The Effect of Nutrition Information Disclosure on

[Note]

The Effect of Nutrition Information Disclosure

on Consumers' Food Choices

Toshie Tsuda, Keiko Tamura, Karen Holden, Jane Voichick

Summary

Even though American consumers have become more aware of the relationship between health and

nutrition, it seems that consumers do always not choose food in the way recommended by federal

nutrition policy. There are relatively few studies that look at the impact of nutrition information on

meals chosen in restaurants or other food services. This field study attempts to discover how the food

choices of University of Wisconsin-Madison Lakefront cafeteria patrons were influenced by nutrition

information.

The model of the consumer decision process used in this study is based on the Engel-Kollat-

Blackwell Model. The Chi square statistic was used to determine the significance of the relationship

between independent and dependent variables. Information about the percentage of calories from fat,

from carbohydrates, and from protein was presented for each entree in a pie-chart graphic along with

a listing of the number of calories and total fat in grams.

The stated use of nutrition information is significantly related to whether the patron is attempting

to modify their diet. When nutrition information signs were presented, patrons' food choices were

higher in fat than they were when no nutrition information signs were available. A Chi square test

showed that patrons' food choices with and without the signs were significantly related. Concerned

patrons are more likely to use nutrition as an evaluative criterion than less concerned patrons. Thisstudy showed that while the nutrition information signs at Lakefront Cafeteria did appear to help

patrons' selecting food, the effect was limited because most patrons failed to notice the signs. This

suggests that to get more patrons including those without meal plan membership to notice the signs,

a different strategy may be necessary.

Keywords : Food choice, Impact, The parsentage of calories , Nutrition information sign, Entree, Cafeteria patron

Introduction

The eating habits of Americans have changed as

society has changed. As the number of single-person

households has increased, and as more women par-

ticipate in the labor force, the number of meals

eaten away from home has increased.

At the same time, consumers have become more

aware of the relationship between health and nutri-

tion, due in part to increased media coverage of

diet-related health risks, frequent health claims in

food advertising, federal dietary guidelines, and

nutrition information labels on packaged foods.

Many fast-food restaurants are responding to more

health-conscious customers by changing their

menus, adding low-fat or low-cholesterol items, and

by disclosing nutrition information. Even though

consumers are concerned about certain diseases,

and despite a higher level of nutritional awareness,

* Kyouritsu Women's University

** University of Wisconsin, Department of Consumer Sciences

*** University of Wisconsin , Department of Nutrition Sciences

28(132)

The Effect of Nutrition Information Disclosure on Consumers' Food Choices

it seems that consumers do always not choose food

in the way recommended by federal nutrition

policy.° Packaged food labels have been the focus of most research on consumers' comprehension and use of nutrition information while grocery shopping.

There are relatively few studies that look at the

impact of nutrition information on meals chosen in

restaurants or other food services. The primary issue addressed in this research is how useful nutri-

tion information signs can be in changing food

choice, specifically in reducing the consumption of

high fat entrees. To do this the analysis addresses

three questions : 1) who noticed the signs, 2) who said they used them, and 3) who in fact chose food

lower in fat.

Method

Research Objective

This field study attempts to discover how the food

choices of University of Wisconsin-Madison Lake-front cafeteria patrons were influenced by nutrition

information. The analysis was motivated by two

major goals : 1) to evaluate the short-term impact

of nutrition information disclosure ; and 2) to

understand patrons' food choice decisions. This study used data collected from surveys at Time 1--

before nutrition information was provided-- and at

Time 2--after nutrition information in the form of

nutrition signs was provided. The impact of the nutrition signs was assessed in two ways : 1) from

answers to questions on the Time 2 survey question-

naire about whether (and why not) nutrition infor-

mation signs were helpful in choosing food, and 2) by measuring changes in food choices between Time

1 and Time 2. The data allow not only an analysis

of who made what food choices but also the report-

ed process by which those decisions were made. This study does not simply analyze who was

influenced by the nutrition information signs, but

also obtained qualitative information about how the

cafeteria environment influenced the decision mak-ing process. Therefore, a picture of how consumers

make decisions at the Lakefront cafeteria was con-

structed.

