Nutrients or processing? An analysis of food and drink items from the UK National Diet and Nutrition Survey based on nutrient content, the NOVA classification and front of package traffic light labelling.

UK front of package labelling (FOPL) informs consumers on the nutrient content of food. However, FOPL does not consider food processing, and with the UK government being urged to act on ultra-processed food (UPF), whether UPF should be added to FOPL is unclear. This study compared food and drink in the UK National Diet and Nutrition Survey (NDNS) Intake24 database based on FOPL, nutrient content and NOVA classification, to understand whether UPF are covered by dietary recommendations for foods high in fat, salt and sugar. NDNS items were coded into minimally processed food (MPF), processed culinary ingredients, processed food and UPF according to the NOVA classification and FOPL traffic lights. UPF contained greater energy, fat, saturated fat (SF), total sugar (TS) and salt than MPF. UPF had a greater odds of containing red FOPL and an unhealthier overall FOPL score (OR:4·59 (95 % CI: 3·79, 5·57); OR:7·0 (95 % CI: 6·1, 8·2), respectively) and lower odds of containing green FOPL (OR:0·05 (95 % CI: 0·03, 0·10)), compared with MPFs. For items with no red FOPL, UPF still contained greater energy, fat, SF, TS and salt than MPF. However, several UPF have healthier FOPL scores. UPF had an unhealthier nutritional profile and FOPL score than MPF. For items with no red FOPL, UPF still had an unhealthier profile than MPF, with a higher energy density. Importantly, not all UPF were unhealthy according to FOPL. These results indicate partial overlap between FOPL, nutrient content and NOVA classification of UK food and drink products, with implications for UK food and drink labelling.

Effects of a front-of-package disclosure on accuracy in assessing children's drink ingredients: two randomised controlled experiments with US caregivers of young children.

OBJECTIVE: Test effects of a standardised front-of-package (FOP) disclosure statement (indicating added sugar, non-nutritive sweetener (NNS) and juice content) on accuracy in assessing ingredients and perceived healthfulness of children's drinks. DESIGN: In two randomised controlled experiments, the same participants viewed drink packages and indicated if products contained added sugar or NNS and percent juice and rated drink healthfulness. Experiment 1 (E1) included novel (non-US) children's drinks with a) product claims only (control), b) claims and disclosure, or c) disclosure only. Experiment 2 (E2) included existing children's drinks (with claims) with a) no disclosure (control) or b) disclosure. Both experiments evaluated sweetened (fruit drink and flavoured water) and unsweetened (100 % juice and juice/water blend) drinks. Potential individual differences (education level and race/ethnicity) in effects were explored. SETTING: Online survey. PARTICIPANTS: Six hundred and forty-eight US caregivers of young children (1-5 years). RESULTS: FOP disclosures significantly increased accuracy for most ingredients and drink types, including identifying presence or absence of NNS in sweetened drinks, no added sugar in juice/water blends, and actual percent juice in fruit drinks and juice/water blends in both experiments. Disclosures also increased recognition that the novel 100 % juice and juice/water blend did not contain NNS or added sugar (E1) and existing sweetened drinks contained added sugar (E2). Disclosures reduced perceived healthfulness of sweetened drinks but did not increase unsweetened drink healthfulness ratings. Some differences by participant socio-demographic characteristics require additional research. CONCLUSIONS: FOP disclosures on children's drink packages can increase caregivers' understanding of product ingredients and aid in selecting healthier children's drinks.

The efficacy of 'high in' warning labels, health star and traffic light front-of-package labelling: an online randomised control trial.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the impact of front-of-package (FOP) labels on perceived healthfulness, purchasing intentions and understanding of common FOP systems. DESIGN: A parallel, open-label design randomised participants to different FOP labelling conditions: 'high in' warning labels (WL), multiple traffic light labelling (TLL), health star ratings (HSR) (all displayed per serving) or control with no interpretive FOP labelling. Participants completed a brief educational session via a smartphone application and two experimental tasks. In Task 1, participants viewed healthy or unhealthy versions of four products and rated healthiness and purchasing intention on a seven-point Likert-type scale. In Task 2, participants ranked three sets of five products from healthiest to least healthy. SETTING: Online commercial panel. PARTICIPANTS: Canadian residents ≥ 18 years who were involved in household grocery shopping, owned a smartphone and met minimum screen requirements. RESULTS: Data from 1997 participants (n 500/condition) were analysed. Task 1: across most product categories, the TLL and HSR increased perceived healthiness of healthier products. All FOP systems decreased perceived healthiness of less healthy products. Similar, albeit dampened, effects were seen regarding purchasing intentions. Task 2: participants performed best in the HSR, followed by the TLL, WL and control conditions. Lower health literacy was associated with higher perceived healthiness and purchasing intentions and poorer ranking task performance across all conditions. CONCLUSIONS: All FOP labelling systems, after a brief educational session, improved task performance across a wide spectrum of foods. This effect differed depending on the nutritional quality of the products and the information communicated on labels.Trial Registration: NCT03290118.

