Dataset Information

Polish Consumers' Understanding of Different Front-of-Package Food Labels: A Randomized Experiment.

ABSTRACT: Dietary practices are a key behavioral factor in chronic disease prevention; one strategy for improving such practices population-wise involves front-of-package labels (FoPL). This online randomized study, conducted in a quota-based sample of 1159 Polish adults (mean age = 40.9 ± 15.4 years), assessed the objective understanding of five FoPL: Health Star Rating, Multiple Traffic Lights, NutriScore, Reference Intakes (RI) and Warning Label. Objective understanding was evaluated by comparing results of two nutritional quality ranking tasks (without/with FoPL) using three food categories (breakfast cereals, cakes, pizza). Associations between FoPL exposure and objective understanding were assessed via multivariable ordinal logistic regression. Compared to RI and across food categories, significant improvement in objective understanding was seen for NutriScore (OR = 2.02; 95% CI: 1.41-2.91) and Warning Label (OR = 1.61; 95% CI: 1.12-2.32). In age-stratified analyses, significant improvement in objective understanding compared to RI emerged mainly among adults aged 18-30 years randomized to NutriScore (all food categories: OR = 3.88; 95% CI: 2.04-7.36; cakes: OR = 6.88; 95% CI: 3.05-15.51). Relative to RI, NutriScore was associated with some improvement in objective understanding of FoPL across and within food categories, especially among young adults. These findings contribute to the ongoing debate about an EU-wide FoPL model.

SUBMITTER: Andreeva VA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8750026 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Polish Consumers' Understanding of Different Front-of-Package Food Labels: A Randomized Experiment.

Andreeva Valentina A VA Egnell Manon M Stoś Katarzyna K Przygoda Beata B Talati Zenobia Z Touvier Mathilde M Galan Pilar P Hercberg Serge S Pettigrew Simone S Julia Chantal C

Foods (Basel, Switzerland) 20220105 1

Dietary practices are a key behavioral factor in chronic disease prevention; one strategy for improving such practices population-wise involves front-of-package labels (FoPL). This online randomized study, conducted in a quota-based sample of 1159 Polish adults (mean age = 40.9 ± 15.4 years), assessed the objective understanding of five FoPL: Health Star Rating, Multiple Traffic Lights, NutriScore, Reference Intakes (RI) and Warning Label. Objective understanding was evaluated by comparing resul ...[more]

PMID: 35010260

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundReducing red meat is a strategy to improve public health and mitigate climate change in the United States and other high-income countries. Policies requiring warnings on the front of red meat packages are a promising intervention to shift consumers towards healthier and more sustainable food choices. We aimed to explore participants' reactions to health and environmental warning messages about red meat.MethodsBetween June and July 2020, we recruited a national convenience sample of US red meat consumers (n = 1,235; mean age 44 years) for an online survey. Participants were randomly assigned to one of four label conditions: no-label control, health warning, environment warning, and combined health and environment warning (both warnings shown side-by-side). Participants viewed three types of burritos (red meat [steak], chicken, and vegetarian) and selected their preferred item (primary outcome), the item they perceived to be most damaging to health, and the item they perceived to be most damaging to the environment (secondary outcomes). Participants then viewed their assigned warning on a series of other red meat products (no-label control participants were randomly re-assigned to one of the warning conditions) and rated the warnings on perceived message effectiveness, believability, negative emotions, perceived risk, attention, and learning something new. Finally, participants reported their intentions to reduce red meat consumption.ResultsThere were no significant differences in selection of the steak burrito between label conditions or in selection of the item most damaging to the environment. Those exposed to the health warning were more likely to select the steak burrito as most damaging to health compared to those exposed to other label conditions (health 73 %, combined 64 %, environment 60 %, no-label control 63 %, p < 0.05). The combined and health warnings elicited higher perceived message effectiveness ratings than the environment warning (combined mean 2.91, health 2.84, environment 2.61, p < 0.05).ConclusionsWarnings did not have a significant effect on item preference in the choice experiment. However, combined and health warnings performed better than the environment warning across a variety of warning label reaction measures. More research will be needed to understand whether warnings elicit behavioral change in real-world environments.Trial registrationAnalyses and hypotheses were preregistered on https://aspredicted.org/ph7mb.pdf on 23 June 2020.

