Abstract

Few studies have examined how consumers use the Nutrition Facts table (NFT) and front‐of‐pack nutrition rating systems (FOPS) when presented with one or both sets of nutrition information, and whether there is an interaction between the two systems. 337 online survey participants were randomized to rate the healthiness of a frozen meal under one of five FOPS conditions, with or without a NFT: 1) no‐FOPS, 2) a manufacturer or 3) a non‐profit style summary indicator system (SIS), or 4) a traffic light or 5) a percent daily value nutrient‐specific system (NSS). Mann‐Whitney U tests were used to evaluate rating differences. When consumers were shown the various FOPS without a NTF, the non‐profit SIS group gave higher healthiness ratings than the NSS groups; the no‐ FOPS and the manufacturer SIS groups gave higher ratings than the percent daily value group (P<0.05). Other group comparisons were not significant. When consumers were shown the various FOPS with a NFT, none of the FOPS groups ratings were significantly different. Between no‐NFT/NFT conditions, consumers in the no‐FOPS and SIS groups gave higher healthiness ratings without a NFT. These results suggest that when provided with additional nutrition information on a product, as in NSSs and NFTs, consumers incorporate this information into their healthiness evaluations. Supported by Dairy Farmers of Canada, AFMNet, & CCO/CIHR Training Grant(#53893)

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.