Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Experimental Study of Nutrition Facts Label Formats, 70266-70268 [2010-28966]
Download as PDF
70266
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 17, 2010 / Notices
ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED BURDEN HOURS
No. of
respondents
No. of
responses per
respondent
Avg. burden
per response
(in hrs)
Total burden
(in hrs)
Type of respondents
Form name
AI/AN Tribal Grantees ...
Traditional Foods Shared Data Elements ...........
One-Time Retrospective Data Collection ............
17
6
2
1
2
2
68
12
Total ........................
..............................................................................
........................
........................
........................
80
Dated: November 10, 2010.
Carol E. Walker,
Acting Reports Clearance Officer, Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2010–28930 Filed 11–16–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163–18–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
[Docket No. FDA–2009–N–0532]
Agency Information Collection
Activities; Submission for Office of
Management and Budget Review;
Comment Request; Experimental
Study of Nutrition Facts Label Formats
AGENCY:
Food and Drug Administration,
HHS.
ACTION:
Notice.
The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) is announcing
that a proposed collection of
information has been submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and clearance under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(the PRA).
DATES: Fax written comments on the
collection of information by December
17, 2010.
ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on
the information collection are received,
OMB recommends that written
comments be faxed to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs,
OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX:
202–395–7285, or e-mailed to
oira_submission@omb.eop.gov. All
comments should be identified with the
OMB control number 0910—New and
title ‘‘Experimental Study of Nutrition
Facts Label Formats.’’ Also include the
FDA docket number found in brackets
in the heading of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Denver Presley, Jr., Office of Information
Management, Food and Drug
Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50–
400B, Rockville, MD 20850, 301–796–
3793.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In
compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:21 Nov 16, 2010
Jkt 223001
has submitted the following proposed
collection of information to OMB for
review and clearance.
I. Experimental Study of Nutrition
Facts Label Format—(OMB Control No.
0910—New)
Nutrition information is required on
most packaged foods and this
information must be provided in a
specific format as defined in 21 CFR
101.9. When FDA was determining
which Nutrition Facts label format to
require, the Agency undertook
consumer research to evaluate
alternatives (Refs. 1, 2, and 3). More
recently, FDA conducted qualitative
consumer research on the format of the
Nutrition Facts label on behalf of the
Agency’s Obesity Working Group
(OWG) (Ref. 4), which was formed in
2003 and tasked with outlining a plan
to help confront the problem of obesity
in the United States (Ref. 5). In addition
to conducting consumer research, in
response to the OWG plan FDA issued
two advance notices of proposed
rulemaking (ANPRM) requesting
comments on format changes to the
Nutrition Facts label. One ANPRM
requested comments on whether and, if
so, how to give greater emphasis to
calories on the Nutrition Facts label
(Ref. 6) and the other requested
comments on whether and, if so, how to
amend the Agency’s serving size
regulations (Ref. 7). In 2007, FDA issued
an ANPRM requesting comments on
whether the Agency should require that
certain nutrients be added or removed
from the Nutrition Facts label (Ref. 8).
FDA conducts consumer research
under its broad statutory authority, set
forth in section 903(b)(2)(A) of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 393(b)(2)(A),
to protect the public health by ensuring
that ‘‘foods are safe, wholesome,
sanitary, and properly labeled;’’, and in
section 903(d)(2)(C) (21 U.S.C.
393(d)(2)(C)), to conduct research
relating to foods, drugs, cosmetics and
devices in carrying out the FD&C Act.
FDA is proposing to conduct an
experimental study to quantitatively
assess consumer reactions to potential
options for modifying the Nutrition
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Facts label format. The purpose of the
study is to help enhance FDA’s
understanding of consumer
comprehension and acceptance of
modifications to the Nutrition Facts
label format. The study is part of the
Agency’s continuing effort to enable
consumers to make informed dietary
choices and construct healthful diets.
The proposed study will use a Webbased experiment to collect information
from a sample of adult members in an
online consumer panel established by a
contractor. The study plans to randomly
assign each of 10,000 participants to
view Nutrition Facts labels from a set of
Nutrition Facts labels that vary by the
format, the type of food product, and the
quality of nutritional attributes of the
product. The study will focus on the
following types of consumer reactions:
(1) Judgments about a food product in
terms of its nutritional attributes and
overall healthfulness and (2) ability to
use the Nutrition Facts label to, for
example, calculate calories and estimate
serving sizes needed to meet objectives.