Project Design

The timing of the introduction of nutrition infor-

mation was motivated, in part, by the introduction

of a new menu in the Lakefront Cafeteria during the first week of March. Since the new menu included

more vegetarian entrees and other low fat items

than in the previous menu, it was appropriate to

provide nutrition information for patrons. We were

given the opportunity to design and evaluate this trial use of nutrition information. The Lakefront

patrons are mainly UW students, faculty, and staff members. Nutrition information was displayed on a

11" by 15" plaque. In addition nutrition signs were

placed beside each item. The nutrition signs were designed in collabora-

tion with the Department of Nutritional Science, the

Department of Consumer Science, and the Wiscon-sin Union Food Services, (see Figure 1) . Nutrition

information signs were displayed at lunch on week-

days for three weeks (from April 8 to 26 in 1991) at

the Memorial Union Lakefront Cafeteria, Univer-sity of Wisconsin-Madison (UW)

Information about the percentage of calories from

fat, from carbohydrates, and from protein was

presented for each entree in a pie-chart graphic along with a listing of number of calories and total

Figure 1. Nutrition Information Signs

Week 3 Wednesday

(133)29

J. Cookery Sci. Jpn. Vol. 30 No. 2 (1997)

fat in grams (See Figure 1) . Information about fat

and calories can be categorized as "negative nutri-

ent" information (i.e. consumers are encouraged not to consume these nutrients in excess) . Past studies

show consumers are more responsive to information

about "negative nutrients" than to information

about "positive nutrients" (minerals, vitamins.

etc.)2)3)4). See Table 1 for a list of categorized entrees.

Cafeteria patrons were surveyed on March 19, 20,

and April 4 (Time 1) , prior to the placement of the

signs, and on April 9, 10, and 24 (Time 2) , while the signs were in use. Surveys were handed out to

approximately 20% of the patrons between 11:00 a.

m. and 2:00 p. m.. (See Table 2) . Every forth person

was given the questionnaire. Since the same ques-

tionnaire was distributed for 3 days each in Time 1 and Time 2, some have already responded in either

the first day or the second day of Time 1 or Time 2.

If this was the case, the next person was given the

questionnaire. Preventing to collect duplicate sam-

ples were possible by handing the questionnaire out in person and communicating with the persons who

are approached. Surveying all users allowed us to

analyze food choice behavior across a diversity of

age, status, and income groups. The surveys were distributed at the entrance of

the Lakefront Cafeteria University of Wisconsin

Memorial Union. After selecting food, the respon-

dents filled out the questionnaire at their seat in the

cafeteria and dropped it in a box near the exit as they left. If patrons could not complete the survey at

the time, they were asked to send it by campus mail

to a mail box at the Department of Consumer

Science.

Questionnaire Response Rate and Sample Char-acteristics

The first group of survey 1 took place on March

19, 20 and April 4 in 1991 (Time 1) and the second

group of survey 2 occurred on April 9, 10, and 24 (Time 2) , three weeks after the first survey 1.

The total number of customers for the days of

Table 1. Categorized Entrees

* A different kind of sub sandwich was served every day as an entree . Although no

nutritional analysis was conducted, it was known that sub sandwich contained some

kind of meat, vegetables, bread, and cheese. Therefore, sub sandwich was categorized

into Medium Fat Entrees.

Table 2. Response rate

30　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　 (134)


Time's 1 survey and Time's 2 were 2415 and 2320

(Grand Total : 4735) . Questionnaires were dis-tributed to 1059 customers. The questionnaire

response rate for each day of the survey, and the

overall response rates, are shown in Table 2. The survey conducted in Time 1 had a response rate 12.6

% higher than the survey conducted in Time 2. Among 408 responses, two were excluded from the

sample because the questionnaires were not com-

pleted. The final sample size is 406. Simple descrip-tive statistics about the respondents are shown in

Table 3. In the final sample, 157 (39.2%) were

female, and 244 (60.8%) were male. As noted before, more males than females responded, though

we do not know whether this represents the popula-

tion of the Lakefront users or is due to response

bias. The ages of respondents ranged from 18 to 84,

but as expected in a largely University population, about 53% of the samples were younger than 24.

The mean age of the sample was 29.8 (standard

deviation 13.2). Approximately 40% of the sample lived in a house or an apartment with friends, 20%

of the sample lived in a house or an apartment with

spouse or partner, and close to 20% of the sample

lived alone. About 50% of the sample were under-

graduate students and 24% of the sample were

graduate students. Fourteen percent were Univer-sity staff or faculty. This population, with a higher

education than the general US population, provides

an interesting test of the efficacy of nutritional

information in changing eating patterns because

these individuals could be presumed to be better

able to quickly absorb and understand the nutri-

tidnal infomation presented in this setting.

Respondents were divided into three groups based

on reported income designated as : "Low", "mid-

dle", and "high". The low income group's approxi-

mate annual income was $5,000 or less, the middle

income group's annual income ranged from $5,001

to $20,000, and the high income group ranged from

$20,001 to more than $30,000.

Model and Hypotheses

This study deals with the question of whether or

not the provision of nutrition information on signs

Table 3. Demographic Characteristics of the Sample

* Total number is not 406 because data only available for students .

(135)31

J. Cookery Sci. Jpn. Vol. 30 No. 2 (1997)

had an impact on the Lakefront patrons' food choices. In addition to examining differences in food

choices between the two different situations—with

or without nutrition information signs—this study

looked at the decision making process in order to improve understanding of the influence of nutrition

information.

The model of the consumer decision process used

in this study is based on the Engel-Kollat-Blackwell Model (E-K-B Model) , as revised in 19905). Engel et

al. look at decision making process behavior as

problem solving or "thoughtful reasoned action undertaken to bring about need satisfaction". The

E-K-B Model defines five types of decision making

models ; extended problem solving, limited problem

solving, mid-range problem solving, repeated prob-

lem solving, and habitual decision making. Although each of the five models is distinct, con-

sumers in all cases are assumed to pass through five

ordered steps in making their choices. The five steps

are, need recognition, search, alternative evalua-

tion, purchase, and outcome. The Lakefront Cafeteria decision process is un-

likely to be characterized accurately as "repeated

problem solving" or "habitual decision making". The decision of interest is food choice from the

daily menu. The same menu is not available every

day and it is unlikely that many patrons are aware

that the menu repeats every three weeks.

Fig. 2 shows the modified model. The lines with "H" labels correspond to hypotheses ab out the rela-tionship among variables. This model assumes that

patron's need recognition level leads to certain

patterns of evaluative criteria : these criteria drive different levels of search, and, finally, the patron makes a purchase decision based on these previous

stages. The questionnaire included questions about

Figure 2. The Model of Lakefront Patrons' Decision

Making Process

the importance of four evaluative criteria. The

importance of nutrition was included in the model

because patron's need recognition was defined by

whether or not a patron recognized the need for healthier food choices, and therefore was inclined to

use the signs with nutritional information which

ultimately influened food choices.

The following four hypotheses have been devel-oped from this model of the decision making proc-

ess:

H 1: The presence of nutrition information leads

to better food choices. H 2: Concerned patrons choose lower fat and

calorie food than unconcerned patrons.

H 3: Concerned patrons' search is more extensive

than the unconcerned patrons' search. H 4 : The importance of nutrition as an

evaluative criterion is higher among the concerned

patrons than the unconcerned patrons. The basic hypotheses for this study were whether

or not there was an impact of nutrition information on food choices (H 1) and whether or not need

recognition affected purchase (H 2) . Testing H 3

and H 4 provide information about the patrons'

decision making processes, specifically how need recognition operates to influence the final choice.

In this study, the nutrition information signs were

not designed to influence individuals' dietary goals

or attitudes towards nutrition, rather, they were designed to provide information for food compari-

sons.

Method of Analysis

The Chi square statistic was used to determine the significance of the relationship between indepen-

dent and dependent variables. When the chi square

had less than 10 percent probability of being due to

chance it was considered statistically significant. For further analysis, multiple logistic regression

analysis (Logit) was used to describe the nature of

the relationship between the dependent variables

and independent variables, and for testing the hypotheses that each independent variable has no

effect on the dependent variable. For testing each

hypothesis, a t-test was used. The logit analysis was

chosen because the dependent variable in this analy-

32 (136)


sis was dichotomous : noticed = 1, or not-noticed =

0; and user = 1, or non-user = 0.

The independent variables were often categorized

using dummy variables which were assigned a value

of "1" indicating membership in a category, or "0"

indicating that the subject was not a member of the

category. In this way, the regression coefficients

were interpreted as the influence of the category

membership on the dependent variable, relative to

an omitted category.

