Qualitative consumer study related to nutrition content claims on food labels
Results - Part A
6 The role of nutrition content claims in food shopping
Consumers in Australia and New Zealand do not distinguish immediately between nutrition content claims and other specific label elements, nor do they clearly distinguish between different types of nutrition content claims.
Label reading, and nutrition content claim reading in particular, is largely a spontaneous behaviour that is done to varying extents depending on a range of factors – the product itself; familiarity with the product or brand; time available; reasons for buying the product and for whom; and interest in or concern about the nutritional value of the food, or particular nutrient(s) of interest. Whilst many consumers in this research initially denied that they are label readers, most could nonetheless contribute extensively to the discussion about nutrition content claims and demonstrated having paid repeated, if not regular attention to them.
Key findings:
|
6.1 Who uses nutrition content claims?
Included in this study were consumers with wide ranging interest in nutrition label information, and nutrition content claims. As discussed earlier (see Section 4), this study excluded consumers who are unconcerned about the nutritional composition and health implications of the foods they buy. However, we hypothesise that this is a relatively small proportion of the population. |
Most consumers in this study fell into one of three ‘types’ of shoppers, when it comes to using nutrition content claims:inquirers,believers and non-users. Each is described below.
The majority of consumers were inquirers
About two thirds of the participants in this study could be described as ‘inquirers’. Inquirers are interested in the health or nutritional value of the foods they buy. They often question the validity of nutrition content claims and are sufficiently motivated to further assess the nutritional value of the product, usually by using the NIP or ingredients list. Inquirers are not totally preoccupied by nutrition – only the most health conscious of shoppers, usually those with a special health need, embark on a shopping trip with their primary goal being to buy, for example, ‘low fat’ or ‘cholesterol free’. However, inquirers draw on their awareness and know-how when prompted by nutrition content claims.
Inquirers are not a homogenous group, and differ by the varying motivators and drivers behind their interest in health, and differing degrees of commitment to the amount of effort they will put into product assessment. Consequently, there are various ‘shades’ of inquirers, and there are times throughout this report when it is important to make a distinction between this large group of inquirer participants, in which case they are referred to as ‘less active’ and ‘more active’ and ‘very active’ inquirers. |
Inquirers have at least one nutrient that is significant to them. Indeed, many inquirers have two or three ‘significant nutrients’, which are unconsciously arranged in a hierarchy of importance. The significant nutrient(s) for most consumers includefat,salt,sugarand to a much lesser degree carbohydrates and energy. The most significant nutrient, for any consumer, will depend on their own informal education and/or health need, and it may vary depending on the product category as well as who the product is intended for. The significant nutrient is more than a nutrient of interest, it is the nutrient that matters most to them when short-listing or assessing products, and it is the one inquirers fall back on when product decisions become too hard, confusing or when time does not permit extensive product evaluation.
Low education does not mean a consumer is uneducated about labels
In almost all focus groups, including those recruited as low SES (based on education and postcode) and/or only moderately health conscious, the majority of participants demonstrated a degree of scepticism about one or more types of nutrition content claims, and a capacity to assess the claim using further information on the package. Their capacity to question and clarify nutrition content claims appeared to have very little to do with their level of formal education. Although those who had achieved higher levels of education were often more efficient in their use of the NIP, they were no more sceptical than lesser-educated participants. Most participants had educated themselves with regards to nutrition content claims, usually through increased awareness via media stories and comparing products and NIPs in store or at home.
Believers
Compared to inquirers, a much smaller proportion of consumers trust the nutrition content claim absolutely, or tend to err on the side of trusting the claim. These shoppers are less motivated to investigate nutrition content claims further and are unlikely to compare products in store as part of their purchase decision.
In most focus groups, irrespective of SES or health consciousness, one or two participants fell into this category, admitting to having selected products based on the nutrition content claim and assuming that they were choosing a ‘better’ or ‘healthier’ product.
One focus group (low SES, special health needs, 45-64yr olds) stood out as a group of believers. This group had very low awareness of what various nutrition content claims meant, even though they relied upon claims heavily for product selection. The existence of a nutrition content claim for this group implied that the food was better for you than the normal counterpart or reference food. For example, when asked about their views of a milk product labelled “ 96% fat free” they felt it would surely be lower in fat than ‘standard’ milk and therefore a ‘better’ choice (when in fact standard milk is 4% fat, or 96% fat free):
“well it has to be doesn’t it? They are claiming that it is 96% fat free, where as on full cream milk there is no claim…most people know that full cream milk has a lot of fat”
Non - users
A similarly sized proportion of consumers, compared to believers, described themselves as paying no attention to labels or nutrition content claims. These shoppers either had no interest or motivation to notice claims, or claimed to buy no or very few packaged foods. There were far fewer non-users who had special needs or were highly health conscious, and far more who were moderately health conscious.
