Publisher: Asian Economic and Social Society ISSN (P) 2304-1455, ISSN (E) 2224-4433 Volume 2, No 3, September, 2012 Consumers’ Use and Understanding of Food Label Information and Effect on their Purchasing Decision in Ghana; A Case Study of Kumasi Metropolis Osei Mensah J. (Lecturer, Department of Agricultural Economics, Agribusiness and Extension, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi-Ghana) Lawer, D. R. (BSc. graduate, Department of Agricultural Economics, Agribusiness and Extension, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi-Ghana) Aidoo, R. (Lecturer, Department of Agricultural Economics, Agribusiness and Extension, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi-Ghana) Citation: Osei Mensah J., Lawer Dede Rose and Aidoo, R. (2012) “Consumers‟ Use and Understanding of Food Label Information and Effect on their Purchasing Decision in Ghana; a Case Study of Kumasi Metropolis”, Asian Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 351-365. Asian Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development, 2(3), pp. 351-365 351 Author(s) Osei Mensah J. Lecturer, Department of Agricultural Economics, Agribusiness and Extension, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi-Ghana Email:mojemmy@gmail.com Lawer D. R. BSc. graduate, Department of Agricultural Economics, Agribusiness and Extension, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi-Ghana Email:rodelamichal@ymail.com Aidoo R. Lecturer, Department of Agricultural Economics, Agribusiness and Extension, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi-Ghana Consumers’ Use and Understanding of Food Label Information and Effect on their Purchasing Decision in Ghana; a Case Study of Kumasi Metropolis Abstract This study explored consumers‟ use and understanding of food label information and the effect on their purchasing decision in the Kumasi Metropolis. It also investigated the association between socio-demographic factors and the use of food label, the understanding of the information read as well as the type of information sought. The study surveyed 250 consumers who were conveniently selected from five different sub-metros in the metropolis. Questionnaires were formulated to sample data and information from consumers on their use and understanding of Food Label Information. Results suggested that the sample was gender sensitive (57.6% male) with a modal aged group between 15-30 years (60.8%) who had never been married (54.0%), with a greater number who had tertiary education (36.4%) and earning low income between GH¢50- 499 (61.6%). About 79.6% (n=199) of the respondents, recounted accessing food label information before purchase and they read the information occasionally (29.6%) during initial purchase (37.2%). Majority of the respondent said advertisement (31.6%) and price (31.2%) other than food label (10.0%) were the central stimuli to purchase a canned food product. Highly-educated, male consumers 2( 17.602, , 0.007,df p    ) were those more likely to use various types of food label information than others. A positive relationship was observed between male, youthful (31-45) consumers and consumer who were never been married and their use and understanding of food label information. Keywords: Food, Label, Information, Package, Consumers, Kumasi. Introduction With the improvement of living standards, consumers have become increasingly concerned about their health and general well-being since natural food is increasingly being replaced with conventional foods. To make a product unique and distinctive, firms spend more money and time on packaging more than advertisement because packaging is mostly the utmost distinguished marketing element (Dickson, 1994). According to Héroux et al. (1988), marketers as well as manufacturers spend considerable time and substantial amount of money on packaging products in a manner that will attract consumer attention and enhance the product consumption. Food label has now become a popular policy tool. At present, there are many reasons why foods are processed and packaged, some of which include, adding value to a food, improving visual appeal, and convenience. The act has now developed far beyond its initial purpose of mailto:mojemmy@gmail.com mailto:rodelamichal@ymail.com Consumers’ Use and Understanding of Food Label ... 352 product protection. In Ghana, The Food and Drugs Board (FDB) regulates food product manufacturing, importation, exportation, advertisement and distribution. In pursuance of section 47(b) (ii) of the Food and Drugs Law, 1992 (P.N.D.C.L 305B) guidelines are made to regulate the use of health claims in food labeling and advertisement in Ghana. Research on food label and consumers have gained much momentum in recent times. A survey by the American Dietetic Association, (1995) found that almost 50% of respondent found nutritional label confusing. In India, it was found out that consumers have an inability to understand food label information because of difficult terminology and small font sizes. Therefore television, friends and magazines are commonly used for assessing the nutritional information, (Manisha, 2008). A study conducted by Allen et al. (2001) on patients understanding and use of Snack and Package Nutrition Labels, suggests majority of consumers (patients) do not understand snack food nutrition labels well enough to make informed dietary choices. Study conducted in Malawi by Kasapila and Shawa, (2011) showed that among all label users (n=60), 7.3% reported to understand well what they read on the nutrition panel, 18.9% understood it partly and the rest (73.8%) did not understand the numerical information and terminology used. Moreover, the rural consumers were not familiar with the English language (64.3%) on food packages. Food labels are of tremendous importance to the consumer (provide them a means of evaluating the food before purchase), the firm producing and selling the product (a means of communicating to the potential consumer the attributes and qualities of the product), and regulatory bodies (a means of ensuring that food produced and sold meet required standards and a means of protecting the interest of the general public). Despite these benefits of food labels, there have been many reported instances where non-certified, expired, illegal or fake food products are sold to the public. Cases in point are sale of uncertified sachet water, the sale of expired canned tomatoes and frozen chickens, and the sale of uncertified imported food products on the Ghanaian market. From the above it can be confidently argued that these instances and their frequency of occurrence can be considerably alleviated