Policy Research for Front of Package Nutrition Labeling: Environmental Scan and Literature Review. Table 5-8. FOP Effects on Purchases and Consumption


Table 5-8. FOP Effects on Purchases and Consumption

StudyLabelsStudy DesignSample PopulationResultsQuality Score
Larsson et al., 1999 SwedenKeyhole symbolQuestionnaire collecting information on reported intakes of Keyhole-labeled low-fat and fiber-enriched foods.Random sample of 1,591 Swedish participants aged 25 to 64 years (859 female).Reported consumption : Those who had knowledge of the Keyhole symbol had significantly higher intakes of low-fat foods than those who did not have knowledge of the Keyhole. (males p = 0.044, females p < 0.001). Interaction between education and knowledge of the symbol found for reported intake of low-fat marked foods. (p = 0.0088), meaning that the least educated consumers' knowledge of the Keyhole symbol did not have an effect on consumption of low-fat foods.2.5
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 44.3 years (SD 11.0); 77% female.Effects on consumption : Individuals who purchased products with logo had lower fat diet (30.4% vs. 33.9% calories from fat; p < 0.05). 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
Borgmeier & Westenhoefer, 2009 GermanySimple healthy choice tick Multiple TL Monochrome daily amount (GDA) Colored GDA (CGDA) No labelRandomized controlled trial using 5 experimental conditions of labels. Each subject participated in two tasks: Task 1-Subjects were shown photographed food cards and asked to identify the healthier food item in 28 pair-wise comparisons. Task 2-Simulated grocery shopping experience where subjects were shown 72 food cards simultaneously and asked to select foods and drinks they would like to consume the next day.Convenience sample of 420 adults (mean age 36, 53.6% female) in Germany; 84 adults per condition.Task 2 : Envisioned daily food consumption (e.g., foods participants would like to consume the next day) did not differ significantly between the label formats. Significant interaction between label format and education for sodium intake (p < 0.05). Higher sodium intake was associated with higher education in the TL label and colored GDA but lower education in the simple tick.4.5
Sacks et al., 2009 UKFOP TLSales data from major UK retailer examined to assess healthiness of foods purchased after introduction of TL label. Examined two product categories (ready-to-eat meals and sandwiches) sales 4 weeks before and after the introduction of the labeling scheme taking into account seasonality, product promotions, and product life cycle. Six ready-to-eat meal products and 12 sandwich lines were eligible for analysis.NAEffects on sales : Overall no effect on healthiness of food purchases; even though sales of ready-to-eat meals increased 2.4% after the introduction of the label, there was no association between the healthiness of the product and change in sales (p = 0.69). Cause of increased sales cannot necessarily be attributed to the TL label since products examined were also reformulated and the packaging and manufacturer changed. Sales of sandwiches did not change significantly.3.5
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.Actual purchase of food with logo : Weight control (p = 0.017) and product information (p = 0.002) positive association with use of logo. Hedonism negatively associated with purchasing products with logo (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