To help understand consumer reactions,
the study will also collect information
on participants’ background, including
but not limited to use of the Nutrition
Facts label and health status.
The study results will be used to help
the Agency to understand whether
modifications to the Nutrition Facts
label format could help consumers make
informed food choices. The results of
the experimental study will not be used
to develop population estimates.
In the Federal Register of November
18, 2009 (74 FR 59553), FDA published
a 60-day notice requesting public
comment on the proposed collection of
information. The Agency received 36
responses, some of them containing
multiple comments. The comments, and
the Agency’s responses, are discussed in
the following paragraphs. Some of the
comments received were not responsive
to the comment request on the four
topics of the collection of information.
These non-responsive comments are not
addressed.
(Comment 1) Several comments cited
the importance of studying ways to
improve the Nutrition Facts label on
E:\FR\FM\17NON1.SGM
17NON1
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 17, 2010 / Notices
packaged foods and commended FDA
for doing it.
(Response 1) FDA agrees that the
study will help FDA learn how
consumers react and respond to
Nutrition Facts label modification
options presented.
(Comment 2) One comment suggested
adding questions about product
purchase intent, amount the consumer
would likely eat, and impression of the
product’s taste and safety.
(Response 2) FDA agrees that these
questions are worthwhile and has
included questions on product purchase
intent. However, given the study
designs focus solely on the nutrition
label for use to choose healthier and
lower calorie products and mode of data
collection (Internet), questions on
amount of product likely to be eaten and
on taste are not meaningful to include.
(Comment 3) One comment suggested
that the study include various formats
with different methods of presenting
nutrition information be tested so that
the format can be found which helps
consumers understand the total
nutrition package without causing
confusion regarding the other properties
of the product.
(Response 3) FDA agrees that various
formats should be tested that help
consumers make more informed
decisions about the healthfulness of the
product. We will include questions
about the product to test how
consumers use the Nutrition Facts label
for making those evaluations.
(Comment 4) One comment suggested
the inclusion of real-time, one-on-one
chats between live moderators and
respondents during the fielding of the
study to enhance the quality of the
quantitative data collected.
(Response 4) FDA disagrees with this
suggestion. FDA has already conducted
a series of eight focus groups to learn
how and why consumers react to the
formats being tested. Also, prior to
conducting the on-line experiment, FDA
will conduct at least nine one-on-one
interviews where we observe
respondents taking the questionnaire,
and get their feedback about what they
were thinking as they answered each
question. We believe that, taken
together, the focus groups and the oneon-one interviews will give us a good
feel as to why respondents answer the
questions as they do.
(Comment 5) A number of comments
asked the Agency to publish the revised
instrument and mock stimuli for public
comment prior to initiating the study.
They had questions and
recommendations about the design of
the experiment, for example, whether
there will be a control group and how
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:21 Nov 16, 2010
Jkt 223001
many designs will be shown to the
consumers and how many label formats
will be tested and whether the subjects
will be asked to rank the different
formats in terms of preference.
(Response 5) We appreciate the
suggestion for the Agency to publish the
instrument and stimuli for public
comment prior to initiating the study.
Per the PRA, a copy of the revised
instrument is attached to the supporting
statement for public comment. We will
also include examples of stimuli as an
appendix of the supporting document.
FDA will have a control group for this
experiment. Ten different label formats
will be tested. Each subject will only
perform two tasks—an evaluation of a
single label and a label comparison task.
(Comment 6) Several comments were
about who should be included in the
study. One comment said that FDA
should give careful consideration to the
gender and age distribution of the study
subjects and that older subjects may
have difficulty in using the Web. One
comment said it was important to
include people with special health
concerns, those that do the majority of
grocery shopping or food preparation for
their households, and groups that may
be underrepresented online.
(Response 6) FDA agrees that
demographic factors such as age and
gender, health concerns, grocery
shopping, and food preparation
experiences are important factors. FDA
will collect the previously mentioned
information and include them in the
analyses. FDA will aim to have a sample
resemble the American adult
population. FDA will do pre-tests to
make sure everyone can read and
understand the survey.