if the needed attention is paid to the food label information by consumers, if the regulatory bodies had enforced their constitutionally mandated responsibilities, and had all the manufacturing companies complied with the act of Ghana Standards Board (GSB) and Food and Drugs Board (FDB) as stated above. In the event that manufacturing firms and regulatory bodies are unable to adequately carry out their mandate, it is incumbent on consumers to critically examine the food before purchase. An important means of assessing food product is through the labels. Against the backdrop of alleged frequent sale of expired and uncertified food products it can be asserted that consumers either do not refer to food labels when buying or they do not understand what the information contained on food labels mean. This might either be due to ignorance or lack of awareness and also an attitude of indifference. An important issue worth addressing is whether consumers refer to food labels for product information before and during purchase and whether consumers really understand what these information mean. Also, even if they do refer to food label information, little is known about the extent to which consumers‟ food purchasing decision is affected by food label information. Knowing whether or not consumers understand food label information, the type of information consumers look out for and whether consumers‟ choice of food is affected by food label information will help manufacturers make informed decisions in this regard. Improvement on the part of these manufacturing firms in turn will help consumers make well-informed choice, reduce the risk of food poisoning, buying fake products etc. The study therefore seeks to address the issue of how consumers use food label information and the effect it has on the purchasing decision of consumers. The rest of the paper is organized as follows; section two reviews literature relevant to this study whilst the research methodology is presented in section three. Section four presents Asian Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development, 2(3), pp. 351-365 353 and discusses the results/findings of the study whilst the conclusions and recommendations are presented in the last section, five. Literature Review Hu et al. (2006) noted that consumers‟ behaviour in response to reading food labels will depend upon the reference points from which they came and the values that they bring to food purchasing. Labels are one of the most important features of product packaging, and they are designed to communicate a message (Héroux et al. 1988). But consumer behaviour is complex, very often difficult to understand and they differ across borders and also between and within regions, (DG SANCO, 2005). Decision to purchase A number of factors influence consumers‟ decision-making, but Prathiraja and Ariyawardana (2003) anticipated nutritional labelling to affect consumers‟ purchasing behaviour significantly. Consumers‟ ability to choose their diets depends partly on the quantity as well as quality of information available through a variety of sources, including nutrition panel of food labels (Caswell and Padberg, 1999). Underwood et al., (2001) and Silayoi and Speece (2004), found out that packaging elements act as a tool for differentiation. This helps consumers to choose the product from a wide range of similar products and stimulates customers buying behaviour. Thus food package performs an important role in marketing communications and could be treated as one of the most important factors influencing consumer‟s purchasing decision. The research findings of Rita (2009) show that the impact of package elements on consumers purchasing decisions can be stronger. She concludes that a package could be treated as one of most valuable tool in today‟s marketing communications, necessitating more detailed analysis of its elements. The impact of package and its elements on consumer‟s purchase decision can be revealed by analysing the importance of its separate elements for consumer‟s choice. The pre-purchase search of nutritional information could be measured in terms of label use (Nayga, 2003). Thus consumer‟s preference and decision to purchase can have some appreciable amount of link to the labels and therefore suggest having an impact on the choice behaviour. However, consumers‟ purchasing behaviour does not always reflect their stated preferences (Henneberry and Armbruster, 2003). Unlike Malawi where price is a major determinant of purchase (Kasapila and Shawa, 2001), in Lesotho (Mahgoub et al., 2007), it was clear that nutritional information was the major factor that affects the decision of participating in the studies to purchase the types of food they buy. Consumer demographic characters and effect on purchasing decision There are a lot of factors that influence choice and decision to buy or not to buy. Due to increasing self-service and changing consumers‟ lifestyle, the interest in package as a tool of sales promotion and stimulator of impulsive buying behaviour is growing increasingly. Previous researches suggest that the acquisition of information, and consequently behaviour, are influenced by various demographic factors such as age (Nayga, 1997; Govindasamy and Italia, 1999); sex (Mintel, 2006; Beus and Dunlap, 1992); household size (Nayga, 2003) and race (Katona and Mueller, 1995; Putler and Frazao, 1994); by the marketing environment, including urbanization and region (Park et al., 1989); by education (Schultz, 1975; Hu et al., 2006); by factors that affect time constraints, such as employment (Becker, 1977; Beatty and Smith, 1987); and by perception factors (Guthrie et al., 1995). Gellynck et al. (2006) also found that responsiveness of Belgian consumers to information about food traceability was significantly associated with education, though not with gender and age. A study by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Foods in the UK (MAFF, 1994) found that the educational level of UK consumers did not affect their interpretation and responses to the information provided on labels. Grossman, (1972) found that the rate of appreciation for good health increases with age. Consequently, older individuals might be more cautious about what they eat for health reasons. Hence these Consumers’ Use and Understanding of Food Label ... 