Yet another group of consumers deliberately avoided products with nutrition content claims. These consumers were typically looking for what they described as the ‘plain packet’ or the ‘original’ product, and bemoaned the fact that it was getting harder and harder to find the ‘normal’ product that had not been altered in some way. Most of these consumers viewed the product carrying a nutrition content claim to be inferior in taste, or they felt it had things added or taken from it in ways that made it undesirable.
6.2 How are nutrition content claims used?
Nutrition content claims can influence consumers in three ways, by providing:
| Inquirers and believers |
| Non - Users |
Nutrition content claims are used as a guide when assessing a product for the first time
Nutrition content claims, generally, are regarded as a guide. For the majority, the message given in a nutrition content claim is rarely taken at face value until the consumer has verified it.
“It can give you an indication so it is somewhere to start. It is your starting point of investigating that particular product and then you take that into consideration”. (NZ, lower SES, special health needs, 25-44yrs)
Nutrition content claims give permission to pick up a product, and certainly appear to influence what is taken off the shelf ‘first’ and what is left behind.
”That’s what makes me pick it up, that’s what gets it off the shelf, to have a look at it or to try it. (Aust., lower SES, moderately health conscious, 45-64yrs)
The front versus the back of the pack
The majority of inquirers made a clear and absolute distinction between the information on the front and back of a food package.
“the stuff on the front is advertising and the stuff on the back isn’t” (Aust., upper SES, moderately health conscious, 25-44yrs)
Information on the ‘front’ of the package was viewed as marketing information that was predominantly there to persuade consumers to buy the product. Therefore for most inquirers, nutrition content claims in general could not or should not be trusted absolutely, without investigating further. In contrast, the information on the ‘back’ of the package was deemed entirely believable and trustworthy. This trust was mostly attributed to the Nutrition Information Panel (NIP) but also to the ingredients list, the country of origin label and manufacturer details, and health or allergen warnings that were also recalled to be on the back of the pack.
Short-listing and verifying nutrition contentclaims
Inquirers described nutrition content claims as a quick way to sift through the range of products and brands on a shelf.
“initially, there are so many products and if you’re trying to get your week’s shopping done it helps you to pick that upfirst [pointing to product example]and have a look if it suits you and if it doesn’t you’ll try something else”. (Aust., lower SES, moderately health conscious, 45-64yrs)
For inquirers and believers, the claim will be personally relevant when it relates to an individuals’ most significant nutrient of interest, and the purchase decision will be shaped, initially, around this nutrient first. From here, believers will often proceed straight to purchase, where as inquirers usually undertake one or a combination of the following in their decision whether to purchase the product.
- Verify whether the nutrition content claim is ‘correct’ or ‘true’, via the NIP
At this point, inquirers are seeking to achieve one of two things:
- confirm, using the ‘believable’ information on the back of the pack, that the claim is accurate – ie that it meets their own interpretation of what the claim means; or
- ascertain what is meant by the claim, and so they will be looking to solve questions such as ‘how low is low?’, ‘how reduced is reduced?’, ‘does this really contain absolutely no sugar? (‘free’ claim)’, ‘what does lite mean?’
Decisions around the perceived accuracy of nutrient content claims are based on consumers’ assessment of exactly how much of the claimed nutrient is in the product. Their decisions about the suitability of a claim were made on the basis of whether the product meets their own permissible amount of the nutrient or ‘trigger’ point at which they will not buy – this could be a percentage, such as ‘no more than ten percent fat’ or an amount of the nutrient in grams, such as ‘no more than ten grams of fat’. Trigger points varied widely between individuals, and may not have matched the criteria laid out in the Code of Practice onNutrient claims in food labels and in advertisements.
- Assess the nutritional value of the whole product
This involves using the NIP, and to a lesser extent the ingredients list to investigate whether the product has unacceptable amounts of other nutrients, which make the product undesirable. The majority of consumers in this research were very aware of nutrient ‘trade-offs’, and were seeking to check that a product with nutrition content claim that made a product appear healthy in one way was not ‘bad for you’ or ‘unhealthy’ in another way. Participants recounted many examples of when a product has claimed to be ‘low fat’ or a ‘% fat free’, but has also been unacceptably high in sugar or salt. Yogurt and rice crackers were commonly cited examples. The most nutritionally aware inquirers, of which there were very few across the whole study, also mentioned checking for energy values in trade offs, however most participants were preoccupied with nutrients like fat and sugar. It is in this context of nutrient trade-offs that consumers began to talk spontaneously about nutrition content claims being misleading. We discuss this issue in further detail in Section 6.5 and 6.4 and in sections that refer to specific nutrition content claims.
- Price
Price is still a most important consideration, and it was generally accepted that the ‘healthier’ version of products often cost more, particularly products with nutrients that have been significantly altered (by 20% – 30). Most consