Heart Images on Food Labels: A Health Claim or Not?

Abstract

Health claims on food labels are used by food manufacturers to inform consumers about the health effects of a product, and such claims can have notable effects on consumer preferences. According to regulatory definitions, health claims can be either worded or presented as images, but it is not clear under which conditions an image on a food label should be considered a health claim. This question has important practical implications, as the use of health claims is strictly regulated. The objective of this study was to determine how commonly images of the heart are used on food labels, and to investigate consumers’ perceptions of products labelled with heart images, using different degrees of health relationships. Both a food supply study (N = 10,573 foods) and experiments with consumers (N = 1000) were performed in Slovenia. The use of heart imagery on food products was very common (9%). The consumer study was conducted using a web panel. Structure of the study population was comparable with Slovenian adult population (18–65 years), according to gender and age. The questionnaire was split into conjoint analysis with constructed elements, a choice-based task with real-life elements and a consumers’ association task. The experiments showed that a heart image as part of the brand name itself—without an additional (worded) health claim—did not cause most consumers to relate it to health. However, consumers tended to strongly relate an image of the heart as part of a brand with health benefits, where the image was accompanied by a worded health claim or if the heart image was designed specifically to imply health benefits. We can conclude that the use of heart images was very common on food products, but references to health were less common. Without a health-related context, heart images could not be considered as a health claim.

Fifteen Years of Regulating Nutrition and Health Claims in Europe: The Past, the Present and the Future

“…Since these credence attributes are not visible or measurable by consumers themselves, public and private organisations aim to reduce information asymmetry between those developing and selling produce and those citizens purchasing them by requiring adequate labelling [3]. When labels truthfully provide this type of information, they can be used by consumers to inform themselves and by producers to share their unique selling points [4]. Less trustworthy labelling, when food business operators mislead consumers with deliberate false information, is not considered in this paper.…”

Effects of Digitalized Front-of-Package Food Labels on Healthy Food-Related Behavior: A Systematic Review

“…Digitalized static FOP food labels and their effects on healthy food-related behavior based on the articles included in this review are, to some degree, in line with the results of prior research identified in the literature review section. In our systematic review, eight articles did find differences in hypothetical choices [ 52 , 53 , 54 , 58 , 59 , 62 , 63 , 73 , 74 ], three articles did find difference in self-reports [ 63 , 65 , 71 ], while two articles did not find difference in self-reports [ 64 , 69 ] as a function of digitalized static FOP food labels. Based on the studies that were identified in the literature review, two articles did find differences in hypothetical choice [ 17 , 37 ], and two articles did find differences in self-reports [ 36 , 37 ] as a function of digitalized static FOP food labels.…”

“…Out of those, a total of 25 reports were excluded based on the final eligibility criteria, as 10 of the reports did not investigate FOP food labels as defined in this review, five of the reports did not investigate behaviors related to healthy foods, four of the reports did not investigate the dependent variable specified in this review, and one report did not use primary data collection. This resulted in a total of 30 articles included in this review [ 15 , 33 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 ].…”

“…The results show that the nutritional information label slightly improved healthy choices, combined labels produced similar results, and that healthy choice labels alone and no label produced similar results. 6 2021 Miklavec et al [ 53 ] Participants were presented with fictive products with different combinations of types of products (soft drink, yogurt, and chocolate), brand name (three neutral circles, one heart, or three hearts), and claim (no claim, general claim, specific claim), and asked to rate how healthy the product was. Later, participants were assigned in (a) a heart symbol label condition and (b) no heart symbol label condition, presented for four existing brands of water bottles where one of the products in the former condition had a heart symbol, and instructed to rate how healthy the product was compared to tap water.…”

Branded Foods Databases as a Tool to Support Nutrition Research and Monitoring of the Food Supply: Insights From the Slovenian Composition and Labeling Information System

“…The majority of health claims were general non-specific and/or function claims. Later on, researchers exploited the 2015 dataset to investigate the use of gluten-free claims ( 63 ), heart images ( 61 ), and marketing to children ( 62 ). Studies identified several challenges of such poorly regulated marketing, which often promotes foods with questionable overall nutritional composition.…”