High hopes for front-of-pack (FOP) nutrition labels? A conjoint analysis on the trade-offs between a FOP label, nutrition claims, brand and price for different consumer segments.

An increasing number of studies investigate the effect of front-of-pack (FOP) nutrition labels on consumer choice without considering differences in consumer preferences for product attributes. This study used a choice-based conjoint analysis to test consumers' preferences for four product attributes (5 levels of a FOP nutrition label, absence/presence of a nutrition claim, brand (unfamiliar, private label or premium) and 5 levels of price) when they coexist (n = 1156). As the consumer preferences showed distinct patterns (multimodality), consumers were subsequently clustered based on how a FOP nutrition label (Nutri-Score) influenced their food choices. Three consumer segments were identified, each valuing the Nutri-Score label differently. The label effectively seems to nudge one segment toward healthier choices (n = 456), while in contrast, another segment is unexpectedly steered toward unhealthier food choices by the label (n = 343). The third segment is only consistently nudged by the FOP label's extremes (n = 357). The segments also differ in their preferences for other product attributes (brand and price), health involvement, and self-reported understanding and use of the Nutri-Score, but not in the measured socio-demographic variables (age, sex, education, social class), dieting or smoking habits. In summary, consumers vary in their food label preferences, and studies that pool consumers may fail to capture these nuances, leading to biased results. This study shows that FOP labels do not steer all consumers toward healthier choices and may even have adverse effects for some. This suggests combining different policies and marketing strategies to reach all consumer segments.