(Comment 7) One comment suggested
that FDA should consider as part of the
proposed study how consumers
interpret the Nutrition Facts label in the
context of all the other information on
the package, and raised the question of
whether the information on the
Nutrition Facts label would be lost,
diluted, or confounded by all of the
other information that appears on the
package. The comment suggested that,
as part of the study design, FDA could
present the Nutrition Facts label by
itself and also how it would appear
alongside the other package
information, to see if consumers view or
interpret the Nutrition Facts label
differently in light of the total package.
(Response 7) While FDA agrees that
the Nutrition Facts label is perceived in
the context of the entire package, the
goal of this study is to test various
modifications to the Nutrition Facts
label that would be suitable for all food
products regardless of the context of the
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
70267
package. The study design proposes to
test different options of modified
Nutrition Facts label without other
aspects of the food package.
(Comment 8) One comment stated
that, in selecting the final sample for the
experimental study, FDA should
consider whether a certain percentage of
the subjects should be recruited based
on their concerns about allergy
information. The comment stated that
although most of the information on the
Nutrition Facts label has relevance to all
consumers, label information about
allergens may be of interest only to a
relatively small number of subjects who
have food allergies. The comment
suggested that the responses from this
group could be analyzed separately, in
addition as part of the total sample.
(Response 8) It is estimated that the
prevalence of food allergies ranges from
approximately 1 to 10 percent of the
population (Ref. 9). The study will use
a convenience sample (not a
representative sample) consisting of
members of an online panel, 18 years of
age or older. Therefore, the number of
respondents who have food allergies or
are caretakers of children who have food
allergies would be too small for the
purpose of statistically sound analysis.
(Comment 9) One comment asked that
FDA consider ways to minimize the
burden of the collection of information
on respondents, including the use of
automated collection techniques, when
appropriate, and other forms of
information technology.
(Response 9) FDA has taken steps to
minimize the burden of data collection
on respondents. Participants of the
study will be members of the existing
online panel and data will be collected
through the Internet. Respondents will
be sent e-mail invitations to participate
in the study.
(Comment 10) One comment asked
whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper
performance of FDA’s functions,
including whether the information will
have practical utility.
(Response 10) FDA believes that
collecting this information is necessary
for FDA’s regulatory oversight of the
Nutrition Facts label. Because one of the
purposes for initially developing and
implementing the Nutrition Facts label
was to help consumers make informed
food choices, it is important for FDA to
be able to evaluate whether consumers
understand how to properly interpret
the label, especially for health purposes.
(Comment 11) One comment
requested that FDA consider using some
or all of the label format changes
suggested by the Center for Science in
the Public Interest (CSPI) (Ref. 10).
E:\FR\FM\17NON1.SGM
17NON1
70268
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 17, 2010 / Notices
(Response 11) CSPI suggested
extensive changes to the Nutrition Facts
label that affect many parts of the label.
In this research, the Agency is focused
on how consumers use labels for
products that are customarily consumed
at one eating occasion but may contain
more than one serving per container as
well as on how consumers react to
different ways that calorie information
is declared on the label. FDA believes
these changes have the potential to be
among the most useful changes to help
consumers make informed choices.
Therefore, FDA identified and chose the
proposed formats, such as dual column
formats and prominence of calorie
formats, for this study. The variety of
different experimental conditions for
just these changes requires a very large
number of respondents. It is not feasible
to test the additional extensive changes
such as those suggested by CSPI in this
study because the number of
respondents needed would become
unmanageable.
FDA estimates the burden of this
collection of information as follows:
TABLE 1—ESTIMATED ANNUAL REPORTING BURDEN 1
Portion of study
Number of
respondents
Annual frequency
per response
Total annual
responses
Hours per response
Total hours
Cognitive interview screener ......
Cognitive interview .....................
Pretest invitation ........................
Pretest ........................................
Experiment invitation ..................
Experiment .................................
96
12
1,000
150
50,000
10,000
1
1
1
1
1
1
96
12
1,000
150
50,000
10,000
0.083
1
0.033
0.25
0.033
0.25
8
12
33
38
1,650
2,500
Total ....................................
................................
................................
................................
..................................
4,241
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
1 There
are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.
In the 60-day notice that published in
the Federal Register of November 18,
2009, we estimated a total burden of
1,595 hours for the study. In this
document, table 1 has been modified to
reflect our re-evaluation of the original
study design. The new total estimated
burden is 4,241 hours.