Front-of-package nutrition references are positively associated with food processing.

OBJECTIVE: Foods characterized by a high degree of processing are pervasive in the global food supply and concerns have been raised about their contribution to the escalating burden of diet-related disease. It has been suggested that the dominance of these products relates in part to their aggressive on-package marketing. The purpose of the present study was to assess the relationship between the extent and nature of front-of-package (FOP) nutrition references on products sold in Canadian supermarkets and the level of food processing. DESIGN: FOP references were recorded from all packaged foods. Nutrition references were classified as 'negative' and 'positive' and further differentiated in terms of the use of regulated and unregulated text. Foods were coded for level of processing, using three different classification systems. Logistic and negative binomial regression analyses were conducted to assess associations. SETTING: Three large Toronto supermarkets, from the top Canadian food retailers. SUBJECTS: Packaged foods (n 20 520). RESULTS: Forty-one per cent of products had FOP nutrition references. Irrespective of the classification system considered, the most processed category comprised the greatest proportion of products and nearly half of these bore FOP references. Foods deemed most processed were more likely than less processed products to bear FOP references and regulated and unregulated references to negative ingredients, but they were equally or less likely to bear positive nutrition references, depending on the classification system. CONCLUSIONS: The greater frequency of FOP nutrition references on heavily processed foods raises questions about the extent to which discretionary FOP labelling supports public health efforts to promote healthy eating.

Impact of explained v. unexplained front-of-package nutrition labels on parent and child food choices: a randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: The present study investigated whether parent/child pairs would select more healthful foods when: (i) products were labelled with front-of-package (FOP) nutrition labels relative to packages without labels; (ii) products were labelled with colour-coded Multiple Traffic Light (MTL) FOP labels relative to monochromatic Facts up Front (FuF) FOP labels; and (iii) FOP labels were explained via in-aisle signage v. unexplained. DESIGN: Participants were randomly assigned to one of five conditions: (i) FuF labels with in-aisle signs explaining the labels; (ii) FuF labels, no signage; (iii) MTL labels with in-aisle signage; (iv) MTL labels, no signage; (v) control group, no labels/signage. Saturated fat, sodium, sugar and energy (calorie) content were compared across conditions. SETTING: The study took place in a laboratory grocery aisle. SUBJECTS: Parent/child pairs (n 153) completed the study. RESULTS: Results did not support the hypothesis that MTL labels would lead to more healthful choices than FuF labels. The presence of FOP labels did little to improve the healthfulness of selected foods, with few exceptions (participants with v. without access to FOP labels selected lower-calorie cereals, participants with access to both FOP labels and in-aisle explanatory signage selected products with less saturated fat v. participants without explanatory signage). CONCLUSIONS: Neither MTL nor FuF FOP labels led to food choices with significantly lower saturated fat, sodium or sugar. In-aisle signs explaining the FOP labels were somewhat helpful to consumers in making more healthful dietary decisions. New FOP labelling programmes could benefit from campaigns to increase consumer awareness and understanding of the labels.

What information do consumers consider, and how do they look for it, when shopping for groceries online?

Previous research investigating what information shoppers seek when purchasing groceries has used either lab-experiments or observed shoppers in supermarkets. The present research investigates this question in a relatively naturalistic online-grocery environment. Forty participants completed their weekly shopping online while their eye-movements were recorded. Ten of the participants were subsequently interviewed to gain insight into their information seeking behaviour. We found that, when looking for products, 95% of participants navigated through the 'virtual departments', 80% used the 'search' facility, and 68% browsed the special offer pages. Once on the product pages, participants tended to look at the pictures of products, rather than examine detailed product information. To explain these findings, we suggest that online grocery sites simulate familiar supermarket environments, which may explain why consumers prefer to browse categories of products rather than use search terms. We also suggest that additional strategies are needed if consumers are to be encouraged to view detailed product information.

Health Star Ratings and Beverage Purchase Intentions: A Study of Australian and New Zealand Hospitality Consumers.