Project description:Front-of-pack labeling is a cost-effective strategy to decrease population consumption of sodium, sugar, saturated fat, total fat, and trans-fatty acids, considered critical nutrients for chronic disease. Our main objective was to explore the subjective understanding of labels that are currently used internationally among low- and middle-income Mexican consumers. We performed two phases of 10 focus groups with adolescents (13-15 y), young adults (21-23 y), mothers of children 3-12 y, fathers of children 3-12 y and older adults (55-70 y). Seven FOPL were evaluated: Guideline Daily Amounts, Multiple Traffic Light, Chilean Warning labels, Warning labels in Red, 5-Color Nutrition Label, Health Star Rating, and Healthy Choice label. Data was analyzed with a triangulation of researchers using a content analysis, based on three codes: 1) awareness and use of the Guideline Daily Amounts, 2) acceptability, and 3) subjective understanding of labels. Most participants were aware of the Guideline Daily Amounts, however they rarely used it because interpreting the information displayed on the label was too complicated. Health Star Rating, Warning labels, Multiple Traffic Light and the Healthy Choice logo labels were the most understandable, however the acceptability of the The Healthy Choice logo decreased as it did not provide information on specific ingredients. The Warning labels was the only label able to warn about critical nutrients that could represent a health risk. The Warning labels in red was more accepted compared to Warning labels in black. Results show that directive and semi-directive labels, such as Warning labels, Health Star Rating or Multiple Traffic Light, may be better at helping population of low- and middle income make healthier food choices, than non-directive FOPL such as the Guideline Daily Amounts implemented in México. The study results highlight the potential of Warning labels to support decreases in the consumption of critical ingredients in low- and middle-income Mexican consumers.

Project description:BackgroundWarning Labels (WL) highlight excessive amounts of critical nutrients in order to discourage consumption of unhealthful packaged food products. This study aimed to evaluate among Mexican school children, the objective understanding of traditional and numeric WL (aimed at small products) considered by the Mexican regulation, and whether cartoon characters influenced the understanding of WL. We also tested some communication strategies to facilitate the correct use of the WL.MethodsWe carried out a randomized experiment in July 2019 in public elementary schools from Morelos, Mexico. Participants aged 6-13 years, were randomly assigned to one of four groups: 1) Nutrient Facts Panel (NF) (n = 120), 2) Nutrient Facts Panel with cartoon characters (NF + C) (n = 83), considered the control groups, 3) Warning Labels (WL) (n = 109), and 4) Warning Labels with cartoon characters (WL + C) (n = 96). After allocation, children assigned to both WL groups (WL or WL + C), were randomly required to watch two posters simultaneously or a video explaining how to correctly interpret WLs. Logistic regression models adjusted by sex, age and cluster (school) were fitted.ResultsThe percentage of children correctly choosing the healthiest or the unhealthiest option was higher for WL groups (56.8, 95%CI; 40.8-72.8) compared to NF groups (24.3, 95%CI; 20.4-28.3, p < 0.05). The understanding of traditional WL was higher (28.7, 95%CI: 22.8-35.4) than the numeric WL (19, 95%CI: 14.2-25.0, p < 0.05). But, correct answers for identifying healthy and unhealthy products were higher for numeric WL than for NF groups. Cartoon characters reduced the percentage of correct answers for choosing unhealthiest products (WL + C: 48.9, 95%CI: 25.6-72.4 vs WL: 58.7, 95%CI: 36.4-81.1, p < 0.05). The video was 2.23 times more helpful than the posters to the correct interpretation of the WL (p < 0.05).ConclusionsIn scholar Mexican children, traditional and numeric WL were useful to identify healthier and unhealthier packaged products in comparison to NF, suggesting that both WL formats may effectively communicate the excessive content of nutrients of concern among children. Cartoon characters may reduce the objective understanding of the WL, underscoring the need to regulate advertising directed to children along with the implementation of front-of-pack labeling.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Front-of-package labelling is a cost-effective strategy to help consumers make healthier choices and informed food purchases. The effect of labels is mediated by consumer understanding and acceptability of the label. We compared the acceptability and understanding of labels used in Latin-America among low- and middle-income Mexican adults. METHODS:Participants (n = 2105) were randomly assigned to one of three labels: Mexican Guideline Daily Allowances (GDA), Ecuador's Multiple Traffic Lights (MTL), or Chile's Warning Labels (WL) in red. Label acceptability was evaluated through items regarding likeability, attractiveness and perceived cognitive workload. Objective understanding was evaluated by asking participants to select the product with the lowest nutritional quality among three products. We measured the time participants took to choose the product. Differences in label acceptability, understanding and time required to choose a product across labels were tested. RESULTS:Compared to the GDA, a higher proportion of participants liked the MTL and WL, considered them attractive, and with a lower perceived cognitive workload (p < 0.05). Participants had 4.00 (2.86-5.59) times the odds of correctly identifying the product with the lowest nutritional quality when using the MTL label and 4.52 (3.24-6.29) times the odds when using the WL, in comparison to the GDA. Time required to choose the product was lower for the MTL (Median: 11.25 s; IQR = 8.00-16.09) and the WL (Median = 11.94 s, IQR = 8.56-16.52) compared to the GDA (Median: 15.31 s; IQR = 10.81-20.21; p < 0.05). No differences were observed between the MTL and the WL. CONCLUSIONS:GDA had the lowest acceptability and understanding among the labels tested. The MTL and the WL were more accepted and understood, and allowed low- and middle-income consumers to make nutrition-quality related decisions more quickly. WL or MTL may foster healthier food choices in the most vulnerable groups in Mexico compared to the current labelling format.

Project description:indicator front-of-package nutrition labelling schemes are gaining momentum. In Europe, an example of such a scheme is Nutri-Score, which was first introduced in France. Supported by additional research, the scheme has the potential to expand into other countries. Such a scenario opens a series of questions related to the use of Nutri-Score in the territories with pre-existing food labelling schemes. A key question is whether different nutrition labelling schemes would provide conflicting information for consumers when applied to same foods. The goal of our study was, therefore, to evaluate the alignment of different front-of-package nutrition labelling schemes. The study was conducted using cross-sectional data on the composition of selected categories of prepacked foods with high penetration nutrition/health claims and symbols in the Slovenian food supply. We evaluated a variety of existing front-of-package nutrition labelling schemes: three interpretive nutrition rating systems (Nutri-Score, Health Star Rating (HSR), Traffic light system), four health symbols (Protective Food symbol, Choices, Finnish heart, and Keyhole symbol), and also three nutrient profile models developed for other purposes (Office of Communications (United Kingdom, Ofcom), World Health Organization Regional office for Europe (WHOE) and Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ)). Overall, our results indicate that interpretive nutrition rating systems (i.e., Nutri-Score) are mostly less strict than the nutrient profiles of tested health symbols. A risk of conflicting information would happen in a scenario where food is eligible to carry a health symbol, but is at the same time rated to have lower nutritional quality by an accompanying interpretive nutrition rating system. When Protective Food symbol and Nutri-Score are used together, this would occur for 5% of foods in our sample. To avoid such risks, schemes for health symbols could be adapted to be stricter than interpretive nutrition rating systems used in the same territory/market, but such adaptations are challenging and should be well planned. While our study showed that, in most cases, Nutri-Score is a less strict model than tested health symbols, the rating-system approach might offer useful support and incentive for food producers towards gradual food reformulation.

Dataset Information

Polish Consumers' Understanding of Different Front-of-Package Food Labels: A Randomized Experiment.

Publications

Polish Consumers' Understanding of Different Front-of-Package Food Labels: A Randomized Experiment.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets