Zenobia Talati

Consumers' responses to front-of-pack labels that vary by interpretive content

Previous research has shown that front-of-pack labels (FoPLs) can assist people to make healthier food choices if they are easy to understand and people are motivated to use them. There is some evidence that FoPLs providing an assessment of a foods health value (evaluative FoPLs) are easier to use than those providing only numerical information on nutrients (reductive FoPLs). Recently, a new evaluative FoPL (the Health Star Rating (HSR)) has been introduced to Australia and New Zealand. The HSR features a summary indicator, differentiating it from many other FoPLs being used around the world. The aim of this study was to understand how consumers of all ages use and make sense of reductive FoPLs and evaluative FoPLs including evaluative FoPLs with and without summary indicators. Ten focus groups were conducted in Perth, Western Australia with adults (n = 50) and children aged 10-17 years (n = 35) to explore reactions to one reductive FoPL (the Daily Intake Guide), an existing evaluative FoPL (multiple traffic lights), and a new evaluative FoPL (the HSR). Participants preferred the evaluative FoPLs over the reductive FoPL, with the strongest preference being for the FoPL with the summary indicator (HSR). Discussions revealed the cognitive strategies used when interpreting each FoPL (e.g., using cut offs, heuristics, and the process of elimination), which differed according to FoPL format. Most participants reported being motivated to use the evaluative FoPLs (particularly the HSR) to make choices about foods consumed as part of regular daily meals, but not for discretionary foods consumed as snacks or deserts. The findings provide further evidence of the potential utility of evaluative FoPLs in supporting healthy food choices and can assist policy makers in selecting between alternative FoPL formats.

Do Health Claims and Front-of-Pack Labels Lead to a Positivity Bias in Unhealthy Foods?

Health claims and front-of-pack labels (FoPLs) may lead consumers to hold more positive attitudes and show a greater willingness to buy food products, regardless of their actual healthiness. A potential negative consequence of this positivity bias is the increased consumption of unhealthy foods. This study investigated whether a positivity bias would occur in unhealthy variations of four products (cookies, corn flakes, pizzas and yoghurts) that featured different health claim conditions (no claim, nutrient claim, general level health claim, and higher level health claim) and FoPL conditions (no FoPL, the Daily Intake Guide (DIG), Multiple Traffic Lights (MTL), and the Health Star Rating (HSR)). Positivity bias was assessed via measures of perceived healthiness, global evaluations (incorporating taste, quality, convenience, etc.) and willingness to buy. On the whole, health claims did not produce a positivity bias, while FoPLs did, with the DIG being the most likely to elicit this bias. The HSR most frequently led to lower ratings of unhealthy foods than the DIG and MTL, suggesting that this FoPL has the lowest risk of creating an inaccurate positivity bias in unhealthy foods.

Protocol for a Randomized Trial Assessing Consumer Evaluations of Pre-Packaged Foods that Systematically Vary by Nutrition Information and Product Attributes

BackgroundNutrition information is increasingly provided on pre-packaged foods as a public health measure to help consumers make healthier food choices. Many studies have looked at the independent effects of three main sources of nutrition information: the Nutrition Information Panel (NIP), front-of-pack labels and health claims. However, few studies have considered their interactive effects. A better understanding of how these different sources of nutrition information interact with each other is important given they frequently appear together on food packs. There are also policy implications since many countries specifically mandate the provision of an NIP whenever a health claim is made.MethodsThis paper outlines a protocol for an experimental study assessing how nutrition information (FoPLs, health claims and NIP), in combination with food type, price and product healthiness interact to affect consumers’ product evaluations. Consumers’ global impressions, perceptions of healthiness, purchase intentions and assumptions relating to the amount of the product that is appropriate/desirable to consume will be assessed. The nutrition information presented will include NIPs, front-of-pack labels (Daily Intake Guide, Multiple Traffic Light system, Health Star Rating system) and health claims (nutrient content, general level, higher level). A diverse sample of approximately 2000 Australians will be recruited to complete an online survey that will require them to evaluate a range of hypothetical products with varying nutrition and price attributes. All attribute levels will be fully crossed with each other, resulting in a full factorial design. This design has not been used in past studies and offers a higher level of control than achieved previously due to the ability to explore interactions between all attribute levels.DiscussionStudy results will indicate (1) the independent and combined effects of each attribute on consumer evaluations, (2) which front-of-pack labels are more effective at helping consumers distinguish between healthier and less healthy foods and (3) how health claims affect perceptions of healthiness. The study will also provide crucial information on the effectiveness of the new Health Star Rating system, for which quantitative research is currently lacking.Trial registrationAustralian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12616000626460. Retrospectively registered: 16 May, 2016.

