You are not logged in.

The combined effect of front-of-pack nutrition labels and health claims on consumers' evaluation of food products

Talati, Zenobia, Pettigrew, Simone, Hughes, Clare, Dixon, Helen, Kelly, Bridget, Ball, Kylie and Miller, Caroline 2016, The combined effect of front-of-pack nutrition labels and health claims on consumers' evaluation of food products, Food quality and preference, vol. 53, pp. 57-65, doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.05.016.

Attached Files
Name Description MIMEType Size Downloads

Title The combined effect of front-of-pack nutrition labels and health claims on consumers' evaluation of food products
Author(s) Talati, Zenobia
Pettigrew, Simone
Hughes, Clare
Dixon, Helen
Kelly, Bridget
Ball, Kylie
Miller, Caroline
Journal name Food quality and preference
Volume number 53
Start page 57
End page 65
Total pages 9
Publisher Elsevier
Place of publication Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Publication date 2016-10
ISSN 0950-3293
Keyword(s) Front-of-pack label
Health claim
Daily Intake Guide
Traffic light
Health Star Rating
Science & Technology
Life Sciences & Biomedicine
Summary The majority of studies examining the effect of nutrition information on food packets (such as the nutrition information panel (NIP), front-of-pack labels (FoPLs) and health claims) have examined each in isolation, even though they often occur together. This study investigated the relationship between FoPLs and health claims since (i) they both appear on the front of packs and typically receive more attention from consumers than the NIP, (ii) they can convey contradictory messages (i.e., health claims provide information on nutrients that are beneficial to health while FoPLs provide information on nutrients associated with increased health risks) and (iii) there is currently scant research on how consumers trade off between these two sources of information. Ten focus groups (n = 85) explored adults' and children's reactions when presented with both a FoPL (the Daily Intake Guide, Multiple Traffic Lights, or the Health Star Rating) and a health claim (nutrient content, general-level-, or high-level). A particular focus was participants' processing of discrepant information. Participants reported that health claims were more likely to be considered during product evaluations if they were perceived to be trustworthy, relevant and informative. Trust and ease of interpretation were most important for FoPLs, which were more likely than health claims to meet criteria and be considered during product evaluation (especially the Health Star Rating and Multiple Traffic Lights). Results indicate that consumers generally find FoPLs more useful than health claims.
Language eng
DOI 10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.05.016
Field of Research 111199 Nutrition and Dietetics not elsewhere classified
0908 Food Sciences
1505 Marketing
Socio Economic Objective 920411 Nutrition
HERDC Research category C1 Refereed article in a scholarly journal
ERA Research output type C Journal article
Copyright notice ©2016, Elsevier
Free to Read? No
Free to Read Start Date 2017-11-01
Persistent URL http://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30084488

Connect to link resolver
 
Unless expressly stated otherwise, the copyright for items in DRO is owned by the author, with all rights reserved.

Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 2 times in TR Web of Science
Scopus Citation Count Cited 2 times in Scopus
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Access Statistics: 42 Abstract Views, 1 File Downloads  -  Detailed Statistics
Created: Thu, 30 Jun 2016, 12:09:52 EST

Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that permission has been obtained for items included in DRO. If you believe that your rights have been infringed by this repository, please contact drosupport@deakin.edu.au.