A Qualitative consumer study related to food-type dietary supplement labelling

7  Nutrition content claims and nutritional information   | 8 Non-culinary Herbs  |  9  Concluding comments about consumer education and further research

7   Nutrition content claims and nutritional information

7.1   Nutrition Content Claims

How do consumers view vitamin & mineral claims?

Because they are the kind of supplementation most readily identified by consumers vitamin and mineral claims have been documented earlier in this report.

The consumption of vitamins and minerals via food supplementation, whether it be to rectify nutrient deficiencies or for a general diet top up, was viewed positively. Participants were on the whole unconcerned about the proliferation of products carrying vitamin and mineral claims, very much adopting a ‘more is better’ approach in making food choices, so long as non-supplemented products remained readily available and identifiable to the majority who were not interested in supplementation.

Generally participants were unable to make assessments about how much of particular vitamins and minerals there are, or should be, in specific supplemented foods. Whilst they did not know if there should be or if there were any maximum levels permitted in supplemented foods, one or two participants expressed a concern that there should be maximum levels for children’s and baby’s foods. Compared to their views about the need for maximum levels, most participants felt more strongly that there should be minimum levels that had to be added when using a vitamin or mineral content claim.

Do supplementation claims infer that the product is healthy?

Whilst ‘inquiring’ label readers were able to use other label information to verify the over-all nutritional value of a food, many others assumed that products with nutrition content claims must be healthy because of the claim.

A rare view was that supplemented foods confuse consumers into believing they can achieve balanced nutrition through these food choices.

“I think we live in a society that is so health obsessed with “am I getting the right nutrients”, “has this got vitamins in it”, “is this pure”, I’m quite suspicious about how relevant all this really is.   I try to eat a meal with at least three vegetables at least once a day, and try to pack down some fruit as well and I consider that’s a relatively balanced diet…I work with this girl who is 20 and I never see her eating anything green, but she does pop a multivitamin pill, and I’m concerned that instead of having an understanding of what a good balanced diet really is, all this stuff with supplemented this and added that and enough of that basically misleads people into thinking you can get away with not eating a proper diet, and getting away with getting all you need with a supplemented bit here and an added bit there…it is leading us totally down the wrong track.” 
[Aust., upper SES, special health needs,45-64yrs]

The NIP is used in verifying vitamin and mineral content claims

‘Inquiring’ label readers and those very interested in health were deliberately selecting supplemented foods by using the NIP - to verify the nutrition content claim, to compare it to other products with similar claims or to a ‘regular’ counterpart food, and to build their knowledge about how much of the claimed substance the product contained. The ingredients list was also used by some of these participants for this reason, but to a lesser extent.  

However, even these highly motivated participants did not feel confident in their ability to monitor how much of a particular vitamin or mineral they were consuming. Those wishing to do this found references to the RDI, either in a claim or in the NIP more useful than absolute amounts, measured in units such as milligrams.

Overall however, inquirers held the NIP in higher esteem than any nutrition content claim on the front of the pack, and spoke of bypassing the claims and referring directly to the NIP to ascertain what was in the product.

Another smaller proportion of participants (inquirers, as well as some believers) reported that they valued the NIP as a ‘fall back’ or ‘safety’ measure. In this context it was regarded as something that they could use if they felt they were uncertain or concerned about how much of an added vitamin or mineral was in a FTDS, even though they may not actually do so very often.

Vitamin and mineral content claims are just ‘marketing’

Nutrition content claims, were generally regarded as ‘marketing’ – partly because of their size, colour, format and position on the front of the pack, and because not all products carried such claims.   

“With things like these added supplement things I am quite cynical about them and I see them entirely as a marketing ploy, wow it has got Vitamin A or Vitamin D, I think that is a marketing ploy to sell more because that puts it above other types of brands.”  [NZ, upper SES, special health needs, 25-44yrs].

“I just find it an advertising ploy.   All these things have always had these, vitamin A, vitamin B, but the more health conscious we become, the more they point it out so we buy them.”  [Aust., lower SES, health conscious, 24-44yrs]

There was no knowledge of any ‘rules’ or standards relating to the nutrition content claims made. Whilst participants felt that they may be “true”, it was believed that manufacturers use these claims because they are selling points.  

Therefore, there was an expectation that some foods making nutrition content claims may have the same level of the claimed nutrient as a food that is not making a claim.  

These claims can also be misleading for some consumers

Several participants in most groups viewed such claims as misleading, particularly because they suggested that a product was healthier than it actually was, or might be.

  “…put it in there and make you feel you are doing something good when you are actually eating something bad”  [referring to calcium supplemented biscuits] [NZ, lower SES, health conscious,18-24yrs]

“I believe it’s a sales pitch and they are trying to deceive people”  [NZ, lower SES, health conscious,18-24yrs]

Some participants were extremely concerned about ‘other’ consumers being mislead into thinking that these foods were healthy food choices for children. Examples included advertising and on-product claims about added calcium in biscuits, and added iron in chocolate breakfast cereal products.

“I think the danger of it is, it is all right if they are aware of the food but the problem is there are people who don’t know anything and think that it’s healthy because it says ‘dietary supplement’ and that it is healthy because it says ‘added’ this and do think chocolate bickies are a good idea instead of steak because they just don’t know”  [NZ, upper SES, special health needs, 25-44yrs].

Similarly, one or two participants in many groups were concerned for ‘others’ who might be misled into substituting FTDS for a healthy diet.  

“The only thing? I think is there is a danger of people stopping eating natural food and just having that kind of food, so you don’t actually go out and buy fruit and vegetables’[NZ, lower SES, health conscious, 18-24yrs ]

There was no suggestion that these concerned participants were themselves being misled.  

7.2     ' Source of ', 'good source of ' and,'excellent source of '

These terms are too subjective and meaningless

There was some conflict about these claims, with almost all participants in this study doubting that one food’s “excellent” or “good” source claim would necessarily imply the same level as another food’s “excellent” or “good” source claim.

“It is very subjective isn’t it…I wouldn’t believe something like that.”  [Aust., lower SES, less concerned about health, 45-64yrs]

“You’d think one is a mild version and one is a maximum one, kind of higher. Well you’d think that but you wouldn’t believe it…that’s what it is trying to get you are, but then you’d read the back and see “well is it or not?”

These terms are regarded as just marketing….

There was a widespread belief that ‘source’ claims are nothing more than a manufacturer’s attempt to sell their product. No participant in this study was aware that the use of these claims is regulated through minimum content standards, although once the issue was raised some hoped that this would be the case. Whilst at least a couple of participants in each group were indifferent to these claims, most participants including those who do not refer to nutrition content claims, felt they could not be trusted.  

Participants’ innate cynicism about product marketing claims meant that they were more sceptical of the greater claim ‘excellent source of’ than they were ‘source of’, and consequently focussed on this example when expressing their views. No participant was aware that the term ‘excellent source’ was currently prohibited – until they were informed otherwise by the Moderator, most assumed that it was in current use. The following comments are indicative of what most participants thought ‘excellent source of’ claims meant.

“that it’s excellent for every individual who’s going to be eating it. From their [the manufacturer’s] point of view. That’s what they’re trying to say.”

“They think their product is excellent and they’re trying to sell it to us”  [NZ, upper SES, special health needs, 18-24yrs]

“it’s just a marketing thing.   I’ve never thought of those words having meaning…it’s just a marketing ploy.”  [NZ, lower SES, health conscious, 45-64yrs]

“It is not seductive, just to say “source” whereas “excellent” is seductive.”  [Aust., upper SES, special health needs, 45-64yrs]

“says who?   I mean excellent, that’s their opinion”  [NZ, upper SES, special health needs, 18-24yrs]

There was no indication from any participant that the ‘source of’ claim implied that the whole product is necessarily healthier, ‘good’ or ‘excellent’, compared to a product that does not carry a claim.

