Objectives 1) To assess whether Front-of-Pack (FOP) nutrition labels garner attention more readily than more complete, mandated nutrition information (the Nutrition Facts Panel (NFP), required in the US), and 2) To determine whether label design characteristics, specifically, color coding and/or coding with facial icons, increase attention to the FOP label. Methods In two experiments, we tracked the allocation of attention while participants (n=125) viewed novel and commercial packages with varied FOP designs using a change detection methodology. Results We found empirical evidence that FOP labels are attended more often, and earlier, than the currently mandated NFP, and that this benefit is due both to its placement on the front of the package and to the design characteristics of the FOP. Specifically, the use of color in FOPs increased attention to the label, but there was no evidence that coding information via facial icons impacted attention. Conclusions Our work supports a growing body of evidence supporting the use of FOP labels to attract attention to nutritional information. Findings may be relevant to inform policy decisions on labeling standards.

BackgroundFront 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.MethodsEye 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.ResultsOur 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.ConclusionsThe 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.

Adverse drug events (ADEs) are a significant problem in health care. While effective warnings have the potential to reduce the prevalence of ADEs, little is known about how patients access and use prescription labeling. We investigated the effectiveness of prescription warning labels (PWLs, small, colorful stickers applied at the pharmacy) in conveying warning information to two groups of patients (young adults and those 50+). We evaluated the early stages of information processing by tracking eye movements while participants interacted with prescription vials that had PWLs affixed to them. We later tested participants’ recognition memory for the PWLs. During viewing, participants often failed to attend to the PWLs; this effect was more pronounced for older than younger participants. Older participants also performed worse on the subsequent memory test. However, when memory performance was conditionalized on whether or not the participant had fixated the PWL, these age-related differences in memory were no longer significant, suggesting that the difference in memory performance between groups was attributable to differences in attention rather than differences in memory encoding or recall. This is important because older adults are recognized to be at greater risk for ADEs. These data provide a compelling case that understanding consumers’ attentive behavior is crucial to developing an effective labeling standard for prescription drugs.

The market for fruits and vegetables has received considerable interest in recent years, with much of its growth attributed to consumer interest in nutrition and health. Quality has been indicated to be the most important factor in produce sales, and appearance is of noted significance with regard to perceived quality.The broad objectives of this research were to identify the impact of simultaneous colour contrast (i.e. the produce viewed through a mesh bag) on (a) attentive behaviours as measured by eye tracking and (b) perceived quality, visual appeal and purchase intention as measured with a Likert scale. To accomplish these objectives, six different types of produce (red apples, oranges, lemons, green apples, purple onions and white onions) were photographed with four differently coloured mesh treatments: the same (as the produce), complementary, complementary-analogous and analogous. Visual stimuli were then presented during the eye tracking study and in a subsequent questionnaire.Colour contrast was found to have a significant effect on both resultant eye tracking variables [number of visual fixations (p < 0.001) and time spent (p < 0.001)]. Produce shown with mesh of the same, or an analogous colour, induced significantly more visual fixations and more time than those depicted with complementary or complementary-analogous treatments.Subsequent to the eye tracking study, subjects were shown the stimuli and asked to rate the expected quality, visual appeal and their purchase intention for the 24 photographs (6 types of produce  4 colour contrasts) by using a Likert scale. Pairwise comparisons suggested that produce packaged in the same or analogous mesh were perceived by subjects to be of higher quality, more visually appealing and evoked a higher level of purchase intention than those packaged in complementary or complementary-analogous mesh (a = 0.05).Results suggesting statistical significance at a = 0.05 are presented in boldface.