354 factors may increase consumers desire to know more about the nutritional aspects of the food they eat. Perception variables such as product safety, nutrition, price, and taste when food shopping, as well as perceptions on healthfulness of one‟s diet and degree of diet-disease belief are also factor that promote the use of food label information. The result of Rodolfo, (1996) suggests that main meal planners who hold a stronger belief that discernment in what is consumed can help to reduce the risk of developing a major health disorder such as heart disease and cancer are more likely to use nutritional information related to fibre, fat, and sugar content on food packages. Price can hide other aspects of the label, especially for lower income consumers. Those with high income displayed different attitudes to those with lower income in terms of the perceived options available to them. Also, main meal planners of higher-income households are more likely to use nutritional information concerning calories, sodium, fibre, fat, and cholesterol content than main meal planners of lower-income households, (Rodolfo, 1996). In Lesotho, majority (71.2%) of the participants claimed that they use a shopping list. And a positive relationship was seen between food label usage and age, income family size and education. Less than half of the participants (40.5%) indicated that nutritional information on food labels, rather than price, taste, appearance, habit, convenience, or brand name, was their main motivator to purchase foods (Mahgoub et al., 2007). Some food label information consumers consider during purchase The level and extent of information required is often driven by specific dietary needs or underlying health conditions (MORI, 2010). Food Safety The labels that help consumers determine whether food products are safe, hygienic and of high quality are country of origin traceability (of the origin, production process and product information of food), quality assurance, and use-by/best-before dates. The latter are seen as good indicators of freshness, shelf-life and general food safety, (Philip et al., 2010). Most consumers are willing to pay the most for food label. They believed the label denote food safety and quality (Umberger et al., 2003). Country of Origin Country of origin labelling is basically for the traceability of food products and also to fulfil the demand of Mandatory Labelling. There is generally the belief that one‟s own country or region produces safer and better food than other countries or regions (Philip et al., 2010). This was echoed by Wier et al. (2008), who found in their survey of consumers in Britain and Denmark that 72% of all respondents would prefer to buy conventional domestic fruits and vegetables rather than organic foreign produce. Banterle and Stranieri (2008) have found that country of origin is an important indicator for consumers of both the quality and safety of food. Research by Umberger et al. (2003) reveals that the surveyed consumers in Chicago and Denver were willing to pay a premium for Country-of-Origin Labelling. This reflects a common belief that local, or near-local produce is not only safer, better tasting, and of superior quality, but that it is also easier to verify its quality, (Philip et al., 2010). Quality When consumers choose among competing products, they are faced with quality and product performance uncertainty. Package is one of the main elements of the product appearance and as such is an important source of information since consumers rely heavily on labels for product information and also packaging is a significant marketing expenditure larger than advertising itself, (Pires and Ricardo, 2008). Hoback (2008) found that, “consumers see organic products as purer, healthier and better tasting than conventional food and other products”. Padel and Foster (2005), however concluded that “price remains a barrier for many consumers, but it is possible that its significance could be diminished if consumers were made more aware of the reasons for the higher price, and convinced that organic food is a value for money choice despite the premium”. Although consumers look for date labels, there is evidence that many misunderstood what terms like „best before‟ and „use by‟ actually represent (MORI, 2010). Asian Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development, 2(3), pp. 351-365 355 Health Claims "Health claim" means any claim that states, suggests or implies that a relationship exists between a food category, a food or one of its constituents and health, (FDB, 1992). Nutrition and Health information help consumers make informed choices about health risks and how to balance these risks. Generally, participants tended to look out for reassurance of specific qualities such as no electronic numbers, no caffeine, and low fat (or most frequently „lite‟) (MORI, 2010). Some consumers also look at food label because of health consciousness (Prathiraja and Ariyawardana, 2003). Price Price is one of the most important labels for most consumers, and one that influences their food purchasing decisions. Price ranks alongside country of origin and expiry/use-by dates as the most commonly sought information on food labels, (Philip et al., 2010). Price can eclipse other aspects of the label, especially for lower income consumers. Those with high income displayed different attitudes to those with lower income in terms of the perceived options available to them. Consumers in lower paid jobs paid more attention to special price offers, and thus respectively paid less attention to food labelling directly, (MORI, 2010). Charles, (2002) released in his study that 70% of purchasing decision is based on price, taste and expiry date alone. „„For the lowest income group, food price was the major determining factor of the types of foods they buy‟‟ (Mahgoub et al., 2007). Methods Research Area Kumasi is Ghana‟s second largest city and capital of the Ashanti region found in southern Ghana. Kumasi covers approximately 299 square kilometre size of land and is located in the transitional forest zone and is about 270km (by road) north of the national capital, Accra. Sampling and data collection The research concentrated on consumers (from 15 years and above) of canned/tinned foods in the Kumasi metropolis because of its highly concentrated cosmopolitan population. The metropolis is divided into ten sub-metros out of which five were selected by simple random sampling. Fifty consumers were conveniently selected (after attempts to use probability sampling proved not feasible) from the five sub-metros. Questionnaires were formulated and used to collect and sample data on consumers‟ use, understanding of food label and their demographics. This was administered through personal interviews with consumers in the selected areas. Data were collected through the use of well-structured survey questionnaires. Consumers, specifically individuals from 15 years and above were drawn based on convenience