Front-of-pack nutrition labelling: Testing effectiveness of different nutrition labelling formats front-of-pack in four European countries

Abstract

In two studies, the impact of eight front-of-pack nutrition labelling formats that differed in complexity was investigated across four European countries. In total 1630 men and women (18–55 yrs) were recruited from Internet panels in the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands for study 1 and 776 in Italy and the United Kingdom for study 2. Participants evaluated several products (healthier and less healthy variants of the same product category) with a front-of-pack nutrition labelling format. The first study evaluated different labelling formats on consumer friendliness (comprehension, liking and credibility) and the second study measured the effect of the different labelling formats on decision-making (usage intention and process time). The results indicated minor differences in consumer friendliness and usage intention between simpler (such as Healthier Choice Tick, Smileys and Stars) and more complex front-of-pack nutrition labelling formats (such as Multiple Traffic Light, Wheel of Health and GDA scores). Endorsement by national and international health organisations strongly increased the labelling formats’ credibility. Participants needed significantly less time to evaluate simpler front-of-pack labelling compared to the more complex labelling format. Thus simpler front-of-pack labelling formats seem more appropriate in a shopping environment where quick decisions are made.

Introduction

There is robust evidence that dietary factors are related to the development of chronic diseases such as heart disease, stroke, obesity and diabetes (Astrup, 2001; Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation, 2003; Kromhout, Menotti, Kesteloot, & Sans, 2002). The World Health Organization has recommended that food manufactures reduce levels of saturated fatty acids, trans fatty acids, sodium and sugar in their products in order to reduce the burden of chronic diseases on society (WHO, 2004). One way to help consumers reduce the intake of these nutrients is to improve the product composition; another is to motivate consumers to make healthier choices. Both should be done simultaneously. Therefore, in addition to enhancing the nutritional profile of products using the Unilever Nutrition Enhancement Programme score (Nijman et al., 2007), we investigated the effectiveness of front-of-pack nutrition labelling formats that would help consumers make healthier choices and that could be used across different countries.

In order to make healthier choices, consumers must be able to distinguish healthier products from less healthy ones. This can be done by making the nutritional composition of foods transparent in the form of nutrition labels, either in the form of front-of-pack or back-of-pack nutritional information. A front-of-pack logo in addition to the traditional numerical nutrition fact box on the back of the pack may be more effective in helping consumers make a healthy choice than back-of-pack nutritional information alone (Geiger, Wyse, Parent, & Hansen, 1991; Scott & Worsley, 1994). However, research on nutrition labelling formats is relatively scarce and the majority has investigated back-of-pack nutrition labelling formats and is qualitative in nature (see for example Cowburn & Stockley, 2005; Higginson, Rayner, Draper, & Kirk, 2002). Furthermore, only a small part of that research has investigated the effect of different formats on behavioural change (see Scott & Worsley, 1994, for an exception). Therefore, the objective of the research reported in this paper was to investigate how well a number of front-of-pack nutrition labelling formats were understood by consumers and how effective they could be in helping consumers make healthier choices.

Although back-of-pack nutrition labels were designed to help consumers make healthier choices (Jordan Lin, Lee, & Yen, 2004; Kurtzweil, 1993), research conducted in Europe, the US and Australia/New Zealand suggests that the majority of consumers find back-of pack nutrition labels confusing, especially the numerical information and the terminology used (Byrd-Bredbenner, Wong, & Cotte, 2000; Cowburn & Stockley, 2005; EUFIC, 2005; Sadler, 1999; Scott & Worsley, 1997; Shannon, 1994; Shine, O’Reilly, & O’Sullivan, 1997; Wandel, 1999). Cowburn and Stockley (2005) reviewed the literature on nutrition labelling formats and concluded that in particular vulnerable groups such as older consumers and consumers with lower levels of education and income are likely to have difficulties in understanding nutrition labels. Their review also showed that consumers had difficulty converting information from ‘g per 100 g’ to ‘g per serving’ and interpreting serving size information. Results from a study by Vijwanathan and Hastak (2002) suggested that adding some kind of benchmark (e.g., as a percentage of the recommended daily intake) can help consumers put nutritional information into context.

