Measuring consumers' knowledge of the environmental impact of foods.

Our daily food choices have a huge impact on the environment. However, most consumers are not aware of the environmental impact of food production and consumption. Since there is no valid and reliable measure of knowledge regarding food's environmental impact, a 16-item multiple-choice knowledge questionnaire was developed. An example item reads: "Which of the following meals is the most climate friendly?" - Organic beef burger, Organic salmon burger, Quinoa burger, Do not know. The knowledge questionnaire was tested in a Swiss and German consumer sample (total N = 1810) and meets standard psychometric criteria. It showed good internal consistency across the adult samples. Validity was supported by small to medium-sized positive correlations with constructs of environmental (e.g., environmental apathy) and food (e.g., perceived environmentally friendly food purchasing behavior) attitudes. By using a food buffet made of replica food items, it was shown that consumers with higher knowledge scores are better able to compose lunch menus with a lower environmental footprint. The new scale will help to identify potential areas of misconceptions in people's understanding of the environmental friendliness of foods and in what respect a lack of knowledge poses a barrier to behavioral change. It also enables research into the efficacy of educational measures such as campaigns and decision aids for sustainable food consumption.

Healthy choice label does not substantially improve consumers' ability to select healthier cereals: results of an online experiment.

The results of numerous studies suggest that front-of-package (FOP) labels enhance consumers' ability to assess the healthiness of food products. However, most of the studies lack ecological validity. We selected fourteen breakfast cereals stocked by a major Swiss retailer. The participants from an Internet panel (n 780), with a somewhat higher educational level than that of the Swiss population, were randomly assigned to one of four conditions: control (picture of the FOP presented), table (plus the nutrition table with information on the energy and the main nutrients per 100 g), label (plus the healthy choice label for the healthier product) and combined (plus both the nutrition table and the healthy choice label). The participants were asked to select the healthier cereals from all possible ninety-one pair comparisons. The nutrient profile score was used as a 'gold standard'. For the thirty-three cereal pairs, one of the cereals had a label and the other had none, the median accuracy was only marginally lower in the control condition (91 %) compared with the table (94 %), the label (94 %) and the combined conditions (97 %). Similar results were observed when the incorrect decisions were weighted by the difference in the nutrient profile scores of the two cereals (for all ninety-one product pairs). These findings suggest that a healthy choice label has a limited effect on helping consumers select healthier cereals. In the control condition, the median of the correct choices was about 78 %. Consumers' perception of the healthiness of foods could be improved.

Does environmental friendliness equal healthiness? Swiss consumers' perception of protein products.

Food production and consumption have major impacts on the environment. At the same time, changes in human diets worldwide are increasingly leading to health problems. Both issues are highly influenced by consumers' everyday food choices and could be addressed by reducing consumption of meat and other animal products. To promote sustainable food consumption, we need to know how consumers perceive the environmental friendliness and healthiness of food products, on which criteria they base their evaluations of environmental friendliness and healthiness, and how their estimations relate to life cycle assessments and nutrient profiling. We presented 30 protein products, which varied in provenance, production methods, and processing, to 85 participants from Switzerland. They were asked to sort the products once according to their perceived environmental friendliness and once according to their perceived healthiness. The mean distances between the products were compared to the products' life cycle assessments and nutrient profiles. The results showed that perceived environmental friendliness and healthiness are highly correlated. The main predictors of the products' perceived environmental friendliness were product category, presence of an organic label, and provenance; and for perceived healthiness, these predictors were product category, fat content, processing, and presence of an organic label. Environmental friendliness and healthiness estimations were significantly correlated to the life cycle assessments and the nutrient profiles of the products, respectively. Hence, to promote healthy and environmentally friendly food choices, motivators related to environmental friendliness and healthiness could be used in synergy. Awareness about meat's environmental impact should be increased and better information is needed for consumers to make an accurate environmental impact and healthiness assessments of protein products.