A Preliminary Examination of Facts Up Front: Survey Results from Primary Shoppers and At-Risk Segments

Diekman, Connie; Levy, Marian; Murray, Robert; Stafford, Marla Royne; Kees, Jeremy

doi:10.1016/j.jand.2016.01.007

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the US, industry voluntarily uses a similar system called Facts Up Front [24], for many products. US consumers report better understanding of nutrition information presented in the GDA format than in NFTs [25]. However, US consumers show evidence of greater nutrition knowledge when using other systems (e.g., traffic light) compared to the GDA [26].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding and use of food labeling systems among Whites and Latinos in the United States and among Mexicans: Results from the International Food Policy Study, 2017

Nieto

Jáuregui

Contreras‐Manzano

et al. 2019

Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundObesity and chronic diseases could be prevented through improved diet. Most governments require at least one type of food labeling system on packaged foods to communicate nutrition information and promote healthy eating. This study evaluated adult consumer understanding and use of nutrition labeling systems in the US and Mexico, the most obese countries in the world.MethodsAdults from online consumer panels in the US (Whites n = 2959; Latinos n = 667) and in Mexico (n = 3533) were shown five food labeling systems: 1. Nutrition Facts Table (NFT) that shows nutrients of concern per serving; 2. Guideline Daily Amounts (GDA) that shows levels of nutrients of concern; 3. Multiple Traffic-Light (MTL) that color codes each GDA nutrient (green = healthy; yellow = moderately unhealthy; red = unhealthy); 4. Health Star Rating System (HSR) that rates foods on a single dimension of healthiness; 5. Warning Label (WL) with a stop sign for nutrients present in unhealthy levels. Participants rated each label on understanding (“easy”/“very easy to understand” vs “difficult”/“very difficult to understand”), and, for NFTs and GDAs, frequency of use (“sometimes”/“often” vs “never”). Mixed logistic models regressed understanding and frequency of use on indicators of labeling systems (NFT = ref), testing for interactions by ethnicity (US Latinos, US Whites, Mexicans), while controlling for sociodemographic and obesity-related factors.ResultsCompared to the NFT, participants reported greater understanding of the WL (OR = 4.8; 95% CI = 4.4–5.3) and lower understanding of the HSR (OR = 0.34, 95% CI = 0.31–0.37) and the MTL (OR = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.52–0.61), with similar patterns across ethnic subgroups. Participants used GDAs less often than NFTs (OR = 0.48; 95%CI = 0.41–0.55), with the greatest difference among US Whites (OR = 0.10; 95%CI = 0.07–0.14).ConclusionsUnderstanding and use of the GDA was similar to that of the NFT. Whites, Latinos, and Mexicans consistently reported the best understanding for WLs, a FOPL that highlights unhealthfulness of a product. Therefore, a FOPL summary indicator, such as WLs, may be more effective in both the US and Mexico for guiding consumers towards informed food choices.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding and use of food labeling systems among Whites and Latinos in the United States and among Mexicans: Results from the International Food Policy Study, 2017

Nieto

Jáuregui

Contreras‐Manzano

et al. 2019

Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, when asked to estimate the level of nutrients in food products, those viewing the FUF were more likely to underestimate the levels of fat and sugars, and to overestimate fiber and protein, compared to the control and other FOP label groups [32]. In a survey of consumer awareness of FUF labels, ready-to-eat cereal products were most frequently recalled as containing FUF labels [31]. However, the effects of FUF labels on consumer understanding of the nutrient contents of food appear to be mixed.…”

Section: Front-of-package Nutrition Information: Facts Up Frontmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…In a survey of consumer awareness of FUF labels, ready-to-eat cereal products were most frequently recalled as containing FUF labels [31]. However, the effects of FUF labels on consumer understanding of the nutrient contents of food appear to be mixed.…”

Section: Front-of-package Nutrition Information: Facts Up Frontmentioning

confidence: 99%

Front-of-Package Protein Labels on Cereal Create Health Halos

McKeon,

Hallman

2024

Foods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Front-of-package protein labels are frequently added to breakfast cereals, aimed at increasing purchases by consumers who believe they would benefit from eating more protein. However, the overall nutritional compositions of such products are often not significantly better than similar products without protein labels, and may contain more sugar, sodium, and calories to improve taste. We conducted an online survey with 1022 US adults to examine consumer perceptions of two cereals (Special K Original and Special K Protein). Participants perceived Special K Protein as healthier and more nutritious, though less tasty, than Special K Original. Special K Protein was perceived as providing greater health benefits, such as being more likely to help them build muscle, stay healthy, and live longer. Many participants perceived no differences in the amounts of certain nutrients between the cereals, such as sugar (54.5%), sodium (59.2%), and calories (49.1%). Yet, when serving sizes are equalized to one cup, Special K Protein has more sugar, sodium, and calories than Special K Original. Though most participants reported viewing the Facts Up Front label, only 21.3% correctly chose Special K Original as having the larger serving size. This pattern of results suggests the presence of a health halo surrounding the protein-labeled product.

show abstract

Effect of front-of-package labels on consumer product evaluation and preferences

Oswald

Adhikari

Mohan

2022

Current Research in Food Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Front-of-Package (FOP) labels highlight important nutrients and help consumers make informed decisions about food purchases. In this study, we investigated consumer comprehension, opinion, and preference associated with two different formats of FOP labels and compared consumer shopping behavior and general trends related to nutrition labeling. Consumer eye-tracking was used for measuring perceived understanding of nutritional information objectively. Results revealed that a color-coded FOP label would garner more attention than a black and white FOP label. Subjects found color-coded FOP labels more straightforward than black and white labels. Participants used the information provided on the FOP for shopping goals. Still, FOPs did not affect objective consumer attention to labels, and labeling schemes did not significantly affect participants' decisions. Participating subjects did use FOP labels instead of the nutrition facts panels. Still, FOP groups scored lower on a nutrition literacy quiz, indicating that their perceived and actual understanding of nutritional information differed. Our findings suggest that subjects pay attention to FOP labels but do not make decisions.

show abstract

A Preliminary Examination of Facts Up Front: Survey Results from Primary Shoppers and At-Risk Segments

Cited by 6 publications

References 17 publications

Understanding and use of food labeling systems among Whites and Latinos in the United States and among Mexicans: Results from the International Food Policy Study, 2017

Understanding and use of food labeling systems among Whites and Latinos in the United States and among Mexicans: Results from the International Food Policy Study, 2017

Front-of-Package Protein Labels on Cereal Create Health Halos

Effect of front-of-package labels on consumer product evaluation and preferences

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About