before conducting the survey. Original survey consists of 10 questions, but some questions were not related to study as the focus was to assess the knowledge and not demographics or education. For the purpose for the hypothesis to be accepted or rejected, survey questions were assessed to obtain information that would be in direct relation to hypothesis. The Participants completed 8 item self-administered survey that was provided on social media posts via Facebook and Instagram. The response rate was 86% (26 of the 30 sampled participated), the response rate of 26 participants was 100%. The answer rate was 83% (25 of 30 participants surveys were usable after data cleaning). Those participants who were excluded from the study were under the age of 18 and who did not authorize to take part in the study. Participants who were part of the study were 64% female and 36% male age between 18-29 years (92%) and 30-49 years (8%).

Description of Data:

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) was used to recode the variables. The purpose of using Chi-square was to assess the relationship between categorical variables. A P value of <.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results:

The final sample of 25 participants. Characteristics of the participants are shown table 1. Overall, 84% of participants have received nutrition knowledge from some source. Comparison between two categorical variables “How many times do you look at Nutrition Facts Label?’’ and “knowledge” was not significant (P <.05) as the results showed Chi-square tests were .123. When comparison was done between “how many times do you look at Nutrition Facts Label?” and “what is the primary reason you read Nutrition Facts Label” a significant difference was found (.049); however, due to small sample size that difference does not authorize null hypothesis to be rejected.

Table 1

1. How old are you?
	Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	18-29 years	23	92.0	92.0	92.0
	30-49 years	2	8.0	8.0	100.0
	Total	25	100.0	100.0

8. If you have ever received your nutrition knowledge from whom/where?
	Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	Blogs	2	8.0	8.0	8.0
	Never received nutrition knowledge	4	16.0	16.0	24.0
	Newspaper article	2	8.0	8.0	32.0
	Nutritionist	4	16.0	16.0	48.0
	Other (please specify)	8	32.0	32.0	80.0
	Physician	5	20.0	20.0	100.0
	Total	25	100.0	100.0

Knowledge
	Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	Never received nutrition knowledge	4	16.0	16.0	16.0
	Have received prior nutrition knowledge	21	84.0	84.0	100.0
	Total	25	100.0	100.0

Chi-Square Tests
	Value	df	Asymptotic Significance (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square	5.779a	3	.123
Likelihood Ratio	4.286	3	.232
Linear-by-Linear Association	2.331	1	.127
N of Valid Cases	25
a. 5 cells (62.5%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .16.

4. How many times do you look at Nutrition Facts Label? * Knowledge Crosstabulation
Count
	Knowledge	Total
	Never received nutrition knowledge	Have received prior nutrition knowledge
4. How many times do you look at Nutrition Facts Label?	Usually	1	11	12
	Always	1	5	6
	Sometimes	1	5	6
	Rarely	1	0	1
Total	4	21	25

Chi-Square Tests
	Value	df	Asymptotic Significance (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square	21.128a	12	.049
Likelihood Ratio	15.843	12	.199
N of Valid Cases	25
a. 20 cells (100.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .04.

Discussion:

Limitations:

This research was limited to sample size of 25 and limited to almost all females and age group of 18-29 years old. Another limitation was the number of responses in each question were less than 5 which reduced the statistical significance. The study was also limited in terms of recoding process as it did not follow Likert scale; however, the data was clear. Limitation of significant value did not allow for the null hypothesis to be rejected. If the study is ever being repeated it should be conducted using larger sample sizes, focusing of different age groups, and different genders.

References:

1. Anastasiou, K., Miller, M., & Dickinson, K. (2019, April 19). The relationship between food label use and dietary intake in adults: A systematic review. Retrieved August 27, 2020, from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195666318312807

2. Miller LM, Cassady DL, Applegate EA, et al. Relationships among food label use, motivation, and dietary quality. Nutrients. 2015;7(2):1068-1080. Published 2015 Feb 5. doi:10.3390/nu7021068

3. Miller, L. and Cassady, D., 2015. The effects of nutrition knowledge on food label use. A review of the literature. Appetite, 92, pp.207-216.

4. Stran, K. and Knol, L., 2013. Determinants of Food Label Use Differ by Sex. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 113(5), pp.673-679.

5. Walters, A. and Long, M., 2012. The Effect Of Food Label Cues On Perceptions Of Quality And Purchase Intentions Among High-Involvement Consumers With Varying Levels Of Nutrition Knowledge. Retrieved August 27, 2020, from https://www-sciencedirect-com.cedarcrestcollege.idm.oclc.org/science/article/pii/S1499404611005318