Tick tock: time for a change?

Abstract

New developments in front-of-pack nutrition labelling are substantially improving the nutrition information available at the point of purchase. This has led to a need to reconsider the role of health logos such as the National Heart Foundation's 'Tick'. Using a qualitative, exploratory approach involving 10 focus groups with adults and children, this study investigated consumers' attitudes to the Tick and its relevance to their purchase decisions. Both adults and children exhibited awareness of the Tick and its aim to indicate healthier product alternatives. Views on the effectiveness of the Tick were polarised, with some considering it a useful tool and others querying the basis of its licensing arrangements. While the Tick has in the past played a role in assisting consumers to make more informed decisions and encouraging favourable modification of the food supply, recent questions relating to its role and credibility have resulted in the Heart Foundation deciding to retire it. After a quarter of a century in the Australian marketplace, the National Heart Foundation's Tick program has been reviewed. The findings of the present study provide insight into consumers' views of the Tick and suggest that the emergence of more comprehensive food labelling initiatives may make logo-based nutrition labels redundant.

Front‐of‐package nutrition labeling as a driver for healthier food choices: Lessons learned and future perspectives

“…Before it was discontinued in 2016 (Heart Foundation, 2016), the Australian Tick was evaluated in a qualitative study in Australia. In this study, the participants widely recognized the Australian Tick and had a substantial level of awareness across age and gender groups (Pettigrew et al, 2016). The Choices logo is also known and used by the Dutch (Smed et al, 2019;Vyth et al, 2010).…”

“…All FOPL models were found to have some barriers to their effectiveness on consumer behavior. It seems that taste, aroma, brand, and price are considered more important than the message conveyed by FOPL (Freire et al., 2017; Pettigrew et al., 2016; Saavedra‐Garcia et al., 2022). For example, an experimental study demonstrated that when there was one or two WLs, purchase intentions for products, such as granola bars and margarine, decreased, while this effect was not evident in the case of ice cream and ketchup (Uribe et al., 2020).…”