Reference Amounts Utilised in Front of Package Nutrition Labelling; Impact on Product Healthfulness Evaluations

Overview

Journal Eur J Clin Nutr

Specialty Nutritional Sciences

Date 2014 Oct 30

PMID 25351645

Citations 8

Authors

M M Raats

S Hieke

C Jola

C Hodgkins

J Kennedy

J Wills

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background/objectives: The research question addressed in this paper is how different reference amounts utilised in front of package nutrition labelling influence evaluation of product healthfulness.

Subjects/methods: A total of 13,117 participants from six European countries (Germany, UK, Spain, France, Poland and Sweden) were recruited via online panels. A mixed between/within-subject factorial design was employed with food (biscuits, sandwiches, yogurts), healthfulness and presence of Guideline Daily Amounts as within-subjects factors and reference amount ('per 100 g', 'typical portion', 'half portion') and country as between-subjects factors.

Results: Overall, people correctly ranked foods according to their objective healthfulness as defined by risk nutrients alone, and could distinguish between more and less healthful variants of foods. General healthfulness associations with the three product categories do not appear to have had a strong influence on product ratings. This study shows that where the reference amount of 'per 100 g' is very different from the 'typical' portion size, as was the case for biscuits, products with a 'per 100 g' label are rated significantly less healthful than the 'typical' or 'half typical' portions.

Conclusion: The results indicate that across the three food categories, consumers do factor the reference amount, that is, the quantity of food for which the nutritional information is being presented, into their judgements of healthfulness. Therefore, appropriate reference amounts are also of importance for the effective presentation of nutritional information.

Citing Articles

Role of Portion Size in the Context of a Healthy, Balanced Diet: A Case Study of European Countries.

Carruba M, Ragni M, Ruocco C, Aliverti S, Silano M, Amico A Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023; 20(6).

PMID: 36982138 PMC: 10049364. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph20065230.

Effects of Digitalized Front-of-Package Food Labels on Healthy Food-Related Behavior: A Systematic Review.

Ljusic N, Fagerstrom A, Pawar S, Arntzen E Behav Sci (Basel). 2022; 12(10).

PMID: 36285932 PMC: 9598805. DOI: 10.3390/bs12100363.

Polish Consumers' Understanding of Different Front-of-Package Food Labels: A Randomized Experiment.

Andreeva V, Egnell M, Stos K, Przygoda B, Talati Z, Touvier M Foods. 2022; 11(1).

PMID: 35010260 PMC: 8750026. DOI: 10.3390/foods11010134.

Looking Ahead: Health Impact Assessment of Front-Of-Pack Nutrition Labelling Schema as a Public Health Measure.

Feteira-Santos R, Alarcao V, Santos O, Virgolino A, Fernandes J, Vieira C Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021; 18(4).

PMID: 33546490 PMC: 7913662. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18041422.

Objective understanding of the Nutri-score front-of-pack label by European consumers and its effect on food choices: an online experimental study.

Egnell M, Talati Z, Galan P, Andreeva V, Vandevijvere S, Gombaud M Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2020; 17(1):146.

PMID: 33213459 PMC: 7678195. DOI: 10.1186/s12966-020-01053-z.

References

Grunert K, Fernandez-Celemin L, Wills J, Storcksdieck Genannt Bonsmann S, Nureeva L . Use and understanding of nutrition information on food labels in six European countries. Z Gesundh Wiss. 2010; 18(3):261-277. PMC: 2967247. DOI: 10.1007/s10389-009-0307-0. View

Scarborough P, Arambepola C, Kaur A, Bhatnagar P, Rayner M . Should nutrient profile models be 'category specific' or 'across-the-board'? A comparison of the two systems using diets of British adults. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2010; 64(6):553-60. PMC: 2879603. DOI: 10.1038/ejcn.2010.31. View