and asked if they purchased any form of canned foods and were enthusiastic to contribute to the study. These consumers were considered old enough to make informed purchasing decision. Canned/tinned food was chosen because it is one of the arrays of food that fall under mandatory labelling. These food groups are required to provide a complete labelling on their packaging. Consumers‟ buying behaviour was measured through self-reported use and understanding of food label information, when they read it and any impact on purchasing decision. The socio- demographic information of the respondents (age, sex, education, marital status and level of income) was also obtained. Method of data analysis Data entry and analysis was done using SPSS computer package version 19. Descriptive and inferential statistics were created and used to define and explain the results. A chi square (X2) statistic was used to investigate whether distributions of categorical variables differ from one another. It shows a quantitative measure used to determine whether a relationship exists between two categorical variables. The Pearson's chi-squared test was used to assess whether the two paired observations / variables were independent. Results and Discussions Socio-demographic Statistics of the Sample As displayed in table 1below, results showed that the sample was gender sensitive (male = 57.6) with the modal age group being 15-30 Consumers’ Use and Understanding of Food Label ... 356 years (60.8%) who had never been married (54.0%) and with a greater number who had tertiary education (36.4%) earning between GH¢50-499 (61.6%). Table 1: Socio-demographics of the sample Variable Frequency Percentage Sex: Male Female 144 106 57.6 42.4 Age groups: 15-30 36-45 46-60 < 60 152 74 15 9 60.8 29.6 6.0 3.6 Marital status: Single Married Divorced/ Separated Widowed 135 86 15 14 54.0 34.4 6.0 5.6 Level of education: None Basic Secondary Tertiary 19 58 82 91 7.6 23.2 32.8 36.4 Income levels: (50-499) (500-999) (1000 and above) 154 72 24 61.6 28.8 9.6 Frequency and time of use of Food Label Information From table 2, most consumers reported reading food labels occasionally (29.6%) with always (22.8%), often (19.6%) and rarely (7.6%) ranking 2nd, 3rd and 4th respectively during initial purchase (37.2%). And 20.4% say that they never read food labels. Table 2: When and how often consumers refer to Food Label Information When consumers read label Frequency Percentage (%) Initial purchase 93 37.2 When comparing products 43 17.2 When buying some particular product 63 25.2 How often they refer to label Frequency Percentage (%) Rarely 19 7.6 Occasionally 74 29.6 Often 49 19.6 Always 57 22.8 Total 199 79.6 Though the study indicated that, majority of the consumers use label information, they only do this occasionally on initial purchase. This is probable because consumers assumed they know the product to have reached minimum standard (MORI, 2001) or the search cost is expensive as pointed out in the research done by Gianfranco et al., (2006). A cross tabulation of frequency of use of food labels and when they are read revealed that, consumers who report reading food labels do that during initial purchases, always (n=31, 15.58%) These proportions are similar to the findings from Mintel (2006) which suggest that approximately half of food consumers from UK read the labels on initial purchases, always‟ (32%) or usually (20%). Consumers’ Use and Understanding of food Labels Results from table 3 show that about 79.6% (n=199) of the respondents, recounted to access Asian Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development, 2(3), pp. 351-365 357 food label information before purchase with 54.8% understanding the information somehow. Table 3: Consumers’ use and understanding of food label information Do you read food label? Frequency Percentage (%) Yes 199 79.6 No 51 20.4 Do you understand what you read? Very well 77 38.7 Somehow 109 54.8 Don‟t understand 13 6.5 Out of the 79.60% (n=199) respondent who claimed to use label information during purchasing any canned food, 93.3% said they understood the information they read while 6.5% don‟t understand what even they read being it the terminology or technical terms used or numerical gen. Among the label users (n=186, 93.3%) who understand, 54.8% said they understood the information somehow while 38.7% understand it very well. This result was different from the answers of Mahgoub et al., (2007) that found out that majority (59.0%) of consumers‟ in Lesotho understand food label very well. The kind of information consumers look out for Date label (99.5%) was found to be the information consumers most seek on any canned food. It recorded the highest score followed by ingredient (78.4%), health claim (66.8%) and nutritional information (65.3%) placing fourth. Information like net weight (24.1%), producers or manufacturers (30.7%), country of origin (47.7%) and net weight (24.1%) were least considered. Table 4: The kind of information consumers look out for Multiple Response Food Label Information Yes No Freq. % Freq. % Nutritional information 130 65.3 69 34.7 Health Claims 133 66.8 66 33.2 Ingredient 156 78.4 43 21.6 Expiry Date/ Use Before 198 99.5 1 0.4 Country of Origin 95 47.7 104 52.3 Net Weight 48 24.1 151 75.9 Producers /manufacturers 61 30.7 138 69.3 Instruction for use 99 49.7 100 50.3 From table 4 above, it was evident that consumer were more interested in date label than any other information on a labelled package. This is mostly used to determine the safety, freshness, wholesomeness and quality of food products. Date label comes in the form of manufacturing date which signifies the product was made, use by which specifies beyond which food should not be consumed and best before/expiry date gives an indication of quality life span of the product. This result is similar to the finding of Tessier et al, (2000) who reported that date labels were the most commonly sought information on food labels on a wide range of food products amongst Scottish consumers. A research by MORI 2010 also revealed that once consumers are at home the only information important to them is the date label. Sabbe et al., (2009) found that expiry date is commonly used by consumers as an indication of freshness, shelf life and food safety across a range of foods. Consumers’ Use and Understanding of Food Label ... 