Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, VU Medical Centre, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Choices International Foundation, PO Box 10218, 2501 HE The Hague, The Netherlands.
Nutrients. 2019 Mar 14;11(3):626. doi: 10.3390/nu11030626.
Many different front-of-pack (FOP) nutrition labels have been introduced worldwide. To continue the debate on the most effective FOP labels for increased consumer health, full comprehension of their visual and functional features is relevant. This paper compares and provides an overview of all FOP labels currently in practice or in preparation in Europe, by means of the visually oriented Funnel Model. The Funnel Models were completed in collaboration with the respective FOP labelling initiatives. In total, six positive FOP labels, two mixed FOP labels and one negative FOP label were compared. There are multiple similarities and differences between the FOP labels, with each FOP label being characterised by a unique set of criteria and methodological approach. This Funnel Model comparison provides the knowledge to ultimately find more common ground for all stakeholders involved in the FOP labelling debate. Importantly, implementation and evaluation activities carried out by FOP labelling organisations are crucial success factors for FOP labels in practice. We conclude that more attention should be paid to methodological differences between FOP labels and recommend that the current comparison is expanded to a global level and periodically updated, as the variety of FOP labels in the global marketplace is changing constantly.
许多不同的预包装食品（FOP）营养标签已在全球范围内推出。为了继续就最有效的 FOP 标签以提高消费者健康展开辩论，全面了解其视觉和功能特点至关重要。本文通过视觉导向的漏斗模型，对欧洲目前正在实施或筹备中的所有 FOP 标签进行了比较和概述。漏斗模型是与各自的 FOP 标签倡议合作完成的。共有六个正面 FOP 标签、两个混合 FOP 标签和一个负面 FOP 标签进行了比较。FOP 标签之间有许多相似之处和不同之处，每个 FOP 标签都有其独特的一套标准和方法。这种漏斗模型比较提供了知识，最终可以为参与 FOP 标签辩论的所有利益相关者找到更多共同点。重要的是，FOP 标签组织实施和评估活动是 FOP 标签在实践中取得成功的关键因素。我们的结论是，应该更加关注 FOP 标签之间的方法学差异，并建议将当前的比较扩展到全球范围，并定期更新，因为全球市场上的 FOP 标签种类在不断变化。
