Evaluation of consumer understanding of different front-of-package nutrition labels, 2010-2011

Christina A. Roberto, Marie Bragg, Marissa J. Seamans, Regine L. Mechulan, Nicole Novak, Kelly D. Brownell

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Introduction: Governments throughout the world are using or considering various front-of-package (FOP) food labeling systems to provide nutrition information to consumers. Our web-based study tested consumer understanding of different FOP labeling systems. Methods: Adult participants (N = 480) were randomized to 1 of 5 groups to evaluate FOP labels: 1) no label; 2) multiple traffic light (MTL); 3) MTL plus daily caloric requirement icon (MTL+caloric intake); 4) traffic light with specific nutrients to limit based on food category (TL+SNL); or 5) the Choices logo. Total percentage correct quiz scores were created reflecting participants' ability to select the healthier of 2 foods and estimate amounts of saturated fat, sugar, and sodium in foods. Participants also rated products on taste, healthfulness, and how likely they were to purchase the product. Quiz scores and product perceptions were compared with 1-way analysis of variance followed by post-hoc Tukey tests. Results: The MTL+caloric intake group (mean [standard deviation], 73.3% [6.9%]) and Choices group (72.5% [13.2%]) significantly outperformed the no label group (67.8% [10.3%]) and the TL+SNL group (65.8% [7.3%]) in selecting the more healthful product on the healthier product quiz. The MTL and MTL+caloric intake groups achieved average scores of more than 90% on the saturated fat, sugar, and sodium quizzes, which were significantly better than the no label and Choices group average scores, which were between 34% and 47%. Conclusion: An MTL+caloric intake label and the Choices symbol hold promise as FOP labeling systems and require further testing in different environments and population subgroups.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number120015
JournalPreventing chronic disease
Volume9
Issue number9
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 2012

Fingerprint

Light
Energy Intake
Food
Sodium
Fats
Food Labeling
Aptitude
Analysis of Variance
Population

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
  • Health Policy

Cite this

Evaluation of consumer understanding of different front-of-package nutrition labels, 2010-2011. / Roberto, Christina A.; Bragg, Marie; Seamans, Marissa J.; Mechulan, Regine L.; Novak, Nicole; Brownell, Kelly D.

In: Preventing chronic disease, Vol. 9, No. 9, 120015, 09.2012.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Roberto, Christina A. ; Bragg, Marie ; Seamans, Marissa J. ; Mechulan, Regine L. ; Novak, Nicole ; Brownell, Kelly D. / Evaluation of consumer understanding of different front-of-package nutrition labels, 2010-2011. In: Preventing chronic disease. 2012 ; Vol. 9, No. 9.
@article{91d744543dc548d0b1bb18b0a8ac4b7b,
title = "Evaluation of consumer understanding of different front-of-package nutrition labels, 2010-2011",
abstract = "Introduction: Governments throughout the world are using or considering various front-of-package (FOP) food labeling systems to provide nutrition information to consumers. Our web-based study tested consumer understanding of different FOP labeling systems. Methods: Adult participants (N = 480) were randomized to 1 of 5 groups to evaluate FOP labels: 1) no label; 2) multiple traffic light (MTL); 3) MTL plus daily caloric requirement icon (MTL+caloric intake); 4) traffic light with specific nutrients to limit based on food category (TL+SNL); or 5) the Choices logo. Total percentage correct quiz scores were created reflecting participants' ability to select the healthier of 2 foods and estimate amounts of saturated fat, sugar, and sodium in foods. Participants also rated products on taste, healthfulness, and how likely they were to purchase the product. Quiz scores and product perceptions were compared with 1-way analysis of variance followed by post-hoc Tukey tests. Results: The MTL+caloric intake group (mean [standard deviation], 73.3{\%} [6.9{\%}]) and Choices group (72.5{\%} [13.2{\%}]) significantly outperformed the no label group (67.8{\%} [10.3{\%}]) and the TL+SNL group (65.8{\%} [7.3{\%}]) in selecting the more healthful product on the healthier product quiz. The MTL and MTL+caloric intake groups achieved average scores of more than 90{\%} on the saturated fat, sugar, and sodium quizzes, which were significantly better than the no label and Choices group average scores, which were between 34{\%} and 47{\%}. Conclusion: An MTL+caloric intake label and the Choices symbol hold promise as FOP labeling systems and require further testing in different environments and population subgroups.",
author = "Roberto, {Christina A.} and Marie Bragg and Seamans, {Marissa J.} and Mechulan, {Regine L.} and Nicole Novak and Brownell, {Kelly D.}",
year = "2012",
month = "9",
doi = "10.5888/pcd9.120015",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "9",
journal = "Preventing chronic disease",
issn = "1545-1151",
publisher = "U.S. Department of Health and Human Services",
number = "9",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evaluation of consumer understanding of different front-of-package nutrition labels, 2010-2011