This study examines the effects of a health star rating system on the attitudes of consumers and their purchase intentions towards beverage products sold in hospitality venues. Previous studies linking health ratings to the food and beverages of consumers mainly focus on fast-moving consumer goods and retail purchasing. However, purchasing patterns in hospitality and foodservice environments are distinct as consumers may be less concerned about health and more interested in the dining experience. Thus, this research focuses on: (1) whether the presence of health star ratings on beverage products influences the willingness of consumers to purchase in the context of the hospitality industry, and (2) identifying the demographic and psychographic factors influencing these behavioural intentions. Using Ordinary Least Squares regression to analyse data from an e-survey of 1021 consumers in Australia and New Zealand, the study found that health star ratings do have an impact on the willingness of consumers to purchase healthy beverages. Specifically, psychographic segmentation around 'health goals' is far more pertinent to understanding purchase behaviour in a hospitality setting than age, gender, income, or country. The findings present new insights into the importance of health star labelling on beverages and the purchase intentions of consumers.

Heart Images on Food Labels: A Health Claim or Not?

Health claims on food labels are used by food manufacturers to inform consumers about the health effects of a product, and such claims can have notable effects on consumer preferences. According to regulatory definitions, health claims can be either worded or presented as images, but it is not clear under which conditions an image on a food label should be considered a health claim. This question has important practical implications, as the use of health claims is strictly regulated. The objective of this study was to determine how commonly images of the heart are used on food labels, and to investigate consumers' perceptions of products labelled with heart images, using different degrees of health relationships. Both a food supply study (N = 10,573 foods) and experiments with consumers (N = 1000) were performed in Slovenia. The use of heart imagery on food products was very common (9%). The consumer study was conducted using a web panel. Structure of the study population was comparable with Slovenian adult population (18-65 years), according to gender and age. The questionnaire was split into conjoint analysis with constructed elements, a choice-based task with real-life elements and a consumers' association task. The experiments showed that a heart image as part of the brand name itself-without an additional (worded) health claim-did not cause most consumers to relate it to health. However, consumers tended to strongly relate an image of the heart as part of a brand with health benefits, where the image was accompanied by a worded health claim or if the heart image was designed specifically to imply health benefits. We can conclude that the use of heart images was very common on food products, but references to health were less common. Without a health-related context, heart images could not be considered as a health claim.

Consumer perceptions of front-of-package labelling systems and healthiness of foods.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of four different front-of-package (FOP) labelling systems on consumer perception and purchasing intent of food, and whether these systems help consumers select a balanced pattern of eating. METHODS: The four FOP labelling systems studied included two nutrient-specific systems ‒ the Traffic Light (TL) and the Guideline Daily Amount (GDA) ‒ and two summary indicator systems ‒ NuVal(®) and My-5(®). Phase 1 was a small study with 36 participants to determine consumer understanding of the four FOP labelling systems and to inform the development of the questions for Phase 2, which consisted of a survey of 2,200 adults obtained through an online panel. RESULTS: Although the TL and GDA were rated similar to the Nutrition Facts table in terms of attributes, these FOP systems were considered more visually appealing. Consumers indicated that the numeric summary indicator systems did not provide sufficient information. Approximately half of the respondents indicated that the FOP systems would help them make healthier choices. However, due to the limitations of each, consumers often misinterpreted a food's healthiness compared to their baseline perceptions. Similarly, consumers' intent to purchase based on the FOP system did not show a consistent pattern. CONCLUSION: Although well received by consumers, FOP labelling systems can lead to confusion depending on perceived understanding of the system used. The nutrient-specific systems tend to be preferred by most consumers; however, the overall impact on selecting healthier eating patterns has yet to be demonstrated.

Consumer understanding of calorie amounts and serving size: implications for nutritional labelling.

OBJECTIVE: Increased consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages has contributed to rising obesity levels. Under Canadian law, calories for pre-packaged foods and beverages are presented by serving size; however, serving sizes differ across products and even for the same product in different containers. This study examined consumer understanding of calorie amounts for government nutrition labels and industry labelling schemes. METHODS: A national sample of 687 Canadian adults completed an online survey. Participants were randomized to view images of Coke® bottles that displayed different serving sizes and calorie amounts. Participants viewed either the regulated nutrition information on the "back" of containers, or the voluntary calorie symbols displayed on the "front" of Coke® products. Participants were asked to determine how many calories the bottle contained. RESULTS: Across all conditions, 54.2% of participants correctly identified the number of calories in the beverage. Participants who viewed government-mandated nutrition information were more likely to answer correctly (59.0%) than those who saw industry labelling (49.1%) (OR=5.3, 95% CI: 2.6-10.6). Only 11.8% who viewed the Coke® bottle with calorie amounts per serving correctly identified the calorie amount, compared to 91.8% who saw calorie amounts per container, regardless of whether information was presented in the Nutrition Facts Table or the front-of-pack symbol (OR=242.9, 95% CI: 112.1-526.2). CONCLUSIONS: Few individuals can use nutrition labels to correctly identify calorie content when presented per serving or using industry labelling schemes. The findings highlight the importance of revising labelling standards and indicate that industry labelling initiatives warrant greater scrutiny.