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

Abstract

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.

Protocol for a Randomized Trial Assessing Consumer Evaluations of Pre-Packaged Foods that Systematically Vary by Nutrition Information and Product Attributes

“…This is in line with the sample size recommendations for discrete choice tasks [53]. Previous studies have reported small to medium effect sizes for the FoPL x healthiness interaction on perceived healthiness (η p 2 = 0.008 [54], 0.01 [55]; d = 0.5 [56]). Thus, a large sample will be employed to ensure that even small effects are detected.…”

Objective understanding of the Nutri-score front-of-pack label by European consumers and its effect on food choices: an online experimental study

“…Health Star Rating system, Nutri-Score, the Warning symbols), or have explored the effectiveness of these FoPLs across different countries. The literature suggests the potential influence of sociocultural contexts on understanding and use of FoPLs [13][14][15], making international comparisons important when attempting to identify FoPLs that would be appropriate for cross-country application. The present study compares the performance of the five FoPLs in terms of objective understanding of nutritional quality and food choices among consumers in 12 European countries participating in the FOP-ICE (Front-Of-Pack International Comparative Experimental) study [16,17].…”

Do Health Claims and Front-of-Pack Labels Lead to a Positivity Bias in Unhealthy Foods?

“…Although the size of the differences detected in this study may be considered small (e.g., a difference of 0.1 on a 5 point scale), this is to be expected given that factors such as taste, price and convenience often have a greater impact on product evaluations than healthiness [70], and previous studies also generally report small changes [48,71,72]. In these experimental studies, exposure to the labelling intervention is relatively brief.…”