Diliberti N, Bordi P, Conklin M, Roe L, Rolls B . Increased portion size leads to increased energy intake in a restaurant meal. Obes Res. 2004; 12(3):562-8. DOI: 10.1038/oby.2004.64. View

Scarborough P, Rayner M, Stockley L . Developing nutrient profile models: a systematic approach. Public Health Nutr. 2007; 10(4):330-6. DOI: 10.1017/S1368980007223870. View

Grunert K, Wills J, Fernandez-Celemin L . Nutrition knowledge, and use and understanding of nutrition information on food labels among consumers in the UK. Appetite. 2010; 55(2):177-89. DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2010.05.045. View

Provencher V, Polivy J, Herman C . Perceived healthiness of food. If it's healthy, you can eat more!. Appetite. 2008; 52(2):340-4. DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2008.11.005. View

Lobstein T, Davies S . Defining and labelling 'healthy' and 'unhealthy' food. Public Health Nutr. 2008; 12(3):331-40. DOI: 10.1017/S1368980008002541. View

Rozin P, Kabnick K, Pete E, Fischler C, Shields C . The ecology of eating: smaller portion sizes in France Than in the United States help explain the French paradox. Psychol Sci. 2003; 14(5):450-4. DOI: 10.1111/1467-9280.02452. View

Cowburn G, Stockley L . Consumer understanding and use of nutrition labelling: a systematic review. Public Health Nutr. 2005; 8(1):21-8. DOI: 10.1079/phn2005666. View

10.

Carels R, Konrad K, Harper J . Individual differences in food perceptions and calorie estimation: an examination of dieting status, weight, and gender. Appetite. 2007; 49(2):450-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2007.02.009. View

11.

Temple N, Fraser J . Food labels: a critical assessment. Nutrition. 2013; 30(3):257-60. DOI: 10.1016/j.nut.2013.06.012. View

12.

Antonuk B, Block L . The effect of single serving versus entire package nutritional information on consumption norms and actual consumption of a snack food. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2006; 38(6):365-70. DOI: 10.1016/j.jneb.2006.05.016. View

13.

Steenhuis I, Vermeer W . Portion size: review and framework for interventions. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2009; 6:58. PMC: 2739837. DOI: 10.1186/1479-5868-6-58. View

14.

Borgmeier I, Westenhoefer J . Impact of different food label formats on healthiness evaluation and food choice of consumers: a randomized-controlled study. BMC Public Health. 2009; 9:184. PMC: 2702386. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-9-184. View

15.

Flood J, Roe L, Rolls B . The effect of increased beverage portion size on energy intake at a meal. J Am Diet Assoc. 2006; 106(12):1984-90. DOI: 10.1016/j.jada.2006.09.005. View

16.

Feunekes G, Gortemaker I, Willems A, Lion R, van den Kommer M . Front-of-pack nutrition labelling: testing effectiveness of different nutrition labelling formats front-of-pack in four European countries. Appetite. 2007; 50(1):57-70. DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2007.05.009. View

17.

Faulkner G, Pourshahidi L, Wallace J, Kerr M, McCrorie T, Livingstone M . Serving size guidance for consumers: is it effective?. Proc Nutr Soc. 2012; 71(4):610-21. DOI: 10.1017/S0029665112000766. View

18.

Azais-Braesco V, Goffi C, Labouze E . Nutrient profiling: comparison and critical analysis of existing systems. Public Health Nutr. 2006; 9(5):613-22. DOI: 10.1079/phn2006966. View

19.

Rolls B, Roe L, Meengs J . Larger portion sizes lead to a sustained increase in energy intake over 2 days. J Am Diet Assoc. 2006; 106(4):543-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.jada.2006.01.014. View

20.

van Kleef E, van Trijp H, Paeps F, Fernandez-Celemin L . Consumer preferences for front-of-pack calories labelling. Public Health Nutr. 2007; 11(2):203-13. PMC: 2811400. DOI: 10.1017/S1368980007000304. View