Table 3.

Results of the regression analysis: factors associated with frequency of using food labels

Explanatory variables	Dependent variable: Food labels affect buying decisionb
	Model 1a			Model 2
	OR	Confidence Interval 95%		OR	Confidence Interval 95%
		Lower Bound	Upper Bound		Lower Bound	Upper Bound
Importance of healthy nutrition (base = Not at all/ Slightly/ Moderately)c	2.79***	2.04	3.84	2.76***	1.97	3.87
Confidence of using labelsb (base = Not at all/ Slightly/ Moderately)c	2.58***	1.76	3.77	2.48***	1.62	3.78
Responsible for shopping (base = No)d	1.55**	1.04	2.33	1.42	0.91	2.21
Benefit: food labels ensure the quality and safety of food (base = Do not agree/ In the middle)e	1.78***	1.20	2.64	1.72**	1.12	2.64
Gender (Base = Men)				1.58**	1.05	2.39
Age group 41–60 (Base = 21–40)				0.80	0.49	1.32
Age group above 60(Base = 21–40)				1.30	0.76	2.24
Education (Base = 12 years and less)				1.32	0.86	2.04
Religion (Base = Jews)				1.72*	0.98	3.01
Marital Status (Base = non-married)				1.66**	1.057	2.61
Income (Base = average and lower than average)				1.10	0.70	1.72
	Pseudo R-Square (Nagelkerke) = .204 Akaike’s Information Criterion (AIC) = 403.640			Pseudo R-Square (Nagelkerke) = .236 Akaike’s Information Criterion (AIC) = 723.127

*** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1

^aModel 1 was adjusted for the variable “responsible for shopping”, while model 2 was adjusted for the variable “responsible for shopping”, and socio-demographic characteristics of gender, age group, education, religion, marital status and income

^bThe scale was 1 = Rarely/ Never, 2 = Sometimes, 3 = Almost always/ Always

^cThe scale was 1 = Not at all/ Slightly/ Moderately, 2 = Very much

^dThe scale was 0 = No, 1 = Yes

^eThe scale was 1 = Disagree/ In the middle, 2 = Agree