358 Other sets of general food label information that consumers look out for during purchase are ingredient (78.4%), health claim (66.8%) and nutritional information (65.3%). Results of Rodolfo 1996 also indicate that consumers residing in Non-metro areas are more likely to use nutritional information concerning ingredients, sodium, vitamins/ minerals, and fibre content on food packages than others in the sub-urban and urban areas. Rather result from this study contrast his findings where consumers in sub-urban and urban areas are more concern with ingredient and nutrition information. Net weight (24.1%) was least considered probable because similar product might have same weight or volume but at different prices. A research conducted by Alice and Michelle (2006) found out that size really does not matter to consumers. Factors that influence consumers’ decision to purchase a canned product It was found out that advertisement (31.6%) and price (31.2%) were the major factors that influence most consumers decision to do purchase of canned food, with food label information ranking fourth (10.0%) after taste (12.0%) of the product. Further details are presented in table 5. Table 5: Factors that influence sampled consumers decision to purchase a canned product Determinants Frequency Percentage (%) Price 78 31.2 Food label 25 10.0 Advertisement 79 31.6 Packaging 21 8.4 Taste 30 12.0 Product name 11 4.4 Convenience 6 2.4 Food label information is not the key informant to consumer buying behaviour. Factors like advertisement (31.6%) and price (31.2%) are keys among the factors that influence consumer decision. “Advertisement is commonly used for judging the nutritional information”, Manisha, (2008). Though advertisement plays an important role in conveying product massages, labels do much influencing consumer-decision since Labels provide concise information. This research finding has proved contrary to that. Many consumers use television, screen and magazines as a means of escape, a source of information and as an intellectual stimulus (OCED, 2000). Majority of the respondent were low income earners. This could be the reason why price had concealed other aspects of the food product, especially food label. This however could not be directly related to income earned by consumers but could be different consumer perspectives and values. Among the respondents (n=199, 79.6%) who use food label information when making purchasing, 37.2% were using it on initial purchase, 17.2% when comparing products and 25.2% when buying certain kind of products. This result suggests that food label information is an important source of new knowledge that aid consumers when doing some purchasing. This shows a great tendency of consumers‟ use of food label and thus influence or change their purchasing decision. Prathiraja and Ariyawardana (2003) noticed that 77.8% of their research respondent considered nutritional information on food items as vital instrument for purchasing decisions. Consumer demographics and food label information It was hypothesized that male consumers were less likely to use food label information during shopping than women. The guess was precluded; since the result disclosed that male consumers were more concerned with the use of food label information 2( 39.754, 1, 0.000)df p    than their female Asian Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development, 2(3), pp. 351-365 359 counterparts 2( 13.757, 1, 0.032)df p    (details in table 7 below). The Mintel (2006) survey reports that women read food labels more than men but this difference is much less when women are compared with men who live by themselves. This has been confirmed by the results of the study since greater part of the male respondent were never married (39.6%) and were living on their own. Results from table 7 also revealed that youthful (31- 45) consumers, ( 2 21.863, 6, 0.002df p    ) and consumer who were had never been married ( 2 20.238, 6, 0.006df p    ) were also apt to refer food label information before purchase. Findings from Nayga (2003), suggest that income and age are positively related to diet quality regardless of label use, and that people with at least some college education have a higher Healthy Eating Index than people with no college education. Contrarily, consumers‟ income levels has no significant influence on their use ( 2 4.566, 6, 0.601df p    ) or understanding of food label ( 2 2.710, 2, 0.258df p    ) neither does it have any influence on their purchasing decision ( 2 10.017, 4, 0.040df p    ) but level of formal education 2( 29.870, 6, 0.000)df p    ) has a positive association with making better choices (results presented in table 8). Those with high income displayed different attitudes to those with lower income in terms of the perceived options available to them. Consumers in lower paid jobs paid more attention to special price offers, and thus respectively paid less attention to food labeling directly‟‟, MORI (2010). Consumers with tertiary education ( 2 17.602, 6, 0.007df p    ) as well as basic education 2( 19.250, 6, 0.004)df p    ) were more disposed to turn to food label information before purchase, (refer to table 7 for more details). Though highly educated consumers (34.0%) were likely to refer to food label 2( 17.602, , 0.007,df p    table 5.2.1) than those with secondary (26.8%), basic (18%) and no education (0.8), results has shown a negative correlation with consumers use (R2=- 0.418, p=0.000) and understanding of food label information (R2=- 0.308, p=0.000) as well as their purchasing decision (R2=- 0.275, p=0.000), table 7. The use and understanding of food label, effect on purchasing decision There a significant likelihood that when consumer read food label, it will influence their decision to purchase a canned food product ( 249.754, 3, 0.000LR df p   ). Therefore consumers‟ use of label has a significant influence on purchasing decision 2( 249.754, 3, 0.000)df p    . Also a positive relationship exist between understand and how well they understood what information they read (R2= 0.592, p = 0.000). Again there is a positive relation between understanding and choosing among alternatives or making better choices (R2=0.215, p = 0.002). Furthermore the level of understanding of food label has a significant influence on consumer purchasing decision ( 2 18.093, 4, 0.001df p    ) and positive correlation (R2=0.266, p = 0.000). Details of results in table 7 and 8 at the appendix. Association between consumers’ use of food label and their demographic variables and the type of information sought Both males (59.3%) and female (38.1%) consumers aged between 31-45 years (47.2%) whether married (33.2%) or not (66.3), have high education (42.2%) or not (1.0%) earning between GH¢50-999 (71.2%) were most interested in date label. This contrast with those aged from 46 years (75.9%) who were more interest in the health claims on the label provided on any canned food. Meanwhile those between 15-35 years (51.3%) were also concerned with instructions on how the product will be used. But those earning above GH¢1000 (21.6%) were much in involved in the origin of the product. Consumers’ Use and Understanding of Food Label ... 