Front-of-pck nutrition lelling Testing effectiveness of different nutrition lelling formts front-of-pck in four Europen countries Gerd Feunekes, Ilse Gortemker, Astrid Willems, Rene Lion & Mrcelle vn den Kommer Consumer Perception & Behviour Unit 5 th Interntionl MAPP Workshop for Behviourl Chnge nd Mrket Growth My 8-9, 2007, Middelfrt, Denmrk
Introduction The im of the nutrition fct ox ck-of-pck is to help consumers mke helthier choices 1 Mjority of consumers find ck-of-pck nutrition lels confusing 2? A complementry front-of-pck lel my e more effective in helping consumers mke helthier choices 3 1Kurtzweil, 1993 2Cowurn & Stockley, 2005; Shnnon, 1994; EUFIC, 2005; Wndel, 1999; Shine et l, 1997; Byrd-Bredenner et l, 2000; Scott & Worsley, 1997; Sdler, 1999 3Scott & Worsley, 1994; Geiger t l., 1991
Exmples of front-of-pck lels Simple formts Green Keyhole Sweden Helth Check symol Cnd Pick the Tick Austrli/ New Zelnd Smrt spot PepsiCo Multiple Trffic Light Food Stndrds Agency UK Multiple Trffic Light Sinsury s UK Guideline Dily Amounts (GDAs) Tesco UK Complex formts
Which formt is most effective? Two studies Study 1: focus on consumer friendliness Understnd Credile Liking Chnge in perceived helthiness Study 2: focus on decision mking Chnge in perceived helthiness Chnge in ehviourl intention Speed of informtion processing
Study 1: focus on consumer friendliness
Method Online survey Ntionlly representtive smple (N= 1630), y quot smpling on gender, eduction level nd ge (18-55 yers) N= 316 United Kingdom N= 447 Germny N= 430 Itly N= 437 The Netherlnds Dependent vriles Understnd Credile Liking Chnge in perceived helthiness
Within sujects design Type of lelling formt (6) Helthier Choice Tick Helth Protection Fctor Smileys Strs Multiple Trffic Light Wheel of Helth Product ctegory (3): Diry drink, Ice crem nd Spreds Helthiness of product (2): Helthier versus less helthy vrint
Ech formt shown with ll pirs Prticipnts were rndomly ssigned to 3 out of the 6 nutrition lelling formts Wheel of Helth Helth Protection Fctor Multiple Trffic Light Wheel of Helth Wheel of Helth Wheel of Helth
Procedure (study 1) Exposure to 1 st lelling formt on 1 st product pir Judgement of lelling formt nd products Repeted for product pir 2 nd 3 nd formt 2 nd 3 Prticipnts rted in totl 9 pirs of product with FOP lels Completion questionnire ckground vriles
All formts meet sic requirements for consumer friendliness (study 1) Except for the Helth Protection Fctor Helthier Choice Tick (n=670) Helth Protection Fctor (n=645) Smileys (n=1630) Strs (n=645) Multiple Trffic Light (n=656) Wheel of Helth (n=644) Extremely 5 Comprehension Crediility Liking 4 c c 3 d c cd c c 2 Not t ll 1 F(5, 3254) = 35.7, p <.0001 F(5, 3254) = 61.2, p <.0001 F(5, 3254) = 36.2, p <.0001 Note. Mens in the sme column tht do not shre superscripts differ t p < 0.01 (Tukey-Krmer)
All formts help to differentite (study 1) All lelling formts seem to e le to help consumers to differentite etween helthier nd less helthy vrints of the sme product ctegory Helth Protection Fctor the lest Helthier Choice Tick (n=670) Helth Protection Fctor (n=645) Smileys (n=1630) Strs (n=645) Multiple Trffic Light (n=656) Wheel of Helth (n=644) Men difference etween helthier nd less helthy product 2 1 0 c d c F(5, 3254) = 46.5, p <.0001 c Note. Mens in the sme column tht do not shre superscripts differ t p < 0.01 (Tukey-Krmer)
Trffic Light lest consistent differentitor (study 1) F(5, 3239) = 15.4, p <.0001 Diry drinks Ice-crem Spreds Men difference etween helthier nd less helthy product 2 1 0 c c Note. Mens in the sme column tht do not shre superscripts differ t p < 0.01 (Tukey-Krmer)
Discussion (study 1) All formts meet sis requirements, except for Helth Protection Fctor Although Multiple Trffic Light scored slightly etter with respect to consumer friendliness it seems less idel s differentitor But wht will hppen in the rel world? Experimentl setting is different from shopping sitution Consumers spend little cognitive effort on food choice t point of purchse 1,2 1 Hoyer, 1984 2 Scott nd Worsley, 1997