To help design and refine the
questionnaire to be used for the
experimental study, we plan to conduct
cognitive interviews by screening 96
adult consumers in order to obtain 12
participants in the interviews. Each
screening is expected to take 5 minutes
(0.083 hours) and each cognitive
interview is expected to take 1 hour.
The total for cognitive interview
activities is 20 hours (8 hours + 12
hours). Subsequently, we plan to
conduct pretests of the questionnaire
before it is administered in the study.
We expect that 1,000 invitations, each
taking 2 minutes (0.033 hours), will
need to be sent to adult members of an
online consumer panel to have 150 of
them complete a 15-minute (0.25 hours)
pretest. The total for the pretest
activities is 71 hours (33 hours + 38
hours). For the experiment, we estimate
that 50,000 invitations, each taking 2
minutes (0.033 hours), will need to be
sent to adult members of an online
consumer panel to have 10,000 of them
complete a 15-minute (0.25 hours)
questionnaire. The total for the
experiment activities is 4,150 hours
(1,650 hours + 2,500 hours). Thus, the
total estimated burden is 4,241 hours.
FDA’s burden estimate is based on prior
experience with research that is similar
to this proposed study.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:21 Nov 16, 2010
Jkt 223001
II. References
1. Levy A., S. Fein, and R. Schucker,
‘‘Nutrition Labeling Formats:
Performance and Preference,’’ Food
Technology 45: 116–121, 1991.
2. Levy A., S. Fein, and R. Schucker,
‘‘More Effective Nutrition Label
Formats Are Not Necessarily
Preferred,’’ Journal of the American
Dietetic Association 92: 1230–1234,
1992.
3. Levy A., S. Fein, and R. Schucker,
‘‘Performance Characteristics of
Seven Nutrition Label Formats,’’
Journal of Public Policy and
Marketing 15: 1–15, 1996.
4. Lando A. and J. Labiner-Wolfe,
‘‘Helping Consumers to Make More
Healthful Food Choices: Consumer
Views on Modifying Food Labels
and Providing Point-of-Purchase
Nutrition Information at QuickService Restaurants,’’ Journal of
Nutrition Education and Behavior
39: 157–163, 2007.
5. U.S. Food and Drug Administration,
Calories Count: Report of the
Working Group on Obesity, 2004,
(https://www.fda.gov/Food/
LabelingNutrition/ReportsResearch/
ucm081696.htm).
6. 70 FR 17008, April 4 2005.
7. 70 FR 17010, April 4 2005.
8. 72 FR 62149, November 2 2007.
9. Schnieder Chafer, J.J., S.J. Newbery,
M.A. Riedl, et al., ‘‘Diagnosing and
Managing Common Food Allergies:
A Systematic Review,’’ Journal of
the American Medical Association
303(18): 1848–1856.
10. Silverglade, B and I.R. Heller, ‘‘Food
Labeling Chaos: The Case for
Reform,’’ Center for Science in the
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Public Interest, March 2010,
available at: https://
www.cspinet.org/new/pdf/
food_labeling_chaos_report.pdf.
Dated: November 10, 2010.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010–28966 Filed 11–16–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
National Institutes of Health
Submission for OMB Review;
Comment Request; NIH NCI Central
Institutional Review Board (CIRB)
Initiative (NCI)
Under the provisions of
Section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, the National
Cancer Institute (NCI), the National
Institutes of Health (NIH), has submitted
to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) a request to review and approve
the information collection listed below.
This proposed information collection
was previously published in the Federal
Register on August 16, 2010 (75 FR
49938) and allowed 60-days for public
comment. No public comments were
received. The purpose of this notice is
to allow 30 days for public comment.
The National Institutes of Health may
not conduct or sponsor, and the
respondent is not required to respond
to, an information collection that has
been extended, revised, or implemented
on or after October 1, 1995, unless it
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\17NON1.SGM
17NON1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 221 (Wednesday, November 17, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70266-70268]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28966]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
[Docket No. FDA-2009-N-0532]
Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Experimental Study of
Nutrition Facts Label Formats
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA).
DATES: Fax written comments on the collection of information by
December 17, 2010.
ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer,
FAX: 202-395-7285, or e-mailed to oira_submission@omb.eop.gov. All
comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910--New and
title ``Experimental Study of Nutrition Facts Label Formats.'' Also
include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of this
document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Denver Presley, Jr., Office of
Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr.,
PI50-400B, Rockville, MD 20850, 301-796-3793.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for
review and clearance.
