Ticks, claims, tables and food groups: a comparison for nutrition labelling

Consumer attitudes and knowledge of four nutrition related labels were tested in 28 supermarkets in Auckland, New Zealand's largest city. Five independent-sample questionnaires were distributed to approximately 1500 consumers. It was found that the traditional nutrition label was disliked, and one-third of the sample (particularly those with less education) could not identify the number of grams of fat in 100 g as written on the table. The three alternative designs were simpler and were liked more. However, they also misled some people. A 'low fat, low salt' nutrition claim recommended by the New Zealand National Heart Foundation and the Australian National Heart Foundation tick logo were particularly misleading. A fourth label, which also was recommended by the New Zealand National Heart Foundation, made use of the Healthy Food Pyramid. Fewer misconceptions arose with it though it did not have the same appeal as the other two. A qualitative food grouping approach with some direction appears to have the greatest potential for further development.All the labels required further explanation to be understood This not only suggests the need for education programmes but also the need for nutritionists to consider the limitations of nutrition labels in health promotion.