Simplistic front-of-pack labels may be misleading in evaluating negative nutrients and overall healthfulness of foods, finds research published in the Journal of Public Policy & Marketing.
Consumers in the U.S. have faced an onslaught of
front-of-package nutrition symbols, including the "Smart Choices"
single summary indicator and manufacturer symbols from PepsiCo, Kellogg's,
Mars, Kraft, and the Grocery Manufacturers of America. Due to their simplicity and suggested ease of
use, the intent of the symbols is to help consumers make better choices in
constructing a balanced diet. New research published by theAmerican
Marketing Associationfinds that consumers' intent to buy a product (with some
negative nutrient levels) increases when the package features front-of-pack
nutrition symbols compared to when it does not.
However, simple symbols can lull consumers into thinking a food is more
healthful than it may actually be.
The research, titled "Is Simpler Always Better?
Consumer Evaluations of Front-of-Package Nutrition Symbols," appears in
the fall issue of the AMA's Journal of Public Policy & Marketing. The
study's researchers, Craig Andrews, Scot Burton, and Jeremy Kees, created an
experiment after the U.S. Food & Drug Administration issued a call in 2010
for more research into how consumers interpret and use front-of-package
symbols. They examined how 520 adult consumers perceived a product differently
when a simple front-of-pack symbol, traffic light front-of-pack symbol, or no
front-of-pack symbol (control) is presented, both with and without the
nutrition facts panel.
When consumers do not access the nutrition facts panel, the
more detailed traffic light, front-of-pack symbol results in significantly
greater nutrition accuracy scores than the simple icon or the no symbol control
for this food with both negative and positive nutrient levels. Also, consumers
who are more (versus less) nutritionally-conscious are more likely to use the
detailed nutrition facts panel on the package back.
Overall, simpler front-of-package symbols can lead to
(misleading) favorable evaluations of negative nutrients and overall
healthfulness of foods, but the more detailed traffic light symbols result in
more accurate nutrition scores. The authors say a next step for manufacturers
and public health agencies is to find a better balance between detail and ease
Source: American Marketing Association
Report Abusive Comment