Healthy or Not Healthy? A Mixed-Methods Approach to Evaluate Front-of-Pack Nutrition Labels as a Tool to Guide Consumers
This study explored how South African food labels could be improved, to enhance customer evaluation of the overall healthiness of packaged food. Focus was given to the comparison of front-of-pack (FOP) nutrition labels as a quick assessment tool. The exploratory sequential mixed-methods design used...
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2022-07-01
|
| Series: | Nutrients |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/14/14/2801 |
| _version_ | 1797433285964464128 |
|---|---|
| author | Melvi Todd Timothy Guetterman Jako Volschenk Martin Kidd Elizabeth Joubert |
| author_facet | Melvi Todd Timothy Guetterman Jako Volschenk Martin Kidd Elizabeth Joubert |
| author_sort | Melvi Todd |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | This study explored how South African food labels could be improved, to enhance customer evaluation of the overall healthiness of packaged food. Focus was given to the comparison of front-of-pack (FOP) nutrition labels as a quick assessment tool. The exploratory sequential mixed-methods design used qualitative interviews (<i>n</i> = 49) to gain insight into labeling challenges and select FOP nutrition labels for consumer testing. Consumers (<i>n</i> = 1261) randomly assessed two out of six possible FOP nutrition labels relative to a ‘no-label’ control in one of 12 online surveys, applied to a fictitious cereal product. A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare the differences in health ratings for the different FOP nutrition labels. The interviews revealed three themes for label improvement, that are presented over three time horizons. In terms of helping consumers identify less healthy products, the effect sizes were most prominent for health warnings (<i>p</i> < 0.01) and low health star ratings (<i>p</i> < 0.01). The findings of this research not only clarify whether FOP nutrition labeling formats used in other regions such as Europe, South America and Australia could be useful in the South African context, but they can assist policymakers and decision-makers in selecting an effective FOP label. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-09T10:14:51Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-e84a86e83af9465daf3db367c621d06f |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2072-6643 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-09T10:14:51Z |
| publishDate | 2022-07-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Nutrients |
| spelling | doaj.art-e84a86e83af9465daf3db367c621d06f2023-12-01T22:31:37ZengMDPI AGNutrients2072-66432022-07-011414280110.3390/nu14142801Healthy or Not Healthy? A Mixed-Methods Approach to Evaluate Front-of-Pack Nutrition Labels as a Tool to Guide ConsumersMelvi Todd0Timothy Guetterman1Jako Volschenk2Martin Kidd3Elizabeth Joubert4Department of Food Science, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch 7599, South AfricaDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48104, USADepartment of Economic and Management Sciences, Stellenbosch Business School, Stellenbosch University, Bellville 7530, South AfricaCentre for Statistical Consultation, Department of Statistics and Actuarial Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch 7599, South AfricaDepartment of Food Science, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch 7599, South AfricaThis study explored how South African food labels could be improved, to enhance customer evaluation of the overall healthiness of packaged food. Focus was given to the comparison of front-of-pack (FOP) nutrition labels as a quick assessment tool. The exploratory sequential mixed-methods design used qualitative interviews (<i>n</i> = 49) to gain insight into labeling challenges and select FOP nutrition labels for consumer testing. Consumers (<i>n</i> = 1261) randomly assessed two out of six possible FOP nutrition labels relative to a ‘no-label’ control in one of 12 online surveys, applied to a fictitious cereal product. A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare the differences in health ratings for the different FOP nutrition labels. The interviews revealed three themes for label improvement, that are presented over three time horizons. In terms of helping consumers identify less healthy products, the effect sizes were most prominent for health warnings (<i>p</i> < 0.01) and low health star ratings (<i>p</i> < 0.01). The findings of this research not only clarify whether FOP nutrition labeling formats used in other regions such as Europe, South America and Australia could be useful in the South African context, but they can assist policymakers and decision-makers in selecting an effective FOP label.https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/14/14/2801FOP nutrition labelconsumerhealth promotionnutritional policynon-communicable diseaseultra-processed food |
| spellingShingle | Melvi Todd Timothy Guetterman Jako Volschenk Martin Kidd Elizabeth Joubert Healthy or Not Healthy? A Mixed-Methods Approach to Evaluate Front-of-Pack Nutrition Labels as a Tool to Guide Consumers Nutrients FOP nutrition label consumer health promotion nutritional policy non-communicable disease ultra-processed food |
| title | Healthy or Not Healthy? A Mixed-Methods Approach to Evaluate Front-of-Pack Nutrition Labels as a Tool to Guide Consumers |
| title_full | Healthy or Not Healthy? A Mixed-Methods Approach to Evaluate Front-of-Pack Nutrition Labels as a Tool to Guide Consumers |
| title_fullStr | Healthy or Not Healthy? A Mixed-Methods Approach to Evaluate Front-of-Pack Nutrition Labels as a Tool to Guide Consumers |
| title_full_unstemmed | Healthy or Not Healthy? A Mixed-Methods Approach to Evaluate Front-of-Pack Nutrition Labels as a Tool to Guide Consumers |
| title_short | Healthy or Not Healthy? A Mixed-Methods Approach to Evaluate Front-of-Pack Nutrition Labels as a Tool to Guide Consumers |
| title_sort | healthy or not healthy a mixed methods approach to evaluate front of pack nutrition labels as a tool to guide consumers |
| topic | FOP nutrition label consumer health promotion nutritional policy non-communicable disease ultra-processed food |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/14/14/2801 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT melvitodd healthyornothealthyamixedmethodsapproachtoevaluatefrontofpacknutritionlabelsasatooltoguideconsumers AT timothyguetterman healthyornothealthyamixedmethodsapproachtoevaluatefrontofpacknutritionlabelsasatooltoguideconsumers AT jakovolschenk healthyornothealthyamixedmethodsapproachtoevaluatefrontofpacknutritionlabelsasatooltoguideconsumers AT martinkidd healthyornothealthyamixedmethodsapproachtoevaluatefrontofpacknutritionlabelsasatooltoguideconsumers AT elizabethjoubert healthyornothealthyamixedmethodsapproachtoevaluatefrontofpacknutritionlabelsasatooltoguideconsumers |