Reds are more important than greens: how UK supermarket shoppers use the different information on a traffic light nutrition label in a choice experiment

Abstract

BackgroundColour coded front-of-pack nutrition labelling (‘traffic light labelling’) has been recommended for use in the UK since 2006. The voluntary scheme is used by all the major retailers and some manufacturers. It is not clear how consumers use these labels to make a single decision about the relative healthiness of foods. Our research questions were: Which of the four nutrients on UK traffic light labels (total fat, saturated fat, sugar and salt) has the most influence on decisions? Do green lights or red lights have a greater influence? Are there age and gender differences in how people use the colour and nutrient information?MethodsWe recruited participants from a UK supermarket chain membership list to conduct an online choice experiment in May 2014. We analysed data using multilevel logisitic models with food choices (n = 3321) nested in individuals (n = 187) as the unit of analysis.ResultsA food with more reds was 11.4 (95 % confidence intervals: 10.3, 12.5) times less likely to be chosen as healthy, whereas a food with more greens was 6.1 (5.6, 6.6) times more likely to be chosen as healthy. Foods with better colours on saturated fat and salt were 7.3 (6.7, 8.0) and 7.1 (6.5, 7.8) times more likely to be chosen as healthy – significantly greater than for total fat (odds ratio 4.8 (4.4, 5.3)) and sugar (5.2 (4.7, 5.6)). Results were broadly similar for different genders and age groups.ConclusionsWe found that participants were more concerned with avoiding reds than choosing greens, and that saturated fat and salt had a greater influence on decisions regarding healthiness than total fat and sugar. This could influence decisions about food reformulation and guidance on using nutrition labelling.

Consumers’ categorization of food ingredients: Do consumers perceive them as ‘clean label’ producers expect? An exploration with projective mapping

“…Thirdly, the study findings support previous research showing that consumers frequently have negative associations towards certain nutrient groups which they regard as unhealthy, and that they are avoiding certain groups more than they seek others in what might be a 'negativity bias' (Rozin & Royzman, 2001;Scarborough et al, 2015). In accordance with Song and Swartz (2009), consumers perceived ingredients as more risky when they were not familiar with the ingredient.…”

A randomized controlled trial examining consumers’ perceptions and opinions on using different versions of a FoodFlip© smartphone application for delivery of nutrition information

“…The traffic light and 'high in' warning INRS also ranked significantly higher for providing nutritional information that participants can use and for understanding the nutrient levels in comparison to that of the star rating app but did not differ with the ranking of the control (NFt). These findings are similar to those of previous research conducted in USA, UK, or Chile, where consumers indicated higher preference for nutrient specific systems, such as traffic light labels or 'high in' warning labels in comparison to a summary INRS system or control [52,[62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70]. For example, a web-based survey simulating an online grocery store, administered to 1182 people in Chile, indicated improved participants' ability to perform a healthful food purchase when randomized to FOP nutrition information (modified traffic light system or the Chilean warning system) in comparison to the control condition [52].…”

“…Research from USA have shown multiple traffic lights to perform better in comparison to other INRS (including a graded system, star ranking and a nutrition facts table-based approach) in helping consumers to identify the healthier products as well as understanding of the nutrient levels [71]. Data from the UK also indicated that the majority of consumers used multiple traffic lights to 'avoid red lights' similar to a high in warning FOP system [70]. Results from the present work are similar to other studies which did not find differences in consumer perceptions between the traffic light and 'high in' warning labels [19,52], likely because both are nutrient specific systems that communicate information about key nutrients (e.g.…”

Do Health Claims and Front-of-Pack Labels Lead to a Positivity Bias in Unhealthy Foods?

“…When used in the context of food, the colour red can implicitly evoke an avoidance reaction, regardless of actual healthiness [49]. Similarly, research on the Multiple Traffic Light indicates that consumers are strongly driven to avoid red lights (more so than to select green lights) [50,51,52]. This negative colour association combined with a lack of familiarity with the Health Star Rating could have contributed to participants forming an overall negative impression of all products (healthy and unhealthy) with a Health Star Rating in that study [1].…”