I. Experimental Study of Nutrition Facts Label Format--(OMB Control No.
0910--New)
Nutrition information is required on most packaged foods and this
information must be provided in a specific format as defined in 21 CFR
101.9. When FDA was determining which Nutrition Facts label format to
require, the Agency undertook consumer research to evaluate
alternatives (Refs. 1, 2, and 3). More recently, FDA conducted
qualitative consumer research on the format of the Nutrition Facts
label on behalf of the Agency's Obesity Working Group (OWG) (Ref. 4),
which was formed in 2003 and tasked with outlining a plan to help
confront the problem of obesity in the United States (Ref. 5). In
addition to conducting consumer research, in response to the OWG plan
FDA issued two advance notices of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM)
requesting comments on format changes to the Nutrition Facts label. One
ANPRM requested comments on whether and, if so, how to give greater
emphasis to calories on the Nutrition Facts label (Ref. 6) and the
other requested comments on whether and, if so, how to amend the
Agency's serving size regulations (Ref. 7). In 2007, FDA issued an
ANPRM requesting comments on whether the Agency should require that
certain nutrients be added or removed from the Nutrition Facts label
(Ref. 8).
FDA conducts consumer research under its broad statutory authority,
set forth in section 903(b)(2)(A) of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 393(b)(2)(A), to protect the
public health by ensuring that ``foods are safe, wholesome, sanitary,
and properly labeled;'', and in section 903(d)(2)(C) (21 U.S.C.
393(d)(2)(C)), to conduct research relating to foods, drugs, cosmetics
and devices in carrying out the FD&C Act.
FDA is proposing to conduct an experimental study to quantitatively
assess consumer reactions to potential options for modifying the
Nutrition Facts label format. The purpose of the study is to help
enhance FDA's understanding of consumer comprehension and acceptance of
modifications to the Nutrition Facts label format. The study is part of
the Agency's continuing effort to enable consumers to make informed
dietary choices and construct healthful diets.
The proposed study will use a Web-based experiment to collect
information from a sample of adult members in an online consumer panel
established by a contractor. The study plans to randomly assign each of
10,000 participants to view Nutrition Facts labels from a set of
Nutrition Facts labels that vary by the format, the type of food
product, and the quality of nutritional attributes of the product. The
study will focus on the following types of consumer reactions: (1)
Judgments about a food product in terms of its nutritional attributes
and overall healthfulness and (2) ability to use the Nutrition Facts
label to, for example, calculate calories and estimate serving sizes
needed to meet objectives. To help understand consumer reactions, the
study will also collect information on participants' background,
including but not limited to use of the Nutrition Facts label and
health status.
The study results will be used to help the Agency to understand
whether modifications to the Nutrition Facts label format could help
consumers make informed food choices. The results of the experimental
study will not be used to develop population estimates.
In the Federal Register of November 18, 2009 (74 FR 59553), FDA
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed
collection of information. The Agency received 36 responses, some of
them containing multiple comments. The comments, and the Agency's
responses, are discussed in the following paragraphs. Some of the
comments received were not responsive to the comment request on the
four topics of the collection of information. These non-responsive
comments are not addressed.
(Comment 1) Several comments cited the importance of studying ways
to improve the Nutrition Facts label on
[[Page 70267]]
packaged foods and commended FDA for doing it.
(Response 1) FDA agrees that the study will help FDA learn how
consumers react and respond to Nutrition Facts label modification
options presented.
(Comment 2) One comment suggested adding questions about product
purchase intent, amount the consumer would likely eat, and impression
of the product's taste and safety.
(Response 2) FDA agrees that these questions are worthwhile and has
included questions on product purchase intent. However, given the study
designs focus solely on the nutrition label for use to choose healthier
and lower calorie products and mode of data collection (Internet),
questions on amount of product likely to be eaten and on taste are not
meaningful to include.
(Comment 3) One comment suggested that the study include various
formats with different methods of presenting nutrition information be
tested so that the format can be found which helps consumers understand
the total nutrition package without causing confusion regarding the
other properties of the product.
(Response 3) FDA agrees that various formats should be tested that
help consumers make more informed decisions about the healthfulness of
the product. We will include questions about the product to test how
consumers use the Nutrition Facts label for making those evaluations.
(Comment 4) One comment suggested the inclusion of real-time, one-
on-one chats between live moderators and respondents during the
fielding of the study to enhance the quality of the quantitative data
collected.