In order to make healthier choices consumers have to take into account several nutrients simultaneously. A study by Black and Rayner (1992) showed that consumers find it difficult to make these comparisons. To simplify their task, consumers tended to use a single nutrient (like fat) as a measure to compare products on overall health. This may lead consumers to make the wrong choice—products low in fat could well be high in other nutrients, such as sugar or salt. A simple front-of-pack label that summarises the whole nutritional profile and provides an overall interpretation of the healthiness of the product should therefore facilitate and improve consumers’ decision-making with regard to healthy foods. Furthermore, such a label would not require detailed nutritional knowledge. Another advantage of simple labels is that these reduce the cognitive effort and the time needed to process the information compared to more detailed labels (Geiger et al., 1991; Scott & Worsley, 1994). In a supermarket environment, consumers generally have limited opportunity to process information and their motivation to do this is likely to be low when shopping for groceries, resulting in relatively superficial processing of information (cf. Eagly & Chaiken, 1993; Fiske & Neuberg, 1990; Petty, Cacioppo, & Schumann, 1983). Research by Hoyer (1984) showed that consumers take buying decisions in a supermarket in seconds rather than minutes. Other findings support the idea that consumers only glance at nutrition information and do not further process the information at the point of purchase (Higginson et al., 2002; Scott & Worsley, 1997). In conclusion, the available research suggests that a front-of-pack label would facilitate making healthier choices by incorporating benchmark information that enables consumers to interpret the information and/or by providing an advice that includes an interpretation of the nutritional information.

Ever since the introduction of the traditional numerical nutrition fact box, different parties (retailers, manufactures, governmental and non-governmental organisations) have tried to design front-of-pack nutrition information labels that complement it and are easier to understand and use. These labels vary from complex detailed nutrition labels to simple symbols. Detailed nutrition labelling formats enable consumers to make an informed choice by providing information on key nutrients in a friendlier way compared to the traditional nutrition fact box. Simple symbols provide an interpretation of the healthiness of the overall product, thus reducing the processing load (Scott & Worsley, 1994).

Examples of more detailed labels are ‘Guideline Daily Amounts (GDA)’ and ‘Wheel of Health’. GDA shows the amount in grams and percentages for calories, sugar, fat, saturates and salt per serving (Tesco, 2006). The ‘Wheel of Health’ is similar to the ‘Multiple Traffic Light’ label, which is recommended by the UK Food Standards Agency (FSA, 2005). It shows the amount of the five key nutrients energy, total fat, saturated fatty acids, sugar and salt in each serving. The nutrients can score green, amber or red, respectively, indicating “Go”, “Ok” and “Think before you eat too much of this … although a little bit will never hurt”(Sainsbury, 2006). Note that neither the ‘GDA’ nor the ‘Wheel of Health’ provides an overall interpretation of the information.

Examples of simple symbols are the ‘Green Keyhole’ (Sweden; Kinnunen, 2000; Larsson, Lissner, & Wilhelmsen, 1999; Weinehall, Hellsten, Boman, & Hallmans, 2001), ‘Shop Smart With Heart’ (Canada; Kinnunen, 2000), ‘Pick The Tick’ (Australia and New Zealand; Kinnunen, 2000; Scott & Worsley, 1994; Young & Swinburn, 2002) and ‘Smart Spot’ (PepsiCo, 2006).

There is thus a multitude of front-of-pack labels that aim to help consumers make a healthier choice. The verdict is still out as to which of these labelling formats is best understood by consumers and which makes it easiest for consumers to make a healthier choice.

The aim of the first study was to evaluate the different front-of-pack nutrition labelling formats on their consumer friendliness and their ability to help consumers differentiate between healthier and less healthy variants of the same product category, to see whether the different labelling formats met the basic requirements. The aim of the second study was to investigate the effect of the labelling formats on decision-making when taking into account the shopping environment.

In addition to our main research question, we investigated whether there were any significant differences in comprehension and intention to change behaviour across different countries. Furthermore, as research in the USA and New Zealand had shown that consumers with lower levels of overall education are less likely to read nutrition and ingredient information (Bender & Derby, 1992; Cowburn & Stockley, 2005; Scott & Worsley, 1994), we investigated differences in comprehension of the labels for consumers with different levels of education. The impact of endorsement on the credibility of a labelling format was also explored. Finally, we investigated whether participants thought the labelling formats indicated a comparison within one product category or across food groups.