The use of food composition data in the Choices International Programme

Jansen, Léon; Roodenburg, Annet J. C.

doi:10.1016/j.foodchem.2015.06.082

Cited by 17 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The main difference with the Czech ‘Vim, co jim’ label is that ‘Vim, co jim’ has developed criteria for total salt instead of sodium. Nutrient thresholds are expressed per 100 g/100 mL or per serving (i.e., only for meals and snacks) [14,15]. Total sugar criteria have recently been added to provide a guideline for countries that do not have sufficient data on added sugar levels available [16].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differences and Similarities between Front-of-Pack Nutrition Labels in Europe: A Comparison of Functional and Visual Aspects

Bend

Lissner

2019

Nutrients

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many different front-of-pack (FOP) nutrition labels have been introduced worldwide. To continue the debate on the most effective FOP labels for increased consumer health, full comprehension of their visual and functional features is relevant. This paper compares and provides an overview of all FOP labels currently in practice or in preparation in Europe, by means of the visually oriented Funnel Model. The Funnel Models were completed in collaboration with the respective FOP labelling initiatives. In total, six positive FOP labels, two mixed FOP labels and one negative FOP label were compared. There are multiple similarities and differences between the FOP labels, with each FOP label being characterised by a unique set of criteria and methodological approach. This Funnel Model comparison provides the knowledge to ultimately find more common ground for all stakeholders involved in the FOP labelling debate. Importantly, implementation and evaluation activities carried out by FOP labelling organisations are crucial success factors for FOP labels in practice. We conclude that more attention should be paid to methodological differences between FOP labels and recommend that the current comparison is expanded to a global level and periodically updated, as the variety of FOP labels in the global marketplace is changing constantly.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differences and Similarities between Front-of-Pack Nutrition Labels in Europe: A Comparison of Functional and Visual Aspects

Bend

Lissner

2019

Nutrients

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The criteria are reviewed every four to five years, at which point there may be revisions to ascertain that only the healthiest products in the category remain eligible to add the health symbol(Jansen & Roodenburg, 2016). During our sample period(July 2011-March 2015, no such revision occurred.4 Please see https://www.choicesprogramme.org/our-work/nutrition-criteria/ for more details on the criteria for all categories.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Going healthy: how product characteristics influence the sales impact of front-of-pack health symbols

Maesen

Lamey

Braak

et al. 2021

J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Manufacturers increasingly adopt health symbols, which translate overall product healthiness into a single symbol, to communicate about the overall healthiness of their grocery products. This study examines how the performance implications of adding a front-of-pack health symbol to a product vary across products. We study the sales impact of a government-supported health symbol program in 29 packaged categories, using over four years of scanner data. The results indicate that health symbols are most impactful when they positively disconfirm pre-existing beliefs that a product is not among the healthiest products within the category. More specifically, we find that health symbols are more effective for (i) products with a front-of-pack taste claim, (ii) lower priced products, and (iii) private label products. Furthermore, these results are more pronounced in healthier categories than in unhealthier categories. Our findings imply that health symbols can help overcome lay beliefs among consumers regarding a product’s overall healthiness. As such, adding a health symbol provides easy-to-process information about product healthiness for the consumer and can increase product sales for the manufacturer.

show abstract

“…Combining this result with our results suggests that displaying the label will enable consumers to identify (and choose) healthier products, thereby directing them towards a healthier diet. Furthermore, because of the regular evaluation of and improvements made to the nutritional criteria with which products have to comply in order to display the label, it might be expected that the introduction of the label will slowly improve the composition of products on the market (39)(40)(41)(42) and improve the average daily intake in the Netherlands even when no other changes in dietary pattern occur. development and demonstration (under grant agreement no.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effects of voluntary front-of-pack nutrition labels on volume shares of products: the case of the Dutch Choices

Smed¹,

Edenbrandt²,

Jansen³

2019

Public Health Nutr.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective:The study examines the impact of a front-of-pack label (Dutch Choices) on household purchase patterns.Design:Change in households’ volume share of products eligible for the label (treatment group) is estimated as a function of changes in the market share of products displaying the label (treatment), while controlling for other relevant factors.Setting:Home-scan data for five food categories, subdivided into eighteen food groups, for households participating in a Dutch consumer panel. The data are from the period 2005 to 2009, which includes the date of the introduction of the Choices label.Participants:Between 831 and 7216 households from all over the Netherlands.Results:An increase in the market share of products displaying the label led to an increase in the volume share purchased of products eligible for the label for dairy products, yoghurts and for sauces. For some of the products, the partial effect is considerable (e.g. a 10 percentage point (pp) increase in the share of products displaying the label is associated with a 11·5 and 14·0 pp increase in the volume share of eligible products for chocolate milk and quark, respectively).Conclusions:The results suggest a positive effect from the presence of the Choices label on the volume share of eligible products purchased. Provided that eligible products are healthier than non-eligible products, the Choices label is a good guide for consumers in order to help them make healthier food choices. The positive effect is found mainly in food groups with a mix of both healthy and unhealthy food products.

show abstract

The use of food composition data in the Choices International Programme

Cited by 17 publications

References 13 publications

Differences and Similarities between Front-of-Pack Nutrition Labels in Europe: A Comparison of Functional and Visual Aspects

Differences and Similarities between Front-of-Pack Nutrition Labels in Europe: A Comparison of Functional and Visual Aspects

Going healthy: how product characteristics influence the sales impact of front-of-pack health symbols

The effects of voluntary front-of-pack nutrition labels on volume shares of products: the case of the Dutch Choices

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About