360 Table 6: consumers’ socio-demographics and the kind of information sought Consumer demographics NI (%) HC (%) In (%) ED (%) CO (%) MC (%) NW (%) P/M (%) IU (%) Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Sex Male Female 44.7 20.6 18.1 17.1 42.2 24.6 13.6 19.6 46.7 31.7 6.5 15.1 59.3 38.1 - 0.5 29.1 18.6 32.7 21.1 16.1 8.0 45.7 30.1 19.6 11.1 42.2 27.1 34.7 15.1 27.1 23.1 48.2 31.6 13.6 6.0 Age 15-30 31-45 46-60 > 60 7.5 32.7 6.0 1.0 34.4 12.5 27.2 0.5 12.6 22.6 33.7 42.2 14.4 19.1 12.1 11.1 7.0 46.2 23.7 22.6 38.6 20.0 19.1 16.1 2.5 47.2 5.5 2.0 - - - 0.5 17.0 30.6 2.5 - 0.5 17.1 11.1 - 1.0 30.2 18.1 0.5 15.6 12.1 12.0 11.1 - 28.1 27.1 14.1 1.5 14.6 12.1 8.0 11.6 7.0 9.0 - 22.6 30.6 18.6 4.5 51.3 12.6 30.4 26.1 1.5 24.6 16.1 9.0 MS Single Married 46.7 18.6 20.1 14.6 48.2 18.6 18.6 14.6 52.3 26.1 14.6 7.0 66.3 33.2 0.5 - 30.6 17.1 36.2 16.1 15.6 8.5 51.3 24.6 20.6 10.1 46.2 23.1 34.7 16.1 34.2 17.1 55.3 24.6 11.6 7.5 LFE none Basic Secondary Tertiary 0.5 11.6 21.1 32.2 0.5 11.1 12.1 11.1 0.5 12.0 21.1 33.4 1.0 22.6 19.1 30.2 0.5 15.6 28.6 34.2 0.5 7.0 5.0 9.0 1.0 22.6 33.7 42.2 - - - 0.5 - 10.1 19.1 18.6 1.5 12.6 14.6 24.6 - 4.5 7.0 12.6 1.0 18.1 26.6 30.2 - 5.0 12.1 14.1 1.0 17.6 22.1 28.6 - 8.0 14.6 27.1 1.0 14.6 18.6 16.1 0.5 14.1 28.1 37.2 0.5 8.5 5.1 5.5 IL: 50-499 500-999 >1000 30.4 20.0 9.8 16.8 12.4 2.4 31.6 14.0 6.0 14.4 10.8 0.8 36.4 21.6 6.4 9.6 4.4 2.4 46.8 24.4 8.8 0.5 - - 5.2 14.5 21.6 24.4 13.2 4.6 10.0 4.8 4.8 36.8 20.0 4.8 12.4 8.0 2.4 6.4 15.6 32.3 23.2 12.0 5.6 28.8 14.0 2.8 36.4 17.6 8.0 7.2 6.8 0.8 LFE = Level of Formal Education, IL = Income Level, NI= Nutritional Information, Y = Yes HC = Health Claims, In = Ingredient, ED = Expiry Date, CO= Country of Origin, NW = Net Weight N = No, MC = Minimum Concentration, P/M = Producers /manufacturers, IU = Instruction for Use Though some relationships were observed on consumer demographics and their use of food label, it does not affect their buying behaviour. Result from table showed that low income has a significant 2( 13.937, 4, 0.007)df p    relationship with purchasing decision, table 9. This could be as a result of majority of consumers within the youthful years with high education been in that category. Studies have shown that aging consumers are more interested in their health and well-being. This could probable account for the result pointing out that consumers aged from 46 years (75.9%) were more interested in the health claims than the other information provided. Research by Umberger et al. (2003) reveals that the surveyed consumers in Chicago and Denver were willing to pay a premium for Country-of- Origin Labelling. This could be revealed in why higher income earners would ascertain a product by its country of origin. „„Price can eclipse other aspects of the label, especially for lower income consumers. Those with high income displayed different attitudes to those with lower income in terms of the perceived options available to them. Consumers in lower paid jobs paid more attention to special price offers, and thus respectively paid less attention to food labelling directly”, MORI (2010). Conclusions and Recommendations The aims of the study were to find out the use and understanding of food label information and its impact on purchasing decision among consumers in the Kumasi metropolis. The results showed there is some awareness food label usage among consumers. Though they somehow understand what they read, it is not the main determinant of purchasing decision. Advertisement and prices were seen to the key factors that influence purchasing decision. This might be as a result of majority of the respondent been among the low income earners. Since firms spend considerable amount of money on product labels, it important for them to know the way labels influence purchasing decision especially for young consumers. They should therefore conduct research periodically to know how consumers perceive the label they read and those of keen interest in order to elaborate them. It was also found out that most consumers are not aware that information provided on food packages are renewed periodically therefore they only refer to labels occasionally during initial purchase. This could make consumers easily switch from one product to the other since they might not be aware that an old product might have received value addition. Therefore educating consumers about the importance of food label. Asian Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development, 2(3), pp. 351-365 361 It would be very useful to determine the use of the label on a much wider scale among a bigger, more demonstrative section of the Ashanti Region that will compare the use of food label information among rural and urban consumers. Individual features of food label information can be researched individually to find their influence and impact on consumer purchasing decision as well as how consumers the information they read. Implications for this study are that it will manufacturers know what consumers are interested in and therefore focus that information to attract consumers. Again regulatory bodies being government agencies can in turn inform the public on the importance of food label knowing the percentage of the population that read label information. Furthermore, this study will prompt the awareness of food label information among consumers, thereby demanding more information on the products they consume. This will compel manufacturing firms to provide the right information to meet the demand of consumers as well as enhancing the work of regulatory bodies knowing that consumers are much interested in product information. This study will also add to knowledge by serving as secondary information to studies revolving around the same topic. References Alice, L. and Michelle, K. (2006) “The Power of Packaging: The Customer Equity Company”, http://www.scribd.com/doc/91807833/The- Power-of-Packaging (accessed on August 28, 2011). Allen L. P., Wayne W. C., John E. D. Jr. and John W. M. (2001) “Patients‟ Understanding and Use of Snack Food Package Nutrition Labels”, Journal of the American of Family Medicine, Vol. 17(5). pp. 319-323. American Dietetic association (1995) “Nutrition trend survey”, Executive summary conducted by Wirthlin Group for the American DieteticAssociation. http://www.eatright.org/adapospb.html (accessed on 29 January, 2012) Banterle, A. and Stranieri, S. (2008) “Information, Labelling, and Vertical Coordination: An Analysis of the Italian Meat Supply Networks”, Agribusiness, Vol. 24(3), pp. 320-31 Beatty, S. E. and Smith, S. M. (1987) “External Search Effort: An Investigation across Several Product Categories”, Journal for Consumer Z/Es, Vol. 14, pp. 83–95. Becker, G. S. (1977) “The Economic Approach to Human Behaviour”. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press. Beus, C. and Dunlap R. (1992) “Understanding Public Concerns about Pesticides: An Empirical Examination”, Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 25, pp. 260- 275. Caswell, J. A. and Padberg D. I. (1999) “Toward a More Comprehensive Theory of Food Labels”, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 74, pp. 460-468. Charles, G. (2002) “Costs versus consciences. Marketing Week”, London: 22-25 Constitution of Ghana (1992) L.I.1541. Ghana Standards Board (Food, Drugs and other goods) general labeling rules, subsection (1) of section 9 Constitution of Ghana (1992) P. N.D.C.L 305B section 47(b) (ii) of the Food and Drugs Law. Dickson, P. R. (1994) “Marketing Management”, Forth Worth (TX) The Dryden Press. European Commission, Directorate-General for Health and Consumer Protection (2005) “The European Consumers‟ Attitude Regarding Food Labelling”, Qualitative Study Regarding 28EuropeanCountries http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/topics/labelling_r eport_en.pdf (accessed on 2 July, 2011) Gellynck, X., Verbeke, W. and Vermeire, B. (2006) “Pathways to increase consumer trust in meat as a safe and wholesome food”, Meat Science, Vol. 74(1), pp. 161-171. Ghana Food and Drugs Board (2006) Guidelines for Making Health Claims on Food. FDB GL05/HCF/01-2006. www.fdbghana.gov.gh/pdf/downloads/guidelin es-food/GUIDELINES FOR MAKING HEALTH CLAIMS ON FOOD.pdf (accessed on July 1, 2011) Gianfranco W., Thorsten H-T, Vincent- Wayne M. (2006) “Consumer Confusion Proneness: Scale Development Validation and http://www.scribd.com/doc/91807833/The-Power-of-Packaging http://www.scribd.com/doc/91807833/The-Power-of-Packaging http://www.eatright.org/adapospb.html http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/topics/labelling_report_en.pdf http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/topics/labelling_report_en.pdf Consumers’ Use and Understanding of Food Label ... 362 Application”, Journal of Marketing Management. pp. 1-32. Govindasamy, R. and Italia J. (1999) “Evaluating Consumer Usage of Nutritional Labelling: The Influence of Socio-Economic Characteristics”, Journal of Nutritional Education, Vol. 4, pp. 370-375. Grossman, M. (1972) “On the Concept of Health Capital and Demand for Health”, Journal for Political Economics, Vol. 80, pp. 223-255. Guthrie, J. F., Jonathan, J. F., Linda, E. C. N., and Susan, W. (1995) “Who Uses Nutritional Labelling, and What Effect Does Label Use Have On Diet Quality?” Journal of Nutritional Education, Vol. 27(4), pp. 163-172. Henneberry, S. R., and Armbruster, W. A. (2003) “Emerging Roles for Food Labels: Inform, Protect, Persuade” Journal of Food Distribution Research, Vol. 34, pp. 62-69. Héroux, L., Laroche, M. and McGown, K. L. (1988) “Consumer Product Label Information Processing: An Experiment Involving Time Pressure and Distraction”, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 4, pp. 263-272. Hoback, J. (2008) “Inside the mind of the consumer”, Natural Foods Merchandiser, Vol. 29, pp. 5-18. Hu, W., Adamowicz, W. L. and Veeman, M. M. (2006) “Labelling Context and Reference Point Effects In Models Of Food Attribute Demand”, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 88(4), pp. 1034-49 Jugger, S., (1999) “The Power of Packaging”, Ad map Magazine. Kasapila, W., and Shawa, P. (2011) “Use and Understanding of Nutrition Labels among Consumers in Lilongwe (Malawi)”, African Journal Of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development, Vol. 11(5), pp. 5171-5186. Katona, G. C. and Mueller, E. (1995) “A Study of Purchase Decisions” in Consumer Behaviour: The Dynamics of Consumer Reactions”, Cd., L.H. Clark, pp. 30–87. New York: New York University Press. Lunardo R. and Richard G. (2007) “The Influence of Label on Wine Consumption: Its Effects on Young Consumers‟ Perception Of Authenticity And Purchasing Behaviour, Bologna”, Italy. renaud.lunardo@univ-reims.fr (accessed on 5 July, 2011) Mahgoub S. E., Lesoli, P. P., and Gobotswang, K. (2007) “Awareness and Use of Nutrition Information on Food Packages among Consumers in Maseru” (Lesotho) African Journal, Of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development, Vol. 7(6), pp. 1-16. Manisha, S., (2008) “Usage and Understanding of Food and Nutritional Labels among Indian Consumers”, Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, Kolkata, India www.emeraldinsight.com (accessed on 4 February, 2012) Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries (MAFF) (1994) “The Dietary and Nutritional Survey of British Adults – Further Analysis”. HMSO, London. http://www.food.gov.uk (accessed on 15 September, 2011) Mintel, (2006) “Food Packaging, UK, Mintel International”, London. www.mintel.com (accessed on 10 January, 2012) MORI (2010) “Qualitative Research to Explore Peoples‟ Use of Food Labelling Information” Executive Summary Social Science Research Unit Food Standards Agency Unit Summary 5. http://www.ipsos-mori.com (accessed on 4 October, 2011) Nayga, R. M. (2003) “Nutritional Labels, Health Claims and Consumers‟ Diets”, Paper Presented At AAEA Food & Agricultural Marketing Policy Section Conference Emerging Roles For Food Labels: Inform, Protect, Persuade. Washington, D. C., March 20–21 Nayga, R. M. (1997) “Impact of Socio- Demographic Factors on Perceived Importance of Nutrition in Food Shopping”, Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 31(1), pp. 1-9. OECD (2001) “Expect Workshop On Information And Consumer Decision-Making For Sustainable Consumption: Programme On Sustainable Consumption”. OECD Headquarters, Paris. Padel, S. and Foster, C. (2005) “Exploring the gap between attitudes and behaviour: Understanding why consumers buy or do not buy organic food”, British Food Journal, Vol. 107(8), pp. 606-625. Park, C. W., Iyer, E. S. and Smith, D. C. (1989) “The Effects Of Situational Factors On In-Store Grocery Shopping Behaviour: The Role Of Store Environment And Time Available For Shopping”, Journal Consumer Resource, Vol. 15, pp. 422–433. Philip D., Kristen M. and Emma F. (2010) “Public Attitudes Towards, And Use Of, General Food Labelling”, Social Science mailto:renaud.lunardo@univ-reims.fr http://www.emeraldinsight.com/ http://www.food.gov.uk/ http://www.mintel.com/ http://www.ipsos-mori.com/ Asian Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development, 2(3), pp. 351-365 363 Research Unit Food Standards Agency Unit Report 4 Pires G. and Ricardo, C. (2008) “Product Characteristics and Quality Perception, University at Aut`Onoma De Barcelona”. http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/11142/ (accessed on 1 August, 2011) Prathiraja, P. H. K. and Ariyawardana, A. (2003) “Impact of Nutritional Labelling On Consumer Buying Behavior”, Sri Lankan Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 5(1), pp. 35-46. Putler, D. S. and Frazao, E. (1994) “Consumer Awareness of Diet-Disease Relationships and Dietary Behaviour: The Case of Dietary Fat”, Journal for Agricultural Economics Resource, Vol. 45, pp. 3–17. Rice B. J. and Hofmeyr R. (2000) “Commitment-led Marketing: The key to Brand Profits is in the Consumer‟s mind”, Juta and Company Ltd, pp 301 Rita K., Aistė D., and Laura N. (2009) “Impact of Package Elements on Consumer Purchase”, Economics and Management, Vol. 14, pp. 441-447. Rodolfo, M. N. Jr. (1996) “Determinants of Consumers‟ Use of Nutritional Information on Food Packages”, Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Vol. 28(2), pp. 303–312. Rundh, B. (2005) “The Multi-Faceted Dimension of Packaging”, British Food Journal, Vol. 107(9), pp. 670-684. Sabbe, S., Verbeke, W. and Van, D. (2009) “Perceived Motives, Barriers and Role of Labelling Information on Tropical Fruit Consumption: Exploratory Findings”, Journal of Food Products Marketing, Vol. 15(2), pp. 119-138. Schultz, T. W. (1975) “The Value of the Ability to Deal with Disequilibria”, Journal for Economics Literature, Vol. 13, pp. 827–846. Silayoi, P., and Speece, M. (2004) “Packaging and purchase decisions: An exploratory study on the impact of involvement level and time pressure”, British Food Journal, Vol. 106(8), pp. 607-628. Smith J. S. Hui H. Y. (2004) “Food Processing; Principles And Applications”, Blackwell Publishing 1st Ed. Tessier S, Edwards, C.A., Morris, S.E. (2000) “Use and knowledge of food labels of shoppers in a city a high proportion of heart disease”, Consumer Studies & Home Economics, Vol. 24(1), pp. 35–40. Umberger, W., Feuz, D. M., Calkins, C. R. and Sitz, B. M. (2003) “Country-of-Origin Labelling of Beef Products: U.S. Consumers‟ Perceptions”, Paper Presented at AAEA Food and Agricultural Marketing Policy Section Conference Emerging Roles for Food Labels: Inform, Protect, Persuade. Washington, D. C., March 20–21 Underwood, R. L., Klein, N. M., & Burke, R. B. (2001)”Packaging Communication: Attentional Effects of Product Imagery”, The Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 10(7), pp. 1-19 Wier, M., O'Doherty Jensen, K., Andersen, L. and Millock, K. (2008) “The Character of Demand in Mature Organic Food Markets: Great Britain and Denmark Compared”, Food Policy, Vol. 33(5), pp. 406-421. http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/11142/ Asian Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development, 2(3), pp. 351-365 363 Appendix Chi-square estimate of variables Table 7: Chi-square estimate of variables Measure of Consumers’ understanding and demographics Level of understanding Sex Age Marital Status Level of Formal Education Income Level Male Female 15-30 31-45 46- 60 >60 Not married Married Divorced widowed none Basic Sec. Ter. 50-499 500-999 <1000 Pearson chi- square (x 2 ) 123 76 132 56 118 66 9 6 45 67 85 115 62 Significance 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.011 0.014 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** Pearson correlation (R 2 ) 0.54 0.653 0.5 0.707 0.547 0.62 0.746 1 0.73 0.441 0.497 0.648 0.531 Significance 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.021 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** Degree of freedom (df) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 Frequency of use of food label information, level of understanding and consumer demographics Pearson chi- square (x 2 ) 39.8 13.76 13 21.2 0.6 5 17.991 20.2 5.8 2.4 19.3 11.65 17.602 34.514 6.113 0.725 Significance 0.000*** 0.032 0 0.002** 0.7 0.08 0.082 0.006* 0.215 0.212 0.004** 0.07 0.007** 0.000*** 0.411 0.696 Pearson correlation (R 2 ) -0.27 -0.39 -0 -0.44 0 -0.2 -0.28 -0.4 -0.44 -0.63 -0.34 -0.26 -0.292 -0.393 -0.22 - 0.066 Significance 0.002** 0.000*** 0.002** 0.001*** 1 0.72 0.002** 0.003*** 0.241 0.178 0.02 0.033 0.007** 0.000*** 0.089 0.77 Degree of freedom (df) 1 1 6 6 2 2 6 6 4 1 6 6 6 6 6 2 Consumers’ Use and Understanding of Food Label ... 364 Table 8: Chi-square estimate of variables Consumer demographics and their frequency of use of food label information Sex Age MS LFE Income Pearson chi-square (X2) 8.157 13.152 19.024 11.225 4.566 Significance 0.043 0.156 0.025 0.261 0.601 Pearson correlation (R2) 0.000 0.068 0.079 0.132 0.129 Significance 0.999 0.341 0.265 0.063 0.069 Degree of freedom (df) 3 9 9 9 6 Consumer demographics and their understanding of food label information Pearson chi-square (X2) 1.444 4.888 1.841 34.660 2.710 Significance 0.229 0.180 0.606 0.000*** 0.258 Pearson correlation (R2) 0.085 0.048 0.094 -0.234 -0.116 Significance 0.232 0.504 0.187 0.001** 0.102 Degree of freedom (df) 1 3 3 3 2 Consumer demographics and how well they understand food label information Pearson chi-square (X2) 2.062 8.612 6.985 44.157 2.947 Significance 0.357 0.197 0.322 0.000 0.567 Pearson correlation (R 2 ) 0.095 0.0722 0.116 -0.308 0.049 Significance 0.181 0.313 0.104 0.000*** 0.496 Degree of freedom (df) 2 6 6 6 4 Asian Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development, 2(3), pp. 351-365 365 Table 9: Chi-square estimate of variables Consumers’ level of understanding and their demographics; effect on purchasing decision Sex Age Marital Status Level of Formal Education Income Levels (GH¢) Male Female 15-30 31-45 46- 60 >60 Never married Married Divorced/ separated Widowed None Basic Sec. Ter. 50-499 500- 999 >1000 Pearson chi-square (X 2 ) 10.324 7.775 9.51 10.431 0.240 0.139 9.993 6.025 4.371 0.600 - 5.618 4.973 6.438 13.937 2.957 3.454 Significance 0.035 0.100 0.060 0.034 0.624 0.709 0.041 0.197 0.112 0.439 - 0.230 0.290 0.169 0.007* 0.565 0.178 Pearson correlation (R 2 ) 0.236 0.293 0.238 0.390 0.200 0.167 0.272 0.209 0.347 0.316 - 0.275 0.163 0.227 0.311 0.169 0.295 Significance 0.009* 0.010 0.006* 0.003** 0.704 0.789 0.003** 0.092 0.360 0.541 - 0.068 0.187 0.036 0.001*** 0.189 0.183 Likelihood Ratio (LR) 12.476 10.382 11.267 13.030 0.403 0.138 12.236 8.109 4.531 0.908 - 7.876 5.691 7.427 17.820 4.087 4.541 Significance 0.014 0.034 0.024 0.011 0.526 0.710 0.016 0.088 0.104 0.341 - 0.096 0.223 0.115 0.001*** 0.394 0.103 Degree of freedom (df) 4 4 4 4 1 1 4 4 2 1 - 4 4 4 4 4 2