Comparison of the efficacy of five front-of-pack nutrition labels in helping the Brazilian consumer make a healthier choice

Food Science & Nutrition Research Pub Date : 2020-10-06 DOI:10.21203/rs.3.rs-71579/v1

W. Blom, C. Goenee, Luciana C. Juliano, E. Groene, Fernanda de Oliveira Martins

{"title":"Comparison of the efficacy of five front-of-pack nutrition labels in helping the Brazilian consumer make a healthier choice","authors":"W. Blom, C. Goenee, Luciana C. Juliano, E. Groene, Fernanda de Oliveira Martins","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-71579/v1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Background:\n\nWe tested, in an online survey, how well five different front-of-pack (FOP) labels helped Brazilian consumers make a healthier choice between two food or beverage products as compared to a no FOP label control.\nMethods:\n\nAll 1072 respondents were randomly assigned to one of six groups 1) no FOP label (control), 2) ABIA label, 3) GGALIii Nutrient Profile label, 4) IdeC label, 5) Hybrid label or 6) Nutri-Score label and were all shown 9 food stimuli consisting of two products. The nutrient profile of the ABIA and Hybrid labels take into account the serving size of the food, while the other three labels score per 100 g. Respondents were asked which of the two products they thought was the healthier choice.\nResults:\n\nOverall, the Hybrid and ABIA labels performed best, resulting in a statistically significantly higher percentage of correct answers compared to the control for 9/9 and 8/9 of the food stimuli, respectively. Nutri-Score performed reasonably well and outperformed the control in 6/9 cases. The IdeC and GGALIii NP warning labels were the least useful, performing only one and two times better, respectively, than the control group.\nConclusion:\n\nThe Hybrid and the ABIA FOP labels, two interpretative traffic light labels that use colours and provide nutritional information per serving, were best suited to help Brazilian consumers choose the healthier product. They especially outperformed the other FOP labels when serving sizes differed significantly or when deeper consideration of nutritional information was needed to make an informed decision.","PeriodicalId":12378,"journal":{"name":"Food Science & Nutrition Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Food Science & Nutrition Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-71579/v1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: We tested, in an online survey, how well five different front-of-pack (FOP) labels helped Brazilian consumers make a healthier choice between two food or beverage products as compared to a no FOP label control. Methods: All 1072 respondents were randomly assigned to one of six groups 1) no FOP label (control), 2) ABIA label, 3) GGALIii Nutrient Profile label, 4) IdeC label, 5) Hybrid label or 6) Nutri-Score label and were all shown 9 food stimuli consisting of two products. The nutrient profile of the ABIA and Hybrid labels take into account the serving size of the food, while the other three labels score per 100 g. Respondents were asked which of the two products they thought was the healthier choice. Results: Overall, the Hybrid and ABIA labels performed best, resulting in a statistically significantly higher percentage of correct answers compared to the control for 9/9 and 8/9 of the food stimuli, respectively. Nutri-Score performed reasonably well and outperformed the control in 6/9 cases. The IdeC and GGALIii NP warning labels were the least useful, performing only one and two times better, respectively, than the control group. Conclusion: The Hybrid and the ABIA FOP labels, two interpretative traffic light labels that use colours and provide nutritional information per serving, were best suited to help Brazilian consumers choose the healthier product. They especially outperformed the other FOP labels when serving sizes differed significantly or when deeper consideration of nutritional information was needed to make an informed decision.

查看原文本刊更多论文

比较五种包装正面营养标签在帮助巴西消费者做出更健康选择方面的功效

背景:我们在一项在线调查中测试了五种不同的包装正面(FOP)标签与没有FOP标签的对照相比，如何帮助巴西消费者在两种食品或饮料产品之间做出更健康的选择。方法:将1072名调查对象随机分为6组:1)无FOP标签(对照组)、2)ABIA标签、3)GGALIii营养成分标签、4)IdeC标签、5)Hybrid标签或6)nutrition - score标签，分别给予2种产品组成的9种食物刺激。ABIA和Hybrid标签的营养概况考虑了食物的食用量，而其他三个标签每100克评分。受访者被问及他们认为这两种产品中哪一种更健康。结果:总体而言，Hybrid和ABIA标签表现最好，在9/9和8/9的食物刺激中，正确率分别比对照组高。nutrition - score表现相当好，6/9的病例表现优于对照组。IdeC和GGALIii NP警告标签是最没用的，分别只比对照组好一倍和两倍。结论:Hybrid标签和ABIA FOP标签，这两个使用颜色并提供每份营养信息的解释性红绿灯标签，最适合帮助巴西消费者选择更健康的产品。当份量差异显著或需要更深入地考虑营养信息以做出明智的决定时，它们的表现尤其优于其他FOP标签。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Food Science & Nutrition Research

自引率

0.00%

发文量