The George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Melbourne Centre for Behaviour Change, Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
J Acad Nutr Diet. 2024 Jan;124(1):58-64.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2023.08.135. Epub 2023 Sep 9.
Given growing interest in warning labels as a form of front-of-pack nutrition label, it is important to better understand the mechanisms via which these labels may exert their effects, especially among those making suboptimal food choices.
The study aim was to assess the extent to which consumers with the weakest outcomes for objective understanding and choice in no-label conditions were able to improve their understanding and choices after exposure to warning labels on food product options.
Post-hoc analyses of the cross-sectional FOP-ICE (Front-of-Pack International Comparative Experimental) study data generated from an online survey that included simulated food choice and nutritional quality ranking scenarios.
PARTICIPANTS/SETTING: Participants included 3,680 adults from the following 18 countries: Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Mexico, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Singapore, Spain, Switzerland, United Kingdom, and United States.
Survey respondents selected their preferred product options and ranked foods according to their healthiness before and after exposure to mock breakfast cereal, cake, and pizza products displaying warning labels.
Objective understanding and food choice were measured.
Within each product category, analyses were conducted on respondents who initially incorrectly identified the healthiest option and/or selected the unhealthiest option as their preferred choice. Significant differences between proportions selecting each understanding and choice response option were assessed using 2-sample z tests for proportions.
Salience of the warning labels was low; 46% reported noticing the labels while completing the survey. Just over one-third of those aware of the presence of warning labels were able to identify the least healthy option in the post-exposure condition. Approximately one-half reselected the least healthy option post exposure and just over one-fourth switched to the healthiest option.
The results indicated that warning labels can assist some consumers to improve their food quality assessments and choices. However, design improvements could enhance the salience and interpretability of this label format.
鉴于人们对警告标签作为一种包装正面营养标签形式的兴趣日益浓厚,了解这些标签可能发挥作用的机制非常重要,尤其是在那些做出次优食物选择的人群中。
本研究旨在评估在无标签条件下,在客观理解和选择方面表现最差的消费者,在接触食品选项上的警告标签后,他们在理解和选择方面能够在多大程度上得到改善。
对来自在线调查的横断面 FOP-ICE(包装正面国际比较实验)研究数据进行了事后分析,该调查包括模拟食物选择和营养质量排名情景。
参与者/设置:参与者包括来自以下 18 个国家的 3680 名成年人:阿根廷、澳大利亚、比利时、保加利亚、加拿大、丹麦、法国、德国、意大利、墨西哥、荷兰、波兰、葡萄牙、新加坡、西班牙、瑞士、英国和美国。
调查受访者在接触模拟早餐麦片、蛋糕和比萨产品的警告标签之前和之后,选择他们喜欢的产品选项并根据健康程度对食物进行排名。
客观理解和食物选择。
在每个产品类别中,对最初错误识别最健康选项和/或选择最不健康选项作为首选的受访者进行了分析。使用两样本 z 检验比较了选择每个理解和选择响应选项的比例之间的显著差异。
警告标签的显著性较低;46%的受访者在完成调查时报告注意到了标签。只有略多于三分之一的意识到警告标签存在的人能够在暴露后条件下识别出最不健康的选项。大约一半的人在暴露后重新选择了最不健康的选项,略超过四分之一的人转而选择了最健康的选项。
结果表明,警告标签可以帮助一些消费者改善他们对食物质量的评估和选择。然而,设计改进可以提高这种标签格式的显著性和可理解性。