Dataset Information

Comparing five front-of-pack nutrition labels' influence on consumers' perceptions and purchase intentions.

ABSTRACT: In 2011, a National Academy of Medicine report recommended that packaged food in the U.S. display a uniform front-of-package nutrition label, using a system such as a 0-3 star ranking. Few studies have directly compared this to other labels to determine which best informs consumers and encourages healthier purchases. In 2013, we randomized adult participants (N=1247) in an Internet-based survey to one of six conditions: no label control; single traffic light; multiple traffic light; Facts Up Front; NuVal; or 0-3 star ranking. We compared groups on purchase intentions and accuracy of participants' interpretation of food labels. There were no differences in the nutritional quality of hypothetical shopping baskets across conditions (p=0.845). All labels improved consumers' abilities to judge the nutritional quality of foods relative to no label, but the best designs varied by outcomes. NuVal and multiple traffic light labels led to the greatest accuracy identifying the healthier of two products (p<0.001), while the multiple traffic light also led to the most accurate estimates of saturated fat, sugar, and sodium (p<0.001). The single traffic light outperformed other labels when participants compared nutrient levels between similar products (p<0.03). Single/multiple traffic light and Facts Up Front labels led to the most accurate calories per serving estimations (p<0.001). Although front-of-package labels helped participants more accurately assess products' nutrition information relative to no label, no conditions shifted adults' purchase intentions. Results did not point to a clearly superior label design, but they suggest that a 3-star label might not be best for educating consumers.

SUBMITTER: Gorski Findling MT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5764801 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparing five front-of-pack nutrition labels' influence on consumers' perceptions and purchase intentions.

Gorski Findling Mary T MT Werth Paul M PM Musicus Aviva A AA Bragg Marie A MA Graham Dan J DJ Elbel Brian B Roberto Christina A CA

Preventive medicine 20171021

In 2011, a National Academy of Medicine report recommended that packaged food in the U.S. display a uniform front-of-package nutrition label, using a system such as a 0-3 star ranking. Few studies have directly compared this to other labels to determine which best informs consumers and encourages healthier purchases. In 2013, we randomized adult participants (N=1247) in an Internet-based survey to one of six conditions: no label control; single traffic light; multiple traffic light; Facts Up Fro ...[more]