Table 4. Number and Percentage of Lakefront Patrons Who Noticed the Nutrition Information Signs

Results an Discussion

1. The use of nutrition information signs

Most patrons did not notice the nutrition signs.

Type of meal plan, frequency of use of the Lake-

front Cafeteria, and time spent at the Cafeteria were

significantly related to whether patrons noticed the nutrition signs. Gender, time taken to choose an

entree and whether or not the individual was eating

alone did not influence whether signs were noticed.

(Table 4) The findings from multiple logistic regression

analysis were consistent with the findings from

Crosstabulations. (See Table 5) Therefore, it is

concluded that notice of the nutrition information at

the Lakefront was strongly influenced by patrons habits at the Lakefront cafeteria such as how often

they visit and how long they spend time for lunch.

The stated use of nutrition information is

significantly related to whether the patron is

attempting to modify their diet. (Table 6) Income,

Table 5. Logistic Regression Analysis Results Prob- ability of Individuals used the Nutrition

Information Signs

N=139****

Goodness of Fit Chi-Square significance level=0.30 * t-test significance at 0 .10

** t-test significance at 0 .025 *** t-test significance at 0 .005 **** The data for 406 individuals in the sample were

submitted , but only 139 cases were accepted as a

validation data set.

(137) 33

I. Cookery Sci. Jpn. Vol. 30 No. 2 (1997)

Table 6. Number and percentage of Users and Non-users

by the Lakefront Patron's Characteristics

Table 1. Logistic Regression Analysis Results Probability

of High Fat Food Choices

gender, self-reported weight, self assessed nutrition knowledge, and whether or not the individual was a

student were not found to be related to using the

information signs. 2. Analysis of decision making process

1) Influences on choice of high, medium or

low-fat entrees

This study investigated whether time spent, gen-

der, student status, age, self-assessment of nutrition knowledge, and self-reported weight influenced

choice of high, medium or low fat entrees. Female

N=359


** t-test significance at 0 .05

patrons were less likely to choose the highest fat

entrees than male patrons. Patrons with higher

levels of self-assessed knowledge about nutrition

were less likely to choose the highest fat entrees

than those with lower knowledge.

Table 7 reports the influence of factors on choice

of entree. "Need recognition", "weight—too high",

and "weight--too low" were found to be statisti-

cally significant at the 0.05 level.

Patrons whose self assessed weight was in either

the "too low" or "too high" group were more likely

to choose the highest fat entrees compared with

patrons whose weight is considered to be "about

right". The group of those who thought their weight

was "too low" were less likely to choose any entree.

However, if the "too low" group of patrons did

choose an entree they were more likely to choose

the highest fat entree. Under these circumstances

the "too low" group of patrons made an appropriate

choice. However the patrons in the "too high" group

did not make the choice consistent with reducing

their "too high" weight. These choice, if characteris-

tic of the rest of their diet, may contribute to their

weight being in the "too high" category.

34 (138)


2) Understanding the patron decision making

process and need recognition The issue of this analysis was how Lakefront

patrons' food purchases were changed by provision of nutrition information signs.

On the assumption that food choice depends on

how individuals search among alternatives and the

evaluative criterion they use, we looked to see

whether those we hypothesized who would be more concerned about the fat content of their food evi-

dence any difference in search behavior.

The first regression was to see how effective the

signs were in moving patrons away from the highest fat entrees.

Patrons' Food choice between Time 1 and Time 2

were compared as the first step in the examination

of the influence of nutrition information signs. At Time 1, 66% of patrons' food choices were categor-

ized as lower fat, while 34% of patrons' food choices

were categorized as higher fat. After nutrition infor-

mation signs were provided, 55% of patrons' food

choices were categorized as lower fat, while 45% of

patrons' food choices were categorized as higher fat. (Table 8) Thus, when nutrition information

signs were presented, patrons' food choices were

actually higher fat than they were when no nutrition information signs were available. A Chi square test

showed that sign provision was significantly related

to food choice, but the relationship was opposite of

what was hypothesized (H 1). However concerned patrons were found to be less

likely to choose the highest fat entrees than less

concerned patrons.

The variable "Search" was defined using the fol-lowing two measures ; time taken to decide about

an entree, and whether the customer asked the

server about the food.

