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

Roberto CA, Bragg MA, Seamans MJ, Mechulan RL, Novak N, Brownell KD - Prev Chronic Dis (2012)

Bottom Line: Quiz scores and product perceptions were compared with 1-way analysis of variance followed by post-hoc Tukey tests.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%.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: The Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06511, USA. christina.roberto@yale.edu

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.

Show MeSH
Front-of-package food label symbols tested in evaluation of consumer understanding of different front-of-package nutrition labels.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3475525&req=5

Figure 1: Front-of-package food label symbols tested in evaluation of consumer understanding of different front-of-package nutrition labels.

Mentions: Participants were assigned to 1 of 5 groups: a control group that viewed food products with no FOP label and 4 groups that viewed products that included 1 of 4 different FOP labels (Figure 1):


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

Roberto CA, Bragg MA, Seamans MJ, Mechulan RL, Novak N, Brownell KD - Prev Chronic Dis (2012)

Front-of-package food label symbols tested in evaluation of consumer understanding of different front-of-package nutrition labels.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3475525&req=5

Figure 1: Front-of-package food label symbols tested in evaluation of consumer understanding of different front-of-package nutrition labels.
Mentions: Participants were assigned to 1 of 5 groups: a control group that viewed food products with no FOP label and 4 groups that viewed products that included 1 of 4 different FOP labels (Figure 1):

Bottom Line: Quiz scores and product perceptions were compared with 1-way analysis of variance followed by post-hoc Tukey tests.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%.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: The Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06511, USA. christina.roberto@yale.edu

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.

Show MeSH