Consumer preferences for front-of-pack calories labelling

Kleef, Ellen van; Trijp, J.C.M. van; Paeps, Frederic; Fernández-Celemı́n, Laura

doi:10.1017/s1368980007000304

Cited by 130 publications

(131 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

119

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…One reason for a high number of labels could be found in binary standards: There is a low level of differentiation which leads companies and stakeholders to introduce an additional label for their purpose. This supports the argument that consumers are confronted with an information overload (Kolodinsky, 2012;Kroeber-Riel & Esch, 2004;van Kleef et al, 2008). These tendencies and results of consumer research lead to further developments in food labelling, which are explained below.…”

Section: Different Types Of Labellingsupporting

confidence: 62%

Multi-level labelling: too complex for consumers?

Weinrich¹,

Franz²,

Spiller³

2016

Economia Agro-Alimentare

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in AbstractAs more food labels enter the retail market, it is becoming increasingly difficult for consumers to review the underlying standards of products. The most common labels communicating ethical values tend to be binary. However, many attributes, such as animal welfare, are of a continuous nature and are not binary. One solution to communicate differentiated information about the process or product standards is through the use of multi-level labels, which indicate various levels of standards. This way, consumers might realize the differences in the production or process qualities more easily. However, since multi-level labels are more complex, the impact on consumers' comprehension is not clear. The objective of this paper is to test whether a multi-level labelling approach is comprehensible for consumers and could therefore be an effective tool to communicate information about standards and thus enhancing willingness to pay. The results show that when an explanation about the levels of the label is provided, there is an increasing willingness to pay for products with higher standards of animal welfare. Hence, a multi-level label can work if information is provided.

show abstract

Section: Different Types Of Labellingsupporting

confidence: 62%

Multi-level labelling: too complex for consumers?

Weinrich¹,

Franz²,

Spiller³

2016

Economia Agro-Alimentare

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…23 They also show that people have limited knowledge of dietary fats 24 and that although participants are familiar with the notion of calories, they do not always understand how to apply it. 25 As outlined earlier, this study aimed to develop campaigns and associated point-of-choice prompts to influence food choice in workplace cafeterias. Formative focus groups explored employees' interpretations of healthy eating, their knowledge of different labeling strategies, nutrition information, factors affecting food choice at work, and the best way to prompt changes in behavior.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Promoting Healthy Choices in Workplace Cafeterias: A Qualitative Study

Thomas

Ribera

Senye-Mir

et al. 2016

Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To develop 3 point-of-choice campaigns to influence food choice in workplace cafeterias. Design: Eight focus groups were conducted to guide campaign development. Setting: Focus groups were conducted in the workplace. Participants: University employees (n ¼ 36) aged 23-58 years (mean, 33.8 years). Phenomenon of Interest: To explore ways to prompt changes in behavior. Analysis: Transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis. Results: This study identified calories and saturated fat as information that would have the greatest influence on food selection. Participants want this information at the time the choice is made. Participants reported limited time to eat at work, so converting nutrient density per 100 g or per serving to per portion consumed from point-of-choice labels was not a priority. Participants said that they have more time to read information in places where they line up for food, so at this point they are more open to persuasive messages. Effective messages urge the reader to take immediate action, which explains why they should chose the behavior and how it will help them achieve health. Conclusions and Implications: Point-of-choice campaigns were well received, but factors such as cost, time, and availability of healthy food at work may shape choices to a greater extent than will nutrition information.

show abstract

“…Different nutrition labelling formats have been shown to influence food product healthfulness evaluations, [1][2][3][4][5] however, the experimental design and focus of analysis has generally been on the energy and nutrition content of the labels. So far, the role of reference amounts, an intrinsic element of many of the FoP labelling schemes, appears not to have been systematically evaluated.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Research since 2005 has shown that consumer confusion related to portion information is still an issue. 11,12 For example, when comparing eight executions of FoP calorie flags, Van Kleef et al 5 reported that consumers found the 'calories per serving flag' option to be most preferable but only under the condition that the portion was perceived to represent a realistic and easy-to-understand consumption unit. There is on-going debate as to whether nutrition information is best presented 'per 100 g/100 ml' or 'per portion' 8,13,14 particularly amongst those concerned with the development of nutrient profiling models which attempt to define 'healthy' versus 'unhealthy' foods.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reference amounts utilised in front of package nutrition labelling; impact on product healthfulness evaluations

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES:The research question addressed in this paper is how different reference amounts utilised in front of package nutrition labelling influence evaluation of product healthfulness. SUBJECTS/METHODS: A total of 13 117 participants from six European countries (Germany, UK, Spain, France, Poland and Sweden) were recruited via online panels. A mixed between/within-subject factorial design was employed with food (biscuits, sandwiches, yogurts), healthfulness and presence of Guideline Daily Amounts as within-subjects factors and reference amount ('per 100 g', 'typical portion', 'half portion') and country as between-subjects factors. RESULTS: Overall, people correctly ranked foods according to their objective healthfulness as defined by risk nutrients alone, and could distinguish between more and less healthful variants of foods. General healthfulness associations with the three product categories do not appear to have had a strong influence on product ratings. This study shows that where the reference amount of 'per 100 g' is very different from the 'typical' portion size, as was the case for biscuits, products with a 'per 100 g' label are rated significantly less healthful than the 'typical' or 'half typical' portions. CONCLUSION:The results indicate that across the three food categories, consumers do factor the reference amount, that is, the quantity of food for which the nutritional information is being presented, into their judgements of healthfulness. Therefore, appropriate reference amounts are also of importance for the effective presentation of nutritional information.

show abstract

Consumer preferences for front-of-pack calories labelling

Cited by 130 publications

References 17 publications

Multi-level labelling: too complex for consumers?

Multi-level labelling: too complex for consumers?

Promoting Healthy Choices in Workplace Cafeterias: A Qualitative Study

Reference amounts utilised in front of package nutrition labelling; impact on product healthfulness evaluations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About