PMID: 29066375

Similar Datasets

Project description:Front-of-pack labeling is a cost-effective strategy to decrease population consumption of sodium, sugar, saturated fat, total fat, and trans-fatty acids, considered critical nutrients for chronic disease. Our main objective was to explore the subjective understanding of labels that are currently used internationally among low- and middle-income Mexican consumers. We performed two phases of 10 focus groups with adolescents (13-15 y), young adults (21-23 y), mothers of children 3-12 y, fathers of children 3-12 y and older adults (55-70 y). Seven FOPL were evaluated: Guideline Daily Amounts, Multiple Traffic Light, Chilean Warning labels, Warning labels in Red, 5-Color Nutrition Label, Health Star Rating, and Healthy Choice label. Data was analyzed with a triangulation of researchers using a content analysis, based on three codes: 1) awareness and use of the Guideline Daily Amounts, 2) acceptability, and 3) subjective understanding of labels. Most participants were aware of the Guideline Daily Amounts, however they rarely used it because interpreting the information displayed on the label was too complicated. Health Star Rating, Warning labels, Multiple Traffic Light and the Healthy Choice logo labels were the most understandable, however the acceptability of the The Healthy Choice logo decreased as it did not provide information on specific ingredients. The Warning labels was the only label able to warn about critical nutrients that could represent a health risk. The Warning labels in red was more accepted compared to Warning labels in black. Results show that directive and semi-directive labels, such as Warning labels, Health Star Rating or Multiple Traffic Light, may be better at helping population of low- and middle income make healthier food choices, than non-directive FOPL such as the Guideline Daily Amounts implemented in México. The study results highlight the potential of Warning labels to support decreases in the consumption of critical ingredients in low- and middle-income Mexican consumers.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Front-of-pack (FOP) nutrition labeling is a cost-effective strategy to help consumers make informed and healthier food choices. We aimed to investigate the effect of the FOP labels used in the Latin American region on consumers' shopping intentions when prompted to make their choices with specific nutrients-to-limit in mind among low- and middle-income Mexican adults (>?18 y). METHODS:In this experimental study of an online simulated shopping situation participants (n?=?2194) were randomly assigned to one of three labeling conditions: Guideline Daily Amounts (GDA), Multiple Traffic Lights (MTL), or red Warning Labels (WL). Participants were required to view a video explaining how to correctly interpret the assigned label. Primary outcomes were the overall nutritional quality (estimated using the Nutrient Profiling Scoring Criterion [NPSC] and NPSC baseline score) and mean energy and nutrient content of purchases. Secondary outcomes included shopping time variables. We also evaluated the impact of the labels across food categories (ready-made foods, dairy beverages, non-dairy beverages, salty snacks, and breakfast cereals) and sociodemographic subgroups. RESULTS:The MTL and the WL led to a better overall nutritional quality of the shopping cart compared to the GDA (p?<?0.05). According to the NPSC score, the WL led to a better nutritional quality across breakfast cereals and salty snacks compared to the GDA (p?<?0.05); a similar effect was observed for the MTL among non-dairy beverages (p?<?0.05). The MTL and the WL required shorter shopping times compared to GDA (p?<?0.05). Across all labeling conditions, the nutritional quality of the shopping cart tended to be lower among those with low income, education and nutrition knowledge levels. CONCLUSION:WL and MTL may foster healthier food choices in a faster way among low- and middle-income groups in Mexico. To produce an equitable impact among consumers of all socioeconomic strata, efforts beyond simply the inclusion of a communication campaign on how to use and interpret FOP labels will be required. TRIAL REGISTRATION:clinicaltrials.gov. NCT04308408 Retrospectively registered March 16, 2020.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Front-of-package labelling is a cost-effective strategy to help consumers make healthier choices and informed food purchases. The effect of labels is mediated by consumer understanding and acceptability of the label. We compared the acceptability and understanding of labels used in Latin-America among low- and middle-income Mexican adults. METHODS:Participants (n =?2105) were randomly assigned to one of three labels: Mexican Guideline Daily Allowances (GDA), Ecuador's Multiple Traffic Lights (MTL), or Chile's Warning Labels (WL) in red. Label acceptability was evaluated through items regarding likeability, attractiveness and perceived cognitive workload. Objective understanding was evaluated by asking participants to select the product with the lowest nutritional quality among three products. We measured the time participants took to choose the product. Differences in label acceptability, understanding and time required to choose a product across labels were tested. RESULTS:Compared to the GDA, a higher proportion of participants liked the MTL and WL, considered them attractive, and with a lower perceived cognitive workload (p <?0.05). Participants had 4.00 (2.86-5.59) times the odds of correctly identifying the product with the lowest nutritional quality when using the MTL label and 4.52 (3.24-6.29) times the odds when using the WL, in comparison to the GDA. Time required to choose the product was lower for the MTL (Median: 11.25?s; IQR?=?8.00-16.09) and the WL (Median?= 11.94?s, IQR?=?8.56-16.52) compared to the GDA (Median: 15.31?s; IQR?=?10.81-20.21; p <?0.05). No differences were observed between the MTL and the WL. CONCLUSIONS:GDA had the lowest acceptability and understanding among the labels tested. The MTL and the WL were more accepted and understood, and allowed low- and middle-income consumers to make nutrition-quality related decisions more quickly. WL or MTL may foster healthier food choices in the most vulnerable groups in Mexico compared to the current labelling format.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Front of pack (FOP) nutrition labels are concise labels located on the front of food packages that provide truncated nutrition information. These labels are rapidly gaining prominence worldwide, presumably because they attract attention and their simplified formats enable rapid comparisons of nutritional value. METHODS:Eye tracking was conducted as US consumers interacted with actual packages with and without FOP labels to (1) assess if the presence of an FOP label increases attention to nutrition information when viewers are not specifically tasked with nutrition-related goals; and (2) study the effect of FOP presence on consumer use of more comprehensive, traditional nutrition information presented in the Nutritional Facts Panel (NFP), a mandatory label for most packaged foods in the US. RESULTS:Our results indicate that colored FOP labels enhanced the probability that any nutrition information was attended, and resulted in faster detection and longer viewing of nutrition information. However, for cereal packages, these benefits were at the expense of attention to the more comprehensive NFP. Our results are consistent with a potential short cut effect of FOP labels, such that if an FOP was present, participants spent less time attending the more comprehensive NFP. For crackers, FOP labels increased time spent attending to nutrition information, but we found no evidence that their presence reduced the time spent on the nutrition information in the NFP. CONCLUSIONS:The finding that FOP labels increased attention to overall nutrition information by people who did not have an explicit nutritional goal suggests that these labels may have an advantage in conveying nutrition information to a wide segment of the population. However, for some food types this benefit may come with a short-cut effect; that is, decreased attention to more comprehensive nutrition information. These results have implications for policy and warrant further research into the mechanisms by which FOP labels impact use of nutrition information by consumers for different foods.

Dataset Information

Comparing five front-of-pack nutrition labels' influence on consumers' perceptions and purchase intentions.

Publications

Comparing five front-of-pack nutrition labels' influence on consumers' perceptions and purchase intentions.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets