Consumers’ responses to health claims in the context of other on-pack nutrition information: a systematic review

Talati, Zenobia; Pettigrew, Simone; Neal, Bruce; Dixon, Helen; Hughes, Clare; Kelly, Bridget; Miller, Caroline

doi:10.1093/nutrit/nuw070

Cited by 57 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 62 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Health claims in this review mostly detailed the benefit individuals stand to gain by eating certain foods and were preferred to nutrient content information when both were presented as choice options to consumers. This supports current thinking that 'softer' scientific health claims can positively bias consumer evaluation [86,87], and supports evidence demonstrating the importance of knowledge as a pre-requisite for effective processing of labelling information [88,89]. Certainly, the lack of consumer preference for carbon labelling in this review could be partially explained by the importance of knowledge in driving attribute preference.…”

Section: This Review's Findings In Contextsupporting

confidence: 83%

Sustainable Diet Dimensions. Comparing Consumer Preference for Nutrition, Environmental and Social Responsibility Food Labelling: A Systematic Review

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Global food systems are currently challenged by unsustainable and unhealthy consumption and production practices. Food labelling provides information on key characteristics of food items, thereby potentially driving more sustainable food choices or demands. This review explores how consumers value three different elements of sustainable diets: Comparing consumer response to nutrition information on food labels against environmental and/or social responsibility information. Six databases were systematically searched for studies examining consumer choice/preference/evaluation of nutrition against environmental and/or social responsibility attributes on food labels. Studies were quality assessed against domain-based criteria and reported using PRISMA guidelines. Thirty articles with 19,040 participants met inclusion criteria. Study quality was mixed, with samples biased towards highly-educated females. Environmental and social responsibility attributes were preferred to nutrition attributes in 17 studies (11 environmental and six social), compared to nine where nutrition attributes were valued more highly. Three studies found a combination of attributes were valued more highly than either attribute in isolation. One study found no significant preference. The most preferred attribute was organic labelling, with a health inference likely. Consumers generally have a positive view of environmental and social responsibility food labelling schemes. Combination labelling has potential, with a mix of sustainable diet attributes appearing well-received.

show abstract

Section: This Review's Findings In Contextsupporting

confidence: 83%

Sustainable Diet Dimensions. Comparing Consumer Preference for Nutrition, Environmental and Social Responsibility Food Labelling: A Systematic Review

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Health and nutrition claims have been associated with purchase behavior [44]. Nonetheless, the misleading nature of nutrition claims has been depicted in previous studies [45]. Groups with special dietary needs as well as those with illnesses and parents refer to be more likely to benefit from health and nutrition claims and consider that overall nutrition and health claims made them more interested in a product which they considered to be healthy [46].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Conflicting Messages on Food and Beverage Packages: Front-of-Package Nutritional Labeling, Health and Nutrition Claims in Brazil

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We assessed the prevalence of front-of-package (FoP) claims in the Brazilian packaged food supply and examined whether foods with claims were more likely to be high in critical nutrients. Using data from a random 30% subsample of 11,434 foods and beverages collected in the five largest food retailers in Brazil in 2017 (n = 3491), we classified claims into nutrition, health, and environment. We examined whether foods with claims were more likely to be high in critical nutrients using 95% confidence intervals. Claims were found in 41.2% of the products. Nutrition claims were the most prevalent (28.5%), followed by health (22.1%), and environment-related claims (5.2%). More than 85% of the breakfast cereals, granola bars, and nectars contained claims, which were found in 51% of the dairy beverages. Foods with nutrition claims were more likely to be high in critical nutrients (65.3%; 95% CI 62.3, 68.2% vs. 54.1% 95% CI 52.1, 56.0). Products with health (52.9%; 95% CI 49.3, 56.4% vs. 58.5%; 95% CI 56.6, 60.3) and environment-related claims (33.5%; 95% CI 27.0, 40.8% vs. 58.6%; 95% CI 56.9, 60.2%) were less likely to be high in critical nutrients. FoP claims are prevalent in Brazil, and nutrition claims are more likely to have a poorer nutritional profile. Policymakers should consider restricting the presence of claims on unhealthy products.

show abstract

“…One review concluded that people find nutrition labels useful and reliable, and that these labels help them figure out healthiness of a food product [25]. Talati et al [26] indicated in their review that front-of-pack nutrition labels can diminish the cognitive bias that arises from misleading health claims placed by marketers. Recently, more attention has been devoted to newer initiatives such as traffic light systems or the Nutri-score [27].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

That’s My Cue to Eat: A Systematic Review of the Persuasiveness of Front-of-Pack Cues on Food Packages for Children vs. Adults

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Packaging is increasingly recognized as an essential component of any marketing strategy. Visual and informational front-of-pack cues constitute salient elements of the environment that may influence what and how much someone eats. Considering their overwhelming presence on packaging of non-core foods, front-of-pack cues may contribute to the growing rates of overweight and obesity in children and adults. We conducted a systematic review to summarize the evidence concerning the impact of front-of-pack cues on choices and eating behaviors. Four electronic databases were searched for experimental studies (2009–present). This resulted in the inclusion of 57 studies (in 43 articles). We identified studies on children (3–12 years) and adults (≥ 18 years), but no studies on adolescents (12–18 years). The results suggest that children and adults are susceptible to packaging cues, with most evidence supporting the impact of visual cues. More specifically, children more often choose products with a licensed endorser and eat more from packages portraying the product with an exaggerated portion size. Adults’ eating behaviors are influenced by a range of other visual cues, mainly, package size and shape, and less so by informational cues such as labels.

show abstract

Consumers’ responses to health claims in the context of other on-pack nutrition information: a systematic review

Cited by 57 publications

References 62 publications

Sustainable Diet Dimensions. Comparing Consumer Preference for Nutrition, Environmental and Social Responsibility Food Labelling: A Systematic Review

Sustainable Diet Dimensions. Comparing Consumer Preference for Nutrition, Environmental and Social Responsibility Food Labelling: A Systematic Review

Conflicting Messages on Food and Beverage Packages: Front-of-Package Nutritional Labeling, Health and Nutrition Claims in Brazil

That’s My Cue to Eat: A Systematic Review of the Persuasiveness of Front-of-Pack Cues on Food Packages for Children vs. Adults

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About