Limits...
Objective Understanding of Front-of-Package Nutrition Labels among Nutritionally At-Risk Individuals.

Ducrot P, Méjean C, Julia C, Kesse-Guyot E, Touvier M, Fezeu LK, Hercberg S, Péneau S - Nutrients (2015)

Bottom Line: Mixed models were used to assess how individual characteristics and FOP labels were associated with the ability to rank products.The strongest impact of 5-CNL was observed among individuals with no nutritional knowledge (odds ratio (OR): 20.24; 95% confidence interval (CI): 13.19-31.06).Therefore, 5-CNL appeared to be effective at informing consumers, including those who are nutritionally at-risk, about the nutritional quality of food products.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Equipe de Recherche en Epidémiologie Nutritionnelle, Centre de Recherche en Epidémiologie et Statistiques, Université Paris 13, Inserm (U1153), Inra (U1125), Cnam, COMUE Sorbonne Paris Cité, Bobigny F-93017, France. p.ducrot@eren.smbh.univ-paris13.fr.

ABSTRACT
In the ongoing debate about front-of-package (FOP) nutrition labels, little data exist regarding nutritionally at-risk populations, although they are critical targets of prevention programs. This study aimed to compare the impact of FOP labels on the ability to rank products according to their nutritional quality among French adults potentially at risk of poor dietary quality (N = 14,230). Four labels were evaluated: Guideline Daily Amounts (GDA), Multiple Traffic Lights (MTL), 5-Color Nutrition Label (5-CNL), Green Tick (Tick), along with a reference without label. Mixed models were used to assess how individual characteristics and FOP labels were associated with the ability to rank products. Older participants and those with a lower educational level, income, nutritional knowledge, and likelihood of reading nutrition facts were less skilled at ranking food products according to nutritional quality. Compared with individual characteristics, nutrition labels had an increased impact on food product ranking ability. Overall, 5-CNL corresponded to the highest rate of correct responses, followed by MTL, GDA, and Tick (p < 0.0001). The strongest impact of 5-CNL was observed among individuals with no nutritional knowledge (odds ratio (OR): 20.24; 95% confidence interval (CI): 13.19-31.06). Therefore, 5-CNL appeared to be effective at informing consumers, including those who are nutritionally at-risk, about the nutritional quality of food products.

No MeSH data available.


Screenshot of the stimulus material used in the study.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4555164&req=5

nutrients-07-05325-f001: Screenshot of the stimulus material used in the study.

Mentions: Objective understanding of the different FOP labeling formats was assessed in July 2014 via a Web-based questionnaire, under five different conditions: four alternatives corresponding to the four different FOP label formats and one alternative with no label. Subjects were asked to rank three products belonging to the same food category (e.g., Figure 1) according to their nutritional quality. Specifically, participants were shown pictures of the three products, each featuring the respective FOP label, and were asked: “From your point of view, please rank these products according to their nutritional quality”. For the ranking, participants could choose among the following options: “lowest nutritional quality”, “intermediate nutritional quality”, “highest nutritional quality”, or “I don’t know”. The three products were selected based on their differing nutritional quality, thus enabling ranking via the labels (except for the Tick format which enabled distinguishing only the top quality product). No other information on nutritional facts was provided and all quality labels (e.g., organic certification) were removed from the product images.


Objective Understanding of Front-of-Package Nutrition Labels among Nutritionally At-Risk Individuals.

Ducrot P, Méjean C, Julia C, Kesse-Guyot E, Touvier M, Fezeu LK, Hercberg S, Péneau S - Nutrients (2015)

Screenshot of the stimulus material used in the study.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4555164&req=5

nutrients-07-05325-f001: Screenshot of the stimulus material used in the study.
Mentions: Objective understanding of the different FOP labeling formats was assessed in July 2014 via a Web-based questionnaire, under five different conditions: four alternatives corresponding to the four different FOP label formats and one alternative with no label. Subjects were asked to rank three products belonging to the same food category (e.g., Figure 1) according to their nutritional quality. Specifically, participants were shown pictures of the three products, each featuring the respective FOP label, and were asked: “From your point of view, please rank these products according to their nutritional quality”. For the ranking, participants could choose among the following options: “lowest nutritional quality”, “intermediate nutritional quality”, “highest nutritional quality”, or “I don’t know”. The three products were selected based on their differing nutritional quality, thus enabling ranking via the labels (except for the Tick format which enabled distinguishing only the top quality product). No other information on nutritional facts was provided and all quality labels (e.g., organic certification) were removed from the product images.

Bottom Line: Mixed models were used to assess how individual characteristics and FOP labels were associated with the ability to rank products.The strongest impact of 5-CNL was observed among individuals with no nutritional knowledge (odds ratio (OR): 20.24; 95% confidence interval (CI): 13.19-31.06).Therefore, 5-CNL appeared to be effective at informing consumers, including those who are nutritionally at-risk, about the nutritional quality of food products.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Equipe de Recherche en Epidémiologie Nutritionnelle, Centre de Recherche en Epidémiologie et Statistiques, Université Paris 13, Inserm (U1153), Inra (U1125), Cnam, COMUE Sorbonne Paris Cité, Bobigny F-93017, France. p.ducrot@eren.smbh.univ-paris13.fr.

ABSTRACT
In the ongoing debate about front-of-package (FOP) nutrition labels, little data exist regarding nutritionally at-risk populations, although they are critical targets of prevention programs. This study aimed to compare the impact of FOP labels on the ability to rank products according to their nutritional quality among French adults potentially at risk of poor dietary quality (N = 14,230). Four labels were evaluated: Guideline Daily Amounts (GDA), Multiple Traffic Lights (MTL), 5-Color Nutrition Label (5-CNL), Green Tick (Tick), along with a reference without label. Mixed models were used to assess how individual characteristics and FOP labels were associated with the ability to rank products. Older participants and those with a lower educational level, income, nutritional knowledge, and likelihood of reading nutrition facts were less skilled at ranking food products according to nutritional quality. Compared with individual characteristics, nutrition labels had an increased impact on food product ranking ability. Overall, 5-CNL corresponded to the highest rate of correct responses, followed by MTL, GDA, and Tick (p < 0.0001). The strongest impact of 5-CNL was observed among individuals with no nutritional knowledge (odds ratio (OR): 20.24; 95% confidence interval (CI): 13.19-31.06). Therefore, 5-CNL appeared to be effective at informing consumers, including those who are nutritionally at-risk, about the nutritional quality of food products.

No MeSH data available.