“but excellent is just their interpretation. It can be an excellent mix for a chocolate bar too but it doesn’t mean it’s excellent”  [NZ, upper SES, special health needs, 18-24yrs]

However there was some concern expressed for ‘other’ participants who might be misled by these claims.

Amongst those who were interested, there was a preference for quantified claims that were less subjective and ambiguous.

“it sounds misleading to me …because it’s not quantifiable.   Show me the percentage or show me the extra grams”  [NZ, upper SES, special health needs, 18-24yrs]

“give me actual percentages and figures”  [NZ, lower SES, health conscious, 18-24yrs]

At this point during this discussion in most groups, reference to the %RDI was suggested. However it should be noted that, across the whole study, most participants did not engage in detailed discussion about how the %RDI would be helpful and it is inferred by the researchers that whilst many participants would find a quantified claim more meaningful, they would not know what to do with that information unless they were also educated about the RDI ‘system’.

Uncertainty as to whether it is an added or an intrinsic nutrient

Some participants questioned whether the ‘source of’ claim refers to a source nutrient that has been added, to one which is intrinsically present in the food, or a combination of both. The groups were largely uncertain about this, and often became confused. Even after considerable discussion on this issue, participants were unable to resolve this question.  

“It sounds like it’s naturally occurring, it doesn’t sound like they’ve actually added it in. It just says this is already in the food and if you eat this that’s what its got in it”  [NZ, upper SES, special health needs, 18-24yrs]

“whether it has been added or whether it is actually there naturally because if I read that I would look at it and think it was naturally there because it is saying this is an excellent source, I am selling you a great tasting smoothie, it is a great source of calcium but I haven’t added it”  [NZ, upper SES, special health needs, 25-44yrs]

  “I think they need to say something like this is an excellent source because we have added these things rather than this is an excellent source tied up with what the product would naturally be a source of as opposed to now we have added all these things.”  [NZ, upper SES, special health needs, 25-44yrs]

Clearly many consumers want and need to be better informed and equipped so as to be able to distinguish between foods containing fortified versus intrinsic nutrients.

Consumers are unaware that ‘source’ claims are linked to the RDI.

There was absolutely no awareness that these terms have a regulated definition based on the %RDI they contribute; however that is exactly what many interested consumers would find useful.

“you’ve got to be able to compare them across like that because if you saw source and you saw good source; if they’re not right along side of each other it’s like anything there’s no relationship made.”  [NZ, upper SES, less concerned about health, 25-44yrs]

When participants were presented with the current %RDI levels applied to these terms, they expressed surprise that levels were applied.

“It would be nice to know that.   I didn’t know that.”  [Aust]

Once participants were made aware of the levels, they readily accepted that “excellent source” claims should refer to foods with more of the nutrient in question than foods claiming “good source.” Groups generally felt that “excellent source” should refer to foods with at least 30% of RDI (the minimum amount suggested), relative to the 25% amount for 'good source’. Participants in several other groups suggested that 50% of RDI was appropriate, and one extreme view suggested 100%.

However, this issue immediately raised the need for education around these levels.

“I think the problem is we are so unaware of the rules…we don’t know the “good” or “excellent”, I didn’t even know there are rules. They should make use of education, even on the boxes…what it means.”  [Aust., lower SES, health conscious, 24-44yrs]

“Personally none of those words mean anything to me. It’s the same. It’s like source of iron, good source of, excellent source of. It means the same thing. It’s all just government stuff and we don’t know what it means. So what does it mean to me as a consumer? It’s just a regulation stuff and unless we’re educated as to what these words mean they’re useless”  [NZ, lower SES, health conscious, 45-64yrs]

Some felt that ‘source of’ claims needed to be verified, particularly if they were not considered to be a “trustworthy brand”, or if the claimed nutrient was one that they were particularly interested in.

