Consumer understanding and use of nutrition labelling: a systematic review

114

112

Objective: A front-of-pack nutrition logo on products with relatively favourable product compositions might help consumers to make more healthful choices. Studies investigating actual nutrition label use in point-of-purchase settings are scarce. The present study investigates the use of the 'Choices' nutrition logo in Dutch supermarkets. Design: Adults were asked to complete a validated questionnaire about motivation for food choice and their purchased products were scored for the Choices logo after they had done their shopping. Setting: Nine supermarkets in The Netherlands. Subjects: A total of 404 respondents participated. Results: Of the respondents, 62 % reported familiarity with the logo. The motivations for food choice that were positively associated with actually purchasing products with the logo were attention to 'weight control' and 'product information'. The food choice motive 'hedonism' was negatively associated with purchasing products with the logo. Conclusions: This is the first study to investigate actual use of the Choices logo. In order to stimulate consumers to purchase more products with a favourable product composition, extra attention should be paid to hedonistic aspects such as the tastefulness and the image of healthy products.

Section: Familiarity and Logo Usesupporting

confidence: 92%

Actual use of a front-of-pack nutrition logo in the supermarket: consumers’ motives in food choice

Vyth

Steenhuis

Vlot

et al. 2010

114

112

“…This reiterates the observation that quantitative techniques, especially questionnaire surveys to elicit information, often provide little information on whether the respondents actually behave in the way claimed (11,31) ; hence the use of qualitative techniques like FGD has distinct methodological advantages.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 77%

Use of food label information by urban consumers in India – a study among supermarket shoppers

Vemula

Gavaravarapu²,

Mendu³

et al. 2013

Objective: To study consumer knowledge and use of food labels. Design: A cross-sectional study employing both quantitative and qualitative methods. Intercept interviews were conducted with 1832 consumers at supermarket sites selected using a stratified random sampling procedure. This information was triangulated with twenty-one focus group discussions. Setting: New Delhi and Hyderabad, two metro-cities from north and south India. Subjects: Adolescent (10-19 years), adult (20-59 years) and elderly ($60 years) consumers. Results: While the national urban literacy rate is 84 %, about 99 % of the study participants were educated. About 45 % reported that they buy pre-packaged foods once weekly and about a fifth buy them every day. Taste, quality, convenience and ease of use are the main reasons for buying pre-packaged foods. Although 90 % of consumers across the age groups read food labels, the majority (81 %) looked only for the manufacturing date or expiry/best before date. Of those who read labels, only a third checked nutrition information and ingredients. Nutrient information on labels was not often read because most consumers either lacked nutrition knowledge or found the information too technical to understand. About 60 % read quality symbols. A positive association was found between education level and checking various aspects of food labels. Women and girls concerned about 'fat' and 'sugar' intake read the nutrition facts panel. Conclusions:The intention of promoting healthy food choices through use of food labels is not being completely met. Since a majority of people found it difficult to comprehend nutrition information, there is a need to take up educational activities and/or introduce new forms of labelling.

“…Children, adolescents, obese older adults, individuals with less education and/or nutrition knowledge, people with lower disposable income and those with lower health awareness are less likely to use labels and/or effectively process the nutrition information presented (30)(31)(32) . Moreover, whether consumers can understand and use nutrition facts labels is contingent upon the purpose of the task (5)(6)(7)(8) . A majority appears capable to retrieve basic facts and make simple calculations/comparisons between products using numerical information on the label, but their ability and accuracy decline as the complexity of the task increases.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A long line of research documents consumers' understanding and use of nutrition facts labels, as well as their impact on dietary behaviour (5)(6)(7)(8) . A substantial proportion of US consumers report regular use of nutrition facts labels to guide their selection of food products (5)(6)(7)(8) .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A substantial proportion of US consumers report regular use of nutrition facts labels to guide their selection of food products (5)(6)(7)(8) . The perception on the credibility of nutrition facts labels appears high and there is a consistent association between nutrition facts label use and diet quality (5)(6)(7)(8) . The American Diabetes Association recommends that patients 'use the information on the nutrition facts label to compare foods and make better choices' (9) .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Diabetes diagnosis and nutrition facts label use among US adults, 2005–2010

2015

Objective: To assess the role of diabetes diagnosis as a potential teachable moment in nutrition facts label use among US adults. Design: Logistic regression analyses were conducted to examine the relationship between diabetes diagnosis status (diagnosed diabetes, undiagnosed diabetes, diagnosed prediabetes, undiagnosed prediabetes, no diabetes or prediabetes) and self-reported nutrition facts label use, adjusted by individual characteristics and survey design. Setting: Study sample came from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2005-2010 waves. Subjects: A total of 5110 US adults aged 20 years and older were included in the analyses. Diabetes/prediabetes was identified by fasting plasma glucose and glycated Hb testing. Results: People with diagnosed diabetes/prediabetes were substantially more likely to report nutrition facts label use when making daily food purchase decisions compared with those with undiagnosed diabetes/prediabetes, whereas the prevalence of nutrition facts label use was similar between people with undiagnosed diabetes/prediabetes and those without diabetes/prediabetes. The adjusted prevalence (95 % CI) of any and regular nutrition facts label use was 85·93 (82·91, 88·95) % and 55·60 (50·04, 61·16) % among those with diagnosed diabetes, respectively, in comparison to 71·50 (59·64, 83·37) % and 32·88 (19·11, 46·65) % among those with undiagnosed diabetes. Analogously, the adjusted prevalence (95 % CI) of any and regular nutrition facts label use was 81·16 (75·27, 87·06) % and 45·28 (37·28, 53·29) % among those with diagnosed prediabetes, respectively, in comparison to 72·83 (68·06, 77·59) % and 39·95 (34·02, 45·89) % among those with undiagnosed prediabetes. Conclusions: As a potential teachable moment, diabetes diagnosis may positively impact nutrition facts label use and motivate diabetic patients to manage their condition through making healthier food choices.