Qualitative consumer study related to nutrition content claims on food labels
3 Methodology
The research utilised a qualitative methodology consisting of ten 1.5 hour focus group discussions with consumers. Slightly more groups were allocated to Australia than New Zealand, as follows:
- Six groups in Australia;
- Four groups in New Zealand.
The group allocation was skewed in this way in consideration of Australia’s larger population and the desire to include additional locations, as well as to balance the skew of groups towards New Zealand in the concurrent study about Food Type Dietary Supplements.
3.1 Group Structure
In order to explore fully the issues of nutrition content claims, the research was conducted primarily with people who claim to use nutrition content claims in some way.
Previous research conducted by NFO Donovan Research identified that the following groups are more likely than other groups to use nutrition content claims:
- People aged 35-64;
- Females;
- People who are highly health conscious;
- People with special health needs.
For this reason, people who were less concerned about health issues, and very young consumers (under 25 years) and older consumers (65+ years) were excluded. Emphasis was placed on those who were more health conscious and people with special needs.
In order to enhance group synergy, groups were also structured to include the same socio economic status. The groups were therefore structured as follows:
Australian component:
Health consciousness Level | AGE GROUP | SES | |
25-44 | 45-64 | ||
1 - Special health needs |
| 2 groups | Low |
2 - Highly health conscious consumers | 2 groups |
| High/Low |
3 - Moderately health conscious consumers | 1 group | 1 group | High/Low |
New Zealand Component:
Health consciousness Level | AGE GROUP | SES | |
25-44 | 45-64 | ||
1 - Special health needs | 1 group | 1 group | Low |
2 - Highly health conscious consumers |
1 group
|
1 group | High |
3 - Moderately health conscious consumers | |||
Participants were recruited on the basis that they were ‘the main (or equal) household food shopper’. Most groups included a minimum of two males.
It was neither within the size nor scope of this research to conduct dedicated research groups with particular ethnic or indigenous groups in either country. It was determined by FSANZ that each of these special groups would be included in the study to the extent that the naturally occurred during recruitment. In New Zealand the natural selection of ethnic and in particular indigenous (Maori) people was greater than it was in Australia, and most New Zealand groups therefore included one or two ethnic and/or Maori participants.
3.2 Research Locations
Groups were held in three states/ territories in Australia and in two cities in the North Island of New Zealand. In Australia, states were selected to provide a mix of a more populous State (and a large metropolitan area) and a less populated State (and a mid-sized city).
The groups were mainly held in metropolitan locations, with two regional groups conducted in Australia. The smaller number of groups conducted in New Zealand did not permit the inclusion of a regional location.
AUSTRALIA | NEW ZEALAND | ||
Sydney | 1 group | Auckland | 2 groups |
Bathurst | 1 group | Wellington | 2 groups |
Wollongong | 1 group |
|
|
Canberra (pilot) | 1 group |
|
|
Perth | 2 groups |
|
|
Total | 6 groups |
| 4 groups |
One group was used to pilot the discussion guide and group procedure. This group was held in Canberra.
3.3 Recruitment
To ensure quality recruitment services and compliance with privacy legislation, all participants were recruited using IQCA accredited recruitment companies. Companies used were J&S Research (NSW and ACT), Surveys Australia (WA) and NFO New Zealand.
Potential participants were selected on the basis of their responses to a recruitment screening questionnaire, which was in accordance with the group structure characteristics above (Appendix A). Approximately eight people attended each focus group and a total of eighty-four people participated in the study.
Metropolitan groups were held in focus group facilities whereas non-metropolitan groups were held in a central location to participants (ie hotel function room, community centre).
Australian participants were offered AUD50 for their time and New Zealand participants were offered NZD40. These amounts are in keeping with ‘standard’ consumer rates in each country.
3.4 Discussion Guide and Group Procedure
NFO Donovan Research developed a Discussion Guide in consultation with FSANZ, taking into account the issues that had been identified in the project brief and subsequent meetings. The discussion topics moved through familiarity with and use of each of eight different types of nutrition content claims, perceptions of trust towards various claims, and reactions to a range of labelling alternatives, disclaimers and disqualifying criteria for nutrition content claims. A copy of the discussion guide can be found in Appendix B.
All sessions were conducted in a structured way in order to cover the breadth of issues and claim types, and to increase engagement with the issues.
Two individual written tasks on familiarity and use of nutrition content claims were completed at the commencement of each group prior to the influence of the group discussion (Appendix C).
In order to focus the discussion on each of the different types of nutrition content claims under investigation (see Section 6), the moderator referred to hand-held showcards (Appendix D) that displayed nutrition content claims. A range of different products were also provided, which participants could pick up and pass around. Owing to the extensive amount of information that needed to be covered for each type of nutrition content claim, each focus group covered only four of the eight types of nutrition content claims.
The results indicate high familiarity with and use of one or more types of nutrition content claims, and a fairly good capacity to interpret claims using the NIP. This may reflect the fact that this study only includes ‘highly’ and ‘moderately’ health conscious consumers, and those with a ‘special health need’ (each are defined in Appendix 2). However, there is also evidence [1] to suggest that these groups of consumers are in fact the majority rather than minority of consumers in Australia and New Zealand. For the purposes of this study function claims were regarded separately to nutrition content claims, and are not included in discussions. References to ‘consumers’ refer to consumers in this study. Although the study involved a reasonably large number of consumers for qualitative research (n=84), it must be remembered that the results of this research cannot be extrapolated to the general population. This is because participants recruited to qualitative research are drawn from large group participant databases, rather than the total population of Australian and New Zealand households. A mix of metropolitan and regional locations was included so as to capture the broad spectrum of views and experiences, which may be influenced by geographic location, rather than to draw comparisons between locations. Obvious differences between Australia and New Zealand consumers are reported. Following accepted best practice for reporting qualitative research, this report:4 Preface
5 Our approach to the INCLUSION of nutrition content claims
As part of the research brief for this project, FSANZ provided a summary of the various nutrition content claims that were to be investigated. These were divided into eight different categories:
- Comparative claims – using terms such as ‘reduced’, ‘increased’, or ‘less than’;
- ‘Free’ – eg ‘sugar free’, ‘fat free’, ‘cholesterol free’ and ‘gluten free’. ‘Gluten free’ was excluded from the study after the pilot group because it raised too many distracting issues that were not central to this project;
- ‘% fat free’ – eg ‘99% fat free’, ‘96% fat free’ etc;
- Cholesterol – using terms such as ‘low in cholesterol’, ‘reduced in cholesterol’ and ‘cholesterol free’;
- Carbohydrate and protein claims – using terms such as ‘high in’, ‘low in’, and ‘source of’;
- ‘No added sugar’, ‘unsweetened’ and ‘no added salt / sodium’
- ‘Lite / light’claims; and
- ‘Diet’claims.
During the group discussion and written tasks these eight categories were referred to as ‘eight different types of claims’ and results for each category are presented in separate sections of this report.
[1] Food Labelling Issues: Quantitative Research with Consumers. FSANZ Evaluation Report Series No 4
Full Report [ pdf format 985 kb ]
Home | Top | Results - Part A | Results - Part B | Results - Part C | Appendixes