Study 2 Investigte the effect of the lelling formts on decision mking when tking into ccount the shopping environment Behviourl intention Speed of informtion processing
Method (study 2) Online survey Ntionlly representtive smple (N= 776) N= 405 United Kingdom N= 371 Itly Dependent vriles Understnd Liking Chnge in perceived helthiness Chnge in ehviourl intention Speed of informtion processing
Within sujects design (study 2) Type of lelling formt (4) Helthier Choice Tick Multiple Choice Tick Strs GDAs 2 different test methods Product Pir (study 1) Shopping Bsket to etter replicte relity
Procedure (study 2) 1. Bseline mesurement: current usge & current perceived helthiness New 2. Completion questions on demogrphics, helth ehviours, ttitudes nd nutritionl knowledge 3. Product Pir test (2 formts for oth product pirs) 3.1. Questions on liking, perceived helthiness, intention to use less or more nd usge frequency 4. Shopping sket test (2 formts) New 4.1. Questions on comprehension nd liking of the lelling formt 4.2. Pop up of the less helthy product vrints tht were used more thn once month, together with their helthier vrint. Questions on perceived helthiness, intended usge frequency nd intention to use less or more for oth products
All formts meet sic requirements of consumer friendliness (study 2) Strs scored highest on comprehension Liking differs per test type Interction etween Formt nd Test type ws significnt, F(3, 2288) = 11.1, p <.0001 Extremely 5 4 3 Helthier Choice Tick (n=392) Multiple Choice Tick (n=376) Strs (n=356) GDA scores (n=406) Comprehension Liking c Product Pir Shopping Bsket 2 Not t ll 1 F(3, 759) = 19.6, p <.0001 F(3, 762) = 14.3, p <.0001 F(3, 759) = 6.9, p <.001 Note. Mens in the sme column tht do not shre superscripts differ t p < 0.01 (Tukey-Krmer)
Formts increse perceived helthiness helthier products (study 2) No consistent pttern cross helthier nd less helthy products nd test types 1 Helthier Choice Tick (n=392) Strs (n=356) Product Pir Multiple Choice Tick (n=376) GDA scores (n=406) Shopping Bsket Men difference score (seline minus post mesurement) 0 Helthier products Less helthy products Helthier products Less helthy products -1 F (3, 759) = 13.4, p <.0001 F (3, 759) = 13.4, p <.0001 F (3, 683) = 5.3, p <.01 F (3, 683) = 9.7, p <.0001 Note. Mens in the sme column tht do not shre superscripts differ t p < 0.01 (Tukey-Krmer)
Formts decrese usge intention less helthy products (study 2) Slightly increses usge intention helthier products No significnt differences etween formts Men chnge in usge frequency intention Numer of times per yer (seline minus post mesurement) 60 30 0-30 -60 Product Pir Helthier products Less helthy products Shopping Bsket
Simple formts speed up informtion processing (study 2) Prticipnts needed significntly more time to evlute GDA scores thn Helthier Choice Tick nd Strs, p < 0.01 Time needed to evlute* formt in seconds 70 60 50 Helthier Choice Tick (n=392) Strs (n=356) F (3, 1108) = 9.5, p <.001 58 56 Multiple Choice Tick (n=376) GDA scores (n=406) 64 53 Note. Mens in the sme column tht do not shre superscripts differ t p < 0.01 (Tukey-Krmer) *Answering questions ws included in evlution time
Key conclusions FOP lels re effective in helping consumers to mke helthier choices No ig differences etween formts, except with regrd to processing time Helthier choices cn e mde fster with simple FOP lels, such s tick logo Mesuring effectiveness of FOP lels is complex Future reserch should focus on ctul ehviour in rel life setting Next study: Investigting effect of different FOP lels on speed of decision mking t point of purchse
Thnk you
Ad1) This is how it ws tested
Ad1) Consumers could click for more informtion, nd would see stndrd nutrition fct ox in pop-up window
Exmple screen - questions