Can front-of-pack labels influence portion size judgements for unhealthy foods?

OBJECTIVE By clearly conveying the healthiness of a food, front-of-pack (FOP) labels have the potential to influence the portion size considered appropriate for consumption. The present study examined the how the Daily Intake Guide (DIG), Multiple Traffic Lights (MTL) and Health Star Rating (HSR) FOP labels affect judgements of appropriate portion sizes of unhealthy foods compared with when no FOP label is present. DESIGN Respondents viewed mock packages of unhealthy variations of pizzas, cookies, yoghurts and cornflakes featuring the DIG, MTL, HSR or no FOP label, and indicated the portion size they believed should be eaten of each food on a single occasion. SETTING The survey was completed on the respondents personal computer. SUBJECTS A total of 1505 Australian adults provided 4166 ratings across 192 mock packages relating to four product categories: pizza, yoghurt, cornflakes and cookies. RESULTS Compared with no FOP label, the HSR resulted in a small but significant reduction in the portion size selected as appropriate for consumption of pizzas and cornflakes (P<0·05). The MTL resulted in smaller portions of cornflakes being selected compared with no FOP label (P<0·05). CONCLUSIONS Respondents perceived smaller portion sizes as appropriate for some, but not all, of the foods tested when FOP labels with more interpretative formats (HSR, MTL) appeared on-pack compared with no FOP label. No effect was found for the less interpretive FOP label (the DIG). Interpretive FOP labels may have the potential to influence portion size judgements, albeit at modest levels.

The health benefits of autonomous vehicles: public awareness and receptivity in Australia

Objectives: The substantial public health benefits of autonomous vehicles will be optimised once all vehicles operate in autonomous mode. This form of disruptive technology will need to be widely accepted by the community to facilitate the regulatory and behavioural adjustments required to achieve rapid adoption. The aim of this study was to assess: i) receptiveness to autonomous vehicles; ii) the salience of various health benefits (e.g. crash prevention, emission reduction, driving stress reduction, cyclist safety, increased mobility for those unable to drive); and iii) prompted awareness of these health benefits.

Objective Understanding of Front-of-Package Nutrition Labels: An International Comparative Experimental Study across 12 Countries

Front-of-Package labels (FoPLs) are efficient tools for increasing consumers’ awareness of foods’ nutritional quality and encouraging healthier choices. A label’s design is likely to influence its effectiveness; however, few studies have compared the ability of different FoPLs to facilitate a consumer understanding of foods’ nutritional quality, especially across sociocultural contexts. This study aimed to assess consumers’ ability to understand five FoPLs [Health Star Rating system (HSR), Multiple Traffic Lights (MTL), Nutri-Score, Reference Intakes (RIs), and Warning symbol] in 12 different countries. In 2018, approximately 1000 participants per country were recruited and asked to rank three sets of label-free products (one set of three pizzas, one set of three cakes, and one set of three breakfast cereals) according to their nutritional quality, via an online survey. Participants were subsequently randomised to one of five FoPL conditions and were again asked to rank the same sets of products, this time with a FoPL displayed on pack. Changes in a participants’ ability to correctly rank products across the two tasks were assessed by FoPL using ordinal logistic regression. In all 12 countries and for all three food categories, the Nutri-Score performed best, followed by the MTL, HSR, Warning symbol, and RIs.

Characteristics of healthy weight advertisements in three countries

Objective: High rates of population obesity have resulted in the dissemination of mass media campaigns that focus on achieving and maintaining a healthy weight. The aim of the present study was to analyse advertising techniques used in such campaigns to identify common and differential approaches in three countries with similar cultures and rates of obesity (Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States).

Health communication implications of the perceived meanings of terms used to denote unhealthy foods

BackgroundUsing appropriate terminology in nutrition education programs and behaviour change campaigns is important to optimise the effectiveness of these efforts. To inform future communications on the topic of healthy eating, this study explored adults’ perceptions of the meaning of four terms used to describe unhealthy foods: junk food, snack food, party food, and discretionary food.MethodsAustralian adults were recruited to participate in an online survey that included demographic items and open-ended questions relating to perceptions of the four terms. In total, 409 respondents aged 25–64 years completed the survey.Results‘Junk food’ was the term most clearly aligned with unhealthiness, and is therefore likely to represent wording that will have salience and relevance to many target audience members. Snack foods were considered to include both healthy and unhealthy food products, and both snack foods and party foods were often described as being consumed in small portions. Despite being used in dietary guidelines, the term ‘discretionary food’ was unfamiliar to many respondents.ConclusionsThese results demonstrate that different terms for unhealthy foods can have substantially different meanings for audience members. A detailed understanding of these meanings is needed to ensure that nutrition guidance and health promotion campaigns use appropriate terminology.