“if it’s something that you wanted then you’d actually look at what it actually had, you wouldn’t just be swayed by oh this is excellent so I’ll buy it.”  [NZ, upper SES, special health needs, 18-24yrs]

“You’d think one is a mild version and one is a maximum one, kind of higher. Well you’d think that but you wouldn’t believe it…that’s what it is trying to get you are, but then you’d read the back and see “well is it or not?”

7.3   Reactions to potential additional labelling elements

In an effort to minimise consumer confusion in relation to nutrition messages about diet and health, FSANZ is also seeking information to assess the feasibility of additional labelling elements on FTDS to assist consumers in making informed food choices. Therefore the study examined participants’ reactions to three additional labelling elements:

1. A trigger statement which directs consumers to the NIP;
   
   
2. A statement cautioning consumers against regarding FTDS as ‘magic bullets’ eg. ‘this product should be consumed in the context of a healthy, balanced diet’; and
   
   
3. An additional column in the NIP - % RDI or %Daily Intake.

1.       A trigger statement which directs consumers to the NIP

The example used for a trigger statement was “Contains calcium.   See panel on back”.

The majority of participants with an interest in their vitamin and mineral intake were already using the NIP to evaluate particular nutrients relevant to them. They felt that they did not need to be directed to the panel.

However there were also participants in most groups who were not familiar with using the NIP and found it intimidating or confusing. For some, a trigger statement rendered the product too much hard work, with the result that the product would be avoided.

“I mean if you’re looking at the back of the label and you’re doing that automatically and you’re doing it on every product – for your health and being fussy about what you eat and all this.   But if you don’t bother looking at the back and it says refer to the back you’d just leave that one there and go and pick up the other item…if it says look at the back you’ll say ‘forget that.”  [NZ, lower SES, health conscious, 45-64yrs]

However, a benefit of this statement is that it “alerts you the product has been modified.”  For those avoiding additives or ‘altered’ products, this was seen as useful.

An isolated view was that this type of statement made the product more credible because it implied that the manufacturer has nothing to hide, offering proof of the claim on the back of the panel:

“like they’re saying ‘we’re not lying to you, you can see the proof’.”  [NZ, upper SES, special health needs,18-24yrs]

2.      A statement cautioning consumers against regarding FTDS as ‘magic bullets’ eg. ‘this product should be consumed in the context of a healthy, balanced diet’

This statement was received differently by different   participants.   Some felt this was obvious and condescending to shoppers.

“It is common knowledge.   It is like saying ‘don’t poke yourself in the eye with the box.”  [Aust., lower SES, health conscious, 24-44yrs]

For others it was meaningless and had no clear call to action.

“If I saw that I’d think well theoretically everything should be in the context of a healthy balanced diet”

“what is a balanced diet?

‘how balanced can it be if you’re grabbing it and eating it on the run.   For the vitamins because you’re lacking in something anyway.”[NZ, upper SES, less concerned about health, 25-44yrs]

And for others again, this statement was seen as a good way of cautioning vulnerable shoppers, such as those less experienced, and children, who may inadvertently consume excessive amounts of a supplemented product.

Overall, this statement was regarded as an idealistic health education message rather than a motivator to further investigate the product’s claim.  

3.      An additional column in the NIP - % RDI or %Daily Intake

The usefulness of %RDI information has been well documented earlier in this report. Some active label readers had come across a voluntary % RDI statement (or % DI column) on products such as breakfast cereals. Amongst these participants this information was regarded as useful.

Most participants generally preferred a claim on the front of the package that included %RDI or %DI information (that is a requirement for manufacturers to include the RDI comparison in their own claim), as opposed to an additional word statement on the front of the package, such as the other two examples, or a ‘dietary supplement’ term’. A %RDI was also seen as a preferable claim format, as opposed to “excellent source” as the amount of the nutrient could be immediately verified.  

“It gives you the information you need on which to base a judgement.”  [Aust., lower SES, less concerned about health, 45-64yrs]

Other additional information? 