(Response 4) FDA disagrees with this suggestion. FDA has already
conducted a series of eight focus groups to learn how and why consumers
react to the formats being tested. Also, prior to conducting the on-
line experiment, FDA will conduct at least nine one-on-one interviews
where we observe respondents taking the questionnaire, and get their
feedback about what they were thinking as they answered each question.
We believe that, taken together, the focus groups and the one-on-one
interviews will give us a good feel as to why respondents answer the
questions as they do.
(Comment 5) A number of comments asked the Agency to publish the
revised instrument and mock stimuli for public comment prior to
initiating the study. They had questions and recommendations about the
design of the experiment, for example, whether there will be a control
group and how many designs will be shown to the consumers and how many
label formats will be tested and whether the subjects will be asked to
rank the different formats in terms of preference.
(Response 5) We appreciate the suggestion for the Agency to publish
the instrument and stimuli for public comment prior to initiating the
study. Per the PRA, a copy of the revised instrument is attached to the
supporting statement for public comment. We will also include examples
of stimuli as an appendix of the supporting document. FDA will have a
control group for this experiment. Ten different label formats will be
tested. Each subject will only perform two tasks--an evaluation of a
single label and a label comparison task.
(Comment 6) Several comments were about who should be included in
the study. One comment said that FDA should give careful consideration
to the gender and age distribution of the study subjects and that older
subjects may have difficulty in using the Web. One comment said it was
important to include people with special health concerns, those that do
the majority of grocery shopping or food preparation for their
households, and groups that may be underrepresented online.
(Response 6) FDA agrees that demographic factors such as age and
gender, health concerns, grocery shopping, and food preparation
experiences are important factors. FDA will collect the previously
mentioned information and include them in the analyses. FDA will aim to
have a sample resemble the American adult population. FDA will do pre-
tests to make sure everyone can read and understand the survey.
(Comment 7) One comment suggested that FDA should consider as part
of the proposed study how consumers interpret the Nutrition Facts label
in the context of all the other information on the package, and raised
the question of whether the information on the Nutrition Facts label
would be lost, diluted, or confounded by all of the other information
that appears on the package. The comment suggested that, as part of the
study design, FDA could present the Nutrition Facts label by itself and
also how it would appear alongside the other package information, to
see if consumers view or interpret the Nutrition Facts label
differently in light of the total package.
(Response 7) While FDA agrees that the Nutrition Facts label is
perceived in the context of the entire package, the goal of this study
is to test various modifications to the Nutrition Facts label that
would be suitable for all food products regardless of the context of
the package. The study design proposes to test different options of
modified Nutrition Facts label without other aspects of the food
package.
(Comment 8) One comment stated that, in selecting the final sample
for the experimental study, FDA should consider whether a certain
percentage of the subjects should be recruited based on their concerns
about allergy information. The comment stated that although most of the
information on the Nutrition Facts label has relevance to all
consumers, label information about allergens may be of interest only to
a relatively small number of subjects who have food allergies. The
comment suggested that the responses from this group could be analyzed
separately, in addition as part of the total sample.
(Response 8) It is estimated that the prevalence of food allergies
ranges from approximately 1 to 10 percent of the population (Ref. 9).
The study will use a convenience sample (not a representative sample)
consisting of members of an online panel, 18 years of age or older.
Therefore, the number of respondents who have food allergies or are
caretakers of children who have food allergies would be too small for
the purpose of statistically sound analysis.
(Comment 9) One comment asked that FDA consider ways to minimize
the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including
the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other
forms of information technology.
(Response 9) FDA has taken steps to minimize the burden of data
collection on respondents. Participants of the study will be members of
the existing online panel and data will be collected through the
Internet. Respondents will be sent e-mail invitations to participate in
the study.
(Comment 10) One comment asked whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions,
including whether the information will have practical utility.
(Response 10) FDA believes that collecting this information is
necessary for FDA's regulatory oversight of the Nutrition Facts label.
Because one of the purposes for initially developing and implementing
the Nutrition Facts label was to help consumers make informed food
choices, it is important for FDA to be able to evaluate whether
consumers understand how to properly interpret the label, especially
for health purposes.
(Comment 11) One comment requested that FDA consider using some or
all of the label format changes suggested by the Center for Science in
the Public Interest (CSPI) (Ref. 10).
[[Page 70268]]
(Response 11) CSPI suggested extensive changes to the Nutrition
Facts label that affect many parts of the label. In this research, the
Agency is focused on how consumers use labels for products that are
customarily consumed at one eating occasion but may contain more than
one serving per container as well as on how consumers react to
different ways that calorie information is declared on the label. FDA
believes these changes have the potential to be among the most useful
changes to help consumers make informed choices. Therefore, FDA
identified and chose the proposed formats, such as dual column formats
and prominence of calorie formats, for this study. The variety of
different experimental conditions for just these changes requires a
very large number of respondents. It is not feasible to test the
additional extensive changes such as those suggested by CSPI in this
study because the number of respondents needed would become
unmanageable.
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:
Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Annual frequency Total annual
Portion of study respondents per response responses Hours per response Total hours
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cognitive interview screener....................... 96 1 96 0.083 8
Cognitive interview................................ 12 1 12 1 12
Pretest invitation................................. 1,000 1 1,000 0.033 33
Pretest............................................ 150 1 150 0.25 38
Experiment invitation.............................. 50,000 1 50,000 0.033 1,650
Experiment......................................... 10,000 1 10,000 0.25 2,500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.......................................... .................. .................. .................. ................... 4,241
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.
In the 60-day notice that published in the Federal Register of
November 18, 2009, we estimated a total burden of 1,595 hours for the
study. In this document, table 1 has been modified to reflect our re-
evaluation of the original study design. The new total estimated burden
is 4,241 hours.
To help design and refine the questionnaire to be used for the
experimental study, we plan to conduct cognitive interviews by
screening 96 adult consumers in order to obtain 12 participants in the
interviews. Each screening is expected to take 5 minutes (0.083 hours)
and each cognitive interview is expected to take 1 hour. The total for
cognitive interview activities is 20 hours (8 hours + 12 hours).
Subsequently, we plan to conduct pretests of the questionnaire before
it is administered in the study. We expect that 1,000 invitations, each
taking 2 minutes (0.033 hours), will need to be sent to adult members
of an online consumer panel to have 150 of them complete a 15-minute
(0.25 hours) pretest. The total for the pretest activities is 71 hours
(33 hours + 38 hours). For the experiment, we estimate that 50,000
invitations, each taking 2 minutes (0.033 hours), will need to be sent
to adult members of an online consumer panel to have 10,000 of them
complete a 15-minute (0.25 hours) questionnaire. The total for the
experiment activities is 4,150 hours (1,650 hours + 2,500 hours). Thus,
the total estimated burden is 4,241 hours. FDA's burden estimate is
based on prior experience with research that is similar to this
proposed study.
II. References
1. Levy A., S. Fein, and R. Schucker, ``Nutrition Labeling Formats:
Performance and Preference,'' Food Technology 45: 116-121, 1991.
2. Levy A., S. Fein, and R. Schucker, ``More Effective Nutrition Label
Formats Are Not Necessarily Preferred,'' Journal of the American
Dietetic Association 92: 1230-1234, 1992.
3. Levy A., S. Fein, and R. Schucker, ``Performance Characteristics of
Seven Nutrition Label Formats,'' Journal of Public Policy and Marketing
15: 1-15, 1996.
4. Lando A. and J. Labiner-Wolfe, ``Helping Consumers to Make More
Healthful Food Choices: Consumer Views on Modifying Food Labels and
Providing Point-of-Purchase Nutrition Information at Quick-Service
Restaurants,'' Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior 39: 157-163,
2007.
5. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Calories Count: Report of the
Working Group on Obesity, 2004, (https://www.fda.gov/Food/LabelingNutrition/ReportsResearch/ucm081696.htm).
6. 70 FR 17008, April 4 2005.
7. 70 FR 17010, April 4 2005.
8. 72 FR 62149, November 2 2007.
9. Schnieder Chafer, J.J., S.J. Newbery, M.A. Riedl, et al.,
``Diagnosing and Managing Common Food Allergies: A Systematic Review,''
Journal of the American Medical Association 303(18): 1848-1856.
10. Silverglade, B and I.R. Heller, ``Food Labeling Chaos: The Case for
Reform,'' Center for Science in the Public Interest, March 2010,
available at: https://www.cspinet.org/new/pdf/food_labeling_chaos_report.pdf.
Dated: November 10, 2010.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-28966 Filed 11-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P