We examined whether there is any support for

Table 8. Lower Fat and Higher Fat Food Choices

Between Time 1 and Time 2

Chi Square Significance= .02524 N = 406

hypotheses (H 3 and H 4) that concerned and less

concerned patrons place different weights on con-

sidering nutrition information in evaluating food,

and have different search valves. We used only data from Time 1 to avoid the possibility that the signs

may have confounded the results. "Search" was defined at three levels ; Low,

medium, and high. The relationship between the

patron's level of concern and "search" (H 3) was significant (p <0.05) (Table 9) . Concerned patrons

had higher valves for "search" than less concerned

patrons did. Nine percent of concerned patrons were in the high category of "search", while no less

concerned patrons were at this level. Even "medium" and "high" search groups were combined ,

concerned patrons were significantly more likely to

be in these search groups than less concerned

patrons. Therefore H 3 was supported. "Importance of nutrition" as an evaluative crite -

rion was compared between concerned patrons and

less concerned patrons (Table 10) . The relationship

between concern and the rating of importance of nutrition was significantly related (p <0.05) . Con-

cerned patrons are more likely to use nutrition as an

evaluative criterion than less concerned patrons.

Table 9. Search Difference Between Concerned

and Less-concerned Patrons

Chi Square Significance .00565 N=158* * Data was available only for those who chose entrees .

Only Time 1 samples were included.

Table 10. Importance of Nutrition Between Concerned

and Less-concerned Patrons

Chi Square Significance= .00495 N=153* * Data was available only for those who chose entrees .

Only Time 1 samples were included.

(139) 35

J. Cookoy Sci. Jpn. Vol. 30 No. 2 (1997)

H 4 was supported.

3) Influence of nutrition information signs anc need recognition on food choices

Data from all patrons at Time 2 (when signs weir(

available) indicated higher fat choice than at Tim(

1, however these data reflect many people who dic not notice the signs. There are differences betweer

those who noticed the signs and those that did not

Patrons in Time 2 (when signs were present) whc

noticed the nutrition information signs chose morE entrees than either patrons in Time 1 or patrons in

Time 2 who did not notice the signs. Among thosE

who chose entrees (entree choosers) , did the signs_

result in choosing lower fat entrees? Table 11 shows

the result. Here, the sample is only patrons who chose entrees. "Time 2 x Not noticed" was statisti-

cally significant (p < 0 . 05) . Patrons who noticed the

signs (in Time 2) were less likely to choose the highest fat entrees than those who did not notice the

signs. This group that noticed the signs chose lower

fat entrees than the total group patrons in Time 1.

These results imply that patrons' food choices

were indeed influenced by the nutrition information

Table 1 1 . Logistic Regression Analysis Results Estima-

tion of Choice of Highest Fat Entrees Among

FritrPt, rhnncprc

N = 279


** t-test significance at 0 .01

signs. These results are inconsistent with Russo et

al.3), but consistent with Levy et al.°.

Understanding who noticed the nutrition informa-

tion signs, and who used the signs is critical for

planning future nutrition information programs sim-

ilar to this study. It seems that the use of the signs

depends on two actions : first noticing the signs ;

then using the signs in making food choices. The

first step is related to patrons' habits or familiarity

with the Lakefront Cafeteria, e. g. meal plan mem-

bership, frequency of visit, and time spent at the

Lakefront. Patrons who noticed the signs were more

likely to have meal plan membership to be frequent

visitors, and to spend less time at lunch. This sug-

gests that to get more patrons including those

without meal plan membership to notice the signs, a

different strategy may be necessary. The second

step—the use of the signs—was related to patrons'

attitudes toward nutrition and health. "Use" was

defined in this study by a self-reported measure. The

patrons who claimed to use the signs were more

likely to be involved in nutrition and health, to have

changed their diet in the past two years, and to

think their weight was too high or too low. The

regression analysis showed that income and knowl-

edge were not strong predictors of the use of nutri-

tion information.

In summary, nutrition information signs did

influence some patrons' food choices. Because nutri-

tion information signs were presented only for

entrees, patrons who noticed the signs may have

been more inclined to select an entree. Among those

who chose entrees, patrons who noticed the signs

were less likely to choose the highest fat entrees.

This study showed that while the nutrition infor-

mation signs at Lakefront Cafeteria did appear to

help patrons' selecting food, the effect was limited

because most patrons failed to notice the signs. Only

a quarter of those surveyed at Time 2 said the signs

were helpful. Seventy percent of those who said that

the signs were not helpful did not even notice the

signs.

