Policy Research for Front of Package Nutrition Labeling: Environmental Scan and Literature Review. Table 5-6. FOP Effects on Use of Labels and Likely Food Purchase Behavior


Table 5-6. FOP Effects on Use of Labels and Likely Food Purchase Behavior

StudyLabelsStudy DesignSample PopulationResultsQuality Score
Reid et al., 2004 CanadaCanada's Health Check logoCross-sectional interviewer-administered survey inquiring about grocery shoppers' demographics, diet-related health conditions, attitude toward healthy food purchases, use of food package information, and awareness, perceived value and reported use of Health Check logo.200 food shoppers in Ottawa, Canada; interviewer approached shoppers randomly in store. Mean age of shoppers was 44.3 years (SD 11.0); 77% female.Awareness & use : Strong association between awareness and use of logo (ß = 0.81, p < 0.001) and awareness of logo associated with overall use of food package information (ß = 0.14, p < 0.05) and attitude toward healthy food purchases (ß = 0.15, p < 0.05).2.0
Green, 2006 EnglandFOP labels in UKNational survey conducted online by Harris Interactive from July 20-24, 2006, to inquire about consumer opinions regarding FOP labeling in England.2,052 adults.Likely purchase behavior : 44% believed that FOP labeling has had no effect on their purchase decisions, while 43% of consumers believed that FOP labeling has changed many or some of the products they purchase.1.0
Drichoutis et al., 2009 GreeceEU back-of-pack nutrition label EU back of pack nutrition label TL No labelExperimental study where subjects bid on food products; Study consisted of 3 sets: Set 1: training set. Set 2: no label condition for 3 different food-away-from-home sandwiches; subjects shown and asked to taste each product. Set 3: six treatments that included different presentations of nutritional information and reference price information for same 3 food-away-from-home sandwiches (EU back of pack label, label with price, EU back of pack label, label without price, U.S. back of pack label with price, U.S. back of pack label without price, TL with price, TL without price).85 graduate and undergraduate students in Athens, Greece. Each subject participated in only one treatment. Size of group per treatment varied from 12 to 17 students.Effects on likely purchase : Significant differences between different groups of nutritional information; for most models and products, subjects bid more for the EU and TL labels. Results of two models : EU label (p = 0.005; p = 0.005) and TL label (p = 0.011; p = 0.022)3.0
Grunert, Fernández-Celemín, et al., 2010 UK, Sweden, France, Germany, Poland, HungaryFOP labels in Europe including: GDA Color-coded GDA TL Keyhole (Sweden only)In-store observation, in-store interview, and in-home questionnaire in six European countries. In UK and Sweden, 3 retailers x 3 locations x 6 product categories. In France, Germany, Poland, and Hungary, 2 retailers x 3 locations x 6 product categories. Use and understanding of GDA FOP nutrition labels measured via in-home questionnaire. Regarding understanding, subjects were presented with GDA and asked to indicate healthier food. When respondents were asked to choose the healthiest product for 3 ready meals, all products tested for all countries included the GDA label except Sweden. (In Sweden tested Keyhole label.)For in-store observations and interviews, 2,019 shoppers recruited in UK, 1,858 Sweden, 2,337 France, 1,963 Germany, 1,800 Poland, and 1,804 Hungary. Subjects recruited via retail store intercept. Same respondents for the in-home questionnaires. However, return rates were 46% UK, 65% Sweden, 36% France, 42% Germany, 83% Poland, and 39% Hungary. Mix of social grades and ages.Use of nutrition labels : Of 16.8% of shoppers who reported looking for nutrition information across the countries, most use GDA labels (in UK 40.5%, France 39.1%, and GER. 38.6%) or nutrition grid (other countries). Subjects did not consult TL, health logo, specific nutrition claims, or colored-GDA as frequently. Use increases with social grade (several p-values listed for different grades) and interest in healthy eating (p < 0.0001).3.0
Grunert, Wills, et al., 2010 UKGDA TL Traffic light-colored GDA (TL-CGDA)In-store observation of participants in aisle to determine if looked at nutrition label and time spent choosing product. After observation, subjects participated in an in-store interview to query about their determinants of choice, which nutrition information they were looking for, etc. and in-home self-administered questionnaire regarding nutritional knowledge, understanding of FOP labeling (GDA, TL, TL-CGDA), background variables (demographics, etc.).2,019 shoppers (74% female) recruited via retail store intercept (3 stores selected for different labeling schemes) participated in-store observations and interviews in UK; 921 who were observed returned the in-home questionnaire (81 % female, mix of ages).Use among diverse subpopulations : People with less interest in healthy eating, higher BMI, and living with children under 16 years of age had lower uses of the nutrition labels.2.0
Vyth, Steenhuis, Vlot, et al., 2010 The NetherlandsChoices logoQuestionnaire regarding familiarity with logo, reported logo use, motives for food choice. Respondents' groceries were also examined for presence of the logo.404 shoppers aged 18 to 84 years (79.2 % female, mean age 50 years, (+ 14.2); Subjects recruited in supermarkets located in different socioeconomic areas in the Netherlands.Awareness : Familiarity with logo significant between different levels of education (p < 0.01).Purchase behavior : Those with high and low education purchased fewer products with logo (p < 0.01). Individuals who are health-conscious or weight conscious are more likely to purchase food with the logo.2.0