Other isolated suggestions included statements that were more definitive, such as ‘not suitable for’ or ‘not a replacement…’.  

“then they should write something like ‘not intended for’.”

“additional to your daily needs”

Others preferred symbols rather than words:

“a symbol is a good idea because then you can just look and if you’re interested you can then refer yourself to the panel”   [NZ, lower SES, health conscious, 45-64yrs]

7 .4   Recommended Dietary Intakes (RDI)

The majority of participants were familiar with the term ‘RDI’, ‘recommended daily intake’ or ‘recommended daily allowance’. Awareness was greatest in New Zealand, and was lowest in the ‘less concerned about health’ groups in both countries. Their awareness had come from reading labels, (nutrition content claims and the NIP), from reading nutrition related information in books and magazines, and from television advertising or nutrition segments in lifestyle programs. Those participants with ‘special health needs’ had often learned from doctors or other health professionals.

Most participants correctly understood the term to mean the amount of a particular nutrient you should or could have, although not all were aware that it was a daily allowance. However, their understanding of how to interpret how much a particular product would contribute to their intake, via a serve or by consuming the whole packet, was considerably lower. Only those who were experienced at using the NIP to compare products were able to demonstrate a capacity to compare the amount of RDI offered by two different supplemented products. There was also very poor understanding of how ‘one’ RDI could be established for ‘everybody’, and some questioned whether it was therefore applicable to their individual circumstances. Whilst most trusted that the RDI amount, and claims made around the RDI must be ‘true’, many at the same time questioned how reliable the RDI was, given that people’s needs varied with age, gender, weight, pregnancy etc. They did not know that there were different RDIs; for example, for men and women, children, or pregnant and lactating women, but that the RDI used on a product for the purposes of food labelling is usually based on the average or midpoint value (for example, for men and women).

At the same time as being very familiar with the notion of an RDI, very few participants were confident in their capacity to monitor exactly how much of a particular vitamin or mineral they were consuming, using the units and amounts referred to on labels. There appeared to be virtually no understanding of whether a certain quantity of a vitamin, in milligrams, was high or low. However, based on the peripheral discussion in this study, and the observations of the same researchers in the concurrent study on nutrition content claims, this would have been true for most nutrients, with the exception in some cases of fat and sugar.

Statements that claim a food contains more than 100% of RDI were confusing, as participants weren’t sure if this was a safe level or potentially harmful.

“Surely when you have 100% that is it.”  [Aust., lower SES, health conscious, 24-44yrs]

Participants were asked about whether they thought there should be any limitations placed on the amount of any nutrients added to foods, such as ‘no more than X% of nutrient A’.  

Other than the limitations discussed earlier in this section, participants had little more to contribute on this issue. The breadth of opinions ranged from indifference, to isolated suggestions that no FTDS product should provide more than 10%, 50% and 100% of the recommended intake for a day. No participant felt sufficiently knowledgeable, interested or concerned about supplementation to be able to offer a strong view about any specific nutrients. The few suggestions that were offered were wholly speculative, based on participants’ ad-hoc awareness of the better known vitamins and minerals, such as Vitamin C, and iron, rather than indicating a considered view or real concern.

8.1   Awareness and use of non-culinary herbs

Familiarity with food products supplemented with non-culinary herbs was much lower than vitamin and mineral FTDS, and subsequently the number of participants who reported using these foods was also very low.

When the category of ‘non-culinary herbs was introduced it did not elicit any spontaneous recall of particular substances, except in the younger aged New Zealand groups where a few participants in each group recalled spirulina products. Once mentioned, these products were familiar to most younger participants, with several in each group mentioning they had either bought spirulina powder to make it up as a drink, or had purchased the ready made spirulina juices. These young people were trialing and using spirulina products for general health benefits, or for hangover recovery.