AU - Roberto, Christina A.

AU - Bragg, Marie

AU - Seamans, Marissa J.

AU - Mechulan, Regine L.

AU - Novak, Nicole

AU - Brownell, Kelly D.

PY - 2012/9

Y1 - 2012/9

N2 - Introduction: Governments throughout the world are using or considering various front-of-package (FOP) food labeling systems to provide nutrition information to consumers. Our web-based study tested consumer understanding of different FOP labeling systems. Methods: Adult participants (N = 480) were randomized to 1 of 5 groups to evaluate FOP labels: 1) no label; 2) multiple traffic light (MTL); 3) MTL plus daily caloric requirement icon (MTL+caloric intake); 4) traffic light with specific nutrients to limit based on food category (TL+SNL); or 5) the Choices logo. Total percentage correct quiz scores were created reflecting participants' ability to select the healthier of 2 foods and estimate amounts of saturated fat, sugar, and sodium in foods. Participants also rated products on taste, healthfulness, and how likely they were to purchase the product. Quiz scores and product perceptions were compared with 1-way analysis of variance followed by post-hoc Tukey tests. Results: The MTL+caloric intake group (mean [standard deviation], 73.3% [6.9%]) and Choices group (72.5% [13.2%]) significantly outperformed the no label group (67.8% [10.3%]) and the TL+SNL group (65.8% [7.3%]) in selecting the more healthful product on the healthier product quiz. The MTL and MTL+caloric intake groups achieved average scores of more than 90% on the saturated fat, sugar, and sodium quizzes, which were significantly better than the no label and Choices group average scores, which were between 34% and 47%. Conclusion: An MTL+caloric intake label and the Choices symbol hold promise as FOP labeling systems and require further testing in different environments and population subgroups.

AB - Introduction: Governments throughout the world are using or considering various front-of-package (FOP) food labeling systems to provide nutrition information to consumers. Our web-based study tested consumer understanding of different FOP labeling systems. Methods: Adult participants (N = 480) were randomized to 1 of 5 groups to evaluate FOP labels: 1) no label; 2) multiple traffic light (MTL); 3) MTL plus daily caloric requirement icon (MTL+caloric intake); 4) traffic light with specific nutrients to limit based on food category (TL+SNL); or 5) the Choices logo. Total percentage correct quiz scores were created reflecting participants' ability to select the healthier of 2 foods and estimate amounts of saturated fat, sugar, and sodium in foods. Participants also rated products on taste, healthfulness, and how likely they were to purchase the product. Quiz scores and product perceptions were compared with 1-way analysis of variance followed by post-hoc Tukey tests. Results: The MTL+caloric intake group (mean [standard deviation], 73.3% [6.9%]) and Choices group (72.5% [13.2%]) significantly outperformed the no label group (67.8% [10.3%]) and the TL+SNL group (65.8% [7.3%]) in selecting the more healthful product on the healthier product quiz. The MTL and MTL+caloric intake groups achieved average scores of more than 90% on the saturated fat, sugar, and sodium quizzes, which were significantly better than the no label and Choices group average scores, which were between 34% and 47%. Conclusion: An MTL+caloric intake label and the Choices symbol hold promise as FOP labeling systems and require further testing in different environments and population subgroups.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84870422100&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84870422100&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.5888/pcd9.120015

DO - 10.5888/pcd9.120015

M3 - Article

VL - 9

JO - Preventing chronic disease

JF - Preventing chronic disease

SN - 1545-1151

IS - 9

M1 - 120015

ER -