Interpretation of two nutrition content claims: a New Zealand survey
ABSTRACT To determine how various population groups in New Zealand interpret the nutrition content claims '97% fat free' and 'no added sugar' on food labels.
A survey of adult supermarket shoppers was conducted at 25 Auckland supermarkets over a six-week period in 2007. Supermarkets were located in areas where greater than 10% of the resident population were known to be Māori, Pacific or Asian, based on 2001 Census meshblock data. Four questions in the survey assessed understanding and interpretation of the nutrition content claims '97% fat free' and 'no added sugar'.
There were 1,525 people who completed the survey, with approximately equal representation from Māori, Pacific, Asian and New Zealand European and Other ethnicities. Nearly three-quarters (72%) of participants correctly estimated the fat content of a 100 g product that was '97% fat free', and understood that a product with 'no added sugars' could contain natural sugar. However, up to three-quarters of Māori, Pacific, and Asian shoppers assumed that if a food carried a '97% fat free' or 'no added sugar' claim it was therefore a healthy food. Similarly, low-income shoppers were significantly more likely than medium- or high-income shoppers to assume that the presence of a claim meant a food was definitely healthy.
Percentage fat free and no added sugar nutrition content claims on food are frequently misinterpreted by shoppers as meaning the food is healthy overall and appear to be particularly misleading for Māori, Pacific, Asian and low-income groups.
Nutrition content claims have potential for harm if the food they are placed on is not healthy overall. Such claims should therefore only be permitted to be placed on healthy foods.
- SourceAvailable from: candyusa.com
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Objective: To review the scientific literature related to the information given to consumers about different types of fats in foods through food labeling. Method: Systematic review of the data found in MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, CINAHL, FSTA, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, SCOPUS and LILACS databasis, until September 2013. The terms used as descriptors and free text were “dietary fats”, “dietary fats, unsaturated” and “food labeling”. The limit “human” was used. Results: 549 references were retrieved, of which 36 articles were selected after applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The main effects related to labeling information were linked to the price and place of purchase/ consumption, sensory dimensions, dietary habits, interpretation and education logo. Conclusions: Food labeling on fat content helps when making consumption decisions. Nutrition education and the meanings of food labels are essential and were effective although the “informed consumer” is yet to be achieved. Training activities should be directed towards prior beliefs and attitudes of consumers in order to make the health and nutrition message consistent. Food labels should be homogeneous and truthful in terms of expressing composition or presenting logos, and messages included in the packaging should be clear and not misleading.Nutricion hospitalaria: organo oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Nutricion Parenteral y Enteral 01/2015; 31(1):129-142. DOI:10.3305/nh.2015.31.1.8396 · 1.04 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The regulation of nutrition and health claims made on foods is to a large extent based on the belief that consumers are easily misled by persuasive marketing communication and should therefore be protected. One common concern is that nutrition and health claims create ‘magic bullet’ or ‘halo’ effects that lead consumers to believe that a food carrying such a claim is healthier than it actually is. Five experiments were carried out to examine the extent to which nutrition and health claims used in marketing communication affect consumer judgments of food healthfulness. The studies manipulated both explicit health and nutrition claims and implied claims related to suggestive brand names, package design, and imagery. The results show that health and nutrition claims might not be as misleading as suspected. In fact, the studied claims had little effect on consumer judgments of food healthfulness. The claims, however, had detrimental effects on sensory expectations and purchase intentions for the carrier products. These effects were found both for misleading claims as well as for officially approved claims intended to guide consumer food choice.Food Policy 02/2015; 51. DOI:10.1016/j.foodpol.2015.01.001 · 1.80 Impact Factor