When prompted with the labelling examples ‘contains echinacea/ginseng/ginkgo/St John’s wort about half the participants in most groups recognised at least one. Echinacea was most widely recognised, irrespective of age, and was known for its association with preventing colds. The least recognised was St John’s wort.   Whilst a number of older participants (aged 44+yrs) knew exactly what this was and its properties as an anti-depressant, 3-4 younger participants (18-25yrs) had never heard of it and found its name extremely off-putting.

A very small number of participants recalled having bought tea products containing echinacea, ginseng and St John’s Wort. One person recognised a juice product with echinacea, and recalled having tried it recently. Mostly their awareness and use of these herbs was contained to pills, capsules and alternative health practices.

With so few participants having deliberately purchased FTDS with herbs there was little opportunity to explore the role of labelling in their purchase decision.   Those who had bought tea and juice products had done so after the nutrition content claim drew the supplemented substance to their attention. Whilst most participants reported that they could use the ingredients list to find out whether a product contained added herbs, most acknowledged that, in practice, if they were to buy such a product it would be after having noticed the nutrition content claim.

8.2   Perceptions of non-culinary herbs in FTDS

Almost all participants in this study were either positively or neutrally disposed towards the supplementation of foods with non-culinary herbs. There were very few concerns amongst participants, and not a single strong objection in any group. The reasons why almost all participants felt this way may well relate to their general attitudes towards and beliefs about the ‘healthiness’ of these substances, as discussed below.

Apart from three or four participants who found the name St Johns wort off-putting, the majority belief was that these types of substances are wholly beneficial. They were consistently described as “natural”, that they “suggest health”, and “prevent things”. A short discussion between three younger participants below is indicative of the general perceptions that most participants held about these substances.

“it has more of a positive connotation because they are more natural herbs or what ever rather than contains sodium or calcium or whatever.” 

“yes and when you see those sort of things you think, oh, good for you.”

“herbs, natural…”  [NZ, upper SES, special health needs, 18-24yrs]

Therefore those participants who were unfamiliar with these herbs perceived that there was no harm in including them in foods, provided they could readily identify and avoid the supplemented products if they wanted to. Participants were on the whole, unconcerned about the proliferation of products carrying non-culinary herb content claims, very much adopting a ‘more is better’ approach with regards to product choice.

In contrast to their perceptions about vitamin and mineral FTDS, non-culinary herbs FTDS were not at all seen as a food or meal replacement, but rather something that is chosen occasionally, such as echinacea in cold and flu season, or St John’s wort when one is feeling a bit down.  

8.3   Impact of non-culinary herbs on labelling

Whilst almost all participants were either supportive of, or indifferent to, the inclusion of herbs in FTDS, there was a unanimous belief that these products must be labelled as such. Underlying reasons for this belief ranged from a broad wish to know exactly what is in the food that people eat, to a more informed concern about the potential interaction between substances such as St John’s wort and medications such as antidepressants.

Views about how these products should be labelled were divided between a preference for quantified labels versus those who felt that nutrition content claims such as ‘contains X’ were adequate. The latter was the majority view, however those who advocated for quantified labels were more engaged on the issue.

For these participants, statements referring to non-culinary herbs such as “contains ginseng” were seen as useless without information about the level of these nutrients. This was due in part to the low awareness of the purpose of these substances.   Participants instead preferred a statement that claimed the amount of the nutrient in the food, so they could avoid it if, for example, they had a particular allergy.

“Because if it is like one per cent ginkgo, then you are not going to worry about it, but if it’s thirty per cent then you might need to.”  [Aust., upper SES, special health needs, 45-64yrs]

Most, however, felt there was no need to quantify how much was in the product.   One reason for this was that, for many, herbs were not seen as ‘essential’ like vitamins were, and thus there appeared to be no real need to know.   For others, their lack of knowledge about these substances meant that they had either never thought about relative or incremental amounts herbs in foods – either they were in food, or they weren’t.  

As well, because most had no interest in looking for foods with herbs, how much of it was in the product was immaterial to them.

“I wouldn’t feel I’d need that quantified.   I wouldn’t need to see a figure.   I’d just say ‘ok, well that’s cool’ and if you were comparing product with product then you’d turn around and say ‘oh this one has some so I’ll buy that.”

Moderator:   “does anyone else think it should be quantified?”

“it should be, but more likely yes, I’d see it and just take it anyway because it sounds natural.”  [NZ, upper SES, special health needs, 18-24yrs]

9.1   Consumer education

Throughout the conduct of this study there emerged a growing need to inform consumers about labels and label information, and an increasingly obvious need for consumer education on how to use and interpret labels. This need was best summed up with the comment:

“Personally none of those words mean anything to me. It’s the same. It’s like source of iron, good source of, excellent source of.   It means the same thing.   It’s all just government stuff and we don’t know what it means. So what does it mean to me as a consumer?   It’s just a regulation stuff and unless we’re educated as to what these words mean they’re useless”  [NZ, lower SES, health conscious, 45-64yrs, Section 7.2]

With regards to FTDS, and the prescribed term ‘dietary supplement’, it is safe to conclude, based on the research findings, that the term is not likely to lead to significantly greater consumption of FTDS, and indeed could well prevent such uptake if displayed in a more obvious way. However, FSANZ may wish to give consideration to the reasons why consumers are likely to behave in this way. Unless consumers are expressly informed what the prescribed term means, in relation to FTDS products and comparative products, then most will continue to lack any understanding of the implications of those products for their diet. Used in the way it is currently displayed, the label is unlikely to change consumer awareness or use of these foods. However it should be noted that until now, the prescription of the term ‘dietary supplement’ has not been intended to inform or caution consumers, but rather for identification and enforcement purposes.

In essence, there seems little point in drawing consumers’ attention to moderate to high amounts of substances or ingredients in dietary supplements, via a prescribed term, unless they are also informed about what to do about it. If the intent of a prescribed term moves towards alerting consumers to moderate to high amounts of a vitamin, mineral or non-culinary herb, then consumers do want to be advised of any potential adverse effects. .  

However, consumers’ current level of information and understanding about supplementation and nutritional information is such that these two pre-conditions for informed choice, that underpins the rationale for many labelling, is not being met. Adding further information on food labels to reflect the addition of nutrients or herbal components of foods will not be meaningful to consumers unless they are also educated about the meaning behind that information, and how to use it.

At present, consumers’ choices based on the majority of label information, including supplement-related claims, do not reflect informed decision making but are, instead, a response to the effectiveness of marketing of the product

9.2   Further research

To some extent, the research has attempted to gain information from consumers on issues about which they know very little, or have very limited familiarity with. This is mainly due to the low penetration of FTDS labelled with the prescribed term ‘dietary supplement’ in the market place, and although legible, the low prominence of the term, on those products that are labelled with it.

Whilst the research participants’ contributions regarding awareness of and beliefs and opinions about FTDS have provided valuable insight, their comments about the use of these foods is largely speculation and hypothesising about their likely behavioural intentions. Rarely were they drawing on actual experiences. The research results have exposed an inability amongst most consumers to comment on a category of foods (FTDS) that they have not and cannot distinguish from other general foods.

To better uncover consumers’ reactions and responses to potential FTDS labelling, and thus gain more meaningful input into the labelling ‘debate’, it is recommended that further labelling research be considered. This research would be viewed as an extension of the present study, but would incorporate an initial educative process, as well as observational research. It is acknowledged that such a process would not be replicating consumers’ current information level, but instead advancing it.   However it would be useful to ascertain what level of information and education is needed in order for consumers to utilise FTDS and nutrition content labelling in the way in which it is intended - ie what is the base level of information that consumers need in order to use labels to make informed choices? Such an approach would also provide opportunities to more validly investigate consumers’ attitudinal and behavioural responses to FTDS labelling.

Top  | Home  |  Executive summary  |  Methodology and Limitations |  Detailed findings  Part A  | Appendixes

Full report  [  pdf format 1428 kb ]