3. Discussion

Patrons who noticed signs were more likely to

choose an entree than those who did not notice the

36 (140)


signs. This implies that the signs may have led

patrons to choose an entree, and suggest that other

food items also need nutrition information signs, so

that patrons can compare the food across cate-

gories, e. g. among entrees, side dish vegetables, and

large salads.

The results of the analysis of which type of entree

was chosen showed that once patrons decided to

choose an entree, if they noticed signs, they were

less likely to choose the highest fat entree, but if

they did not notice the signs, they were more likely

to choose the highest fat entree. This implies that

the Lakefront patrons may go through two-step

decision making process, first to decided whether or

not to eat an entree, then to choose which entree.

The study results suggest that in order to get

maximum effect on consumer's food choice, more

careful considerations are required for nutrition

information signs presentation at the Cafeteria envi-

ronment. First, the nutrition signs should be pro-

vided not only entrees but also other food items so

that patrons can compare against different types of

food, ex. entree vs. salad bar. Second, the signs may

need to be present for long period of time so that

patrons would notice and use the signs.

Reference

1) Third Edition, U. S. Department of Agriculture, U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, Home

and Garden Bulletin, 232, 4 (1990) 2) Heimback, James T. ; Clinical Nutrition, 6, 159

(1987) 3) Russo, J. Edward, Staelin, Richard, Nolan, Cather-

ine A., Rusell, Gary J., Metcalf, Barbara L. ; Nutri- tion information in the supermarket, Journal of

Consumer Reseach, 13, June, 48 (1986) 4) Levy, Alan S., Mathews, Odonna, Stephenson,

Marilyn, Tenney, Janet E., Schucker, Raymond E. ; The impact of nutrition program on food purchases,

Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 4, 1 (1985) 5) Engel, James F., Blackwell, Roger D., Miniard,

Paul W. ; Consumer Behavior, Fifth Edition, The Drayden Press, New York (1990)

(Received Sept. 2, 1996)

消費者のメニュー選択に対する栄養表示の効果

津田淑江 , 田村圭子 , K . ホルデン , J . ボチェック

キーワード:メニュー選択,影響力,エネルギー比率,栄養表示,主菜,カフェテリア利用者

一般にアメリカの消費者は栄養や健康問題への関心

は高いが,実際に望ましい食品選択が行われていない

という報告がある。そこで本研究では栄養素を示すこ

とにより,大学内カフェテリア利用者のメニュー選択

にどれだけ変化があるかをEn g e l - K o l l a t - B a c k w e l l

の方法に基づき調査し,論理的回帰分析を行い,その

効果を検討した。日替りランチメニューを対象に各々,

カロリー,総脂肪量を数値で表現するとともに,脂肪,

炭水化物,タンパク質のエネルギー比率をグラフで表

示した。表示期間は 3週間とした。カフェテリア利用

者に健康管理状況 , 栄養問題意識度 , 栄養知識度 , そ

の日のメニュー選択状況について栄養表示前と表示中

に分けて調査し,栄養表示利用者の特徴,高脂肪食品

選択者の特徴についての分析を行った。その結果,表

示に気付いた人は,カフェテリアを大変良く利用する

人か,またはその日初めて利用した人で,実際に表示

を参考にメニューを決めた人は栄養問題に深く関心の

ある人であった。

また高脂肪食品選択者の特徴は,消費者の2段階意

志決定理論に基づいて分析を行った。すなわち(1)日替

りメニューを選ぶかどうか,(2)日替りメニューのうち

何を選ぶかの2段階から検討した。その結果,日替り

メニューを選ぶ率は栄養表示に気付いた者ほど高く,

日替りメニューのうち高脂肪食品を選ぶ率は栄養表示

に気付かなかった者ほど高かった。したがって,栄養

表示に気付かなかった者が多かったものの,カフェテ

リア利用者のメニュー選択に栄養表示により高脂肪食

品選択を避ける効果があったことが明らかとなり,栄

養表示の必要性が示唆された。

(平成8年9月2日受理)

*共立女子短期大学

**ウイスコンシン大学消費者科学

***ウイスコンシン大学栄養科学

(141)37

Documents

The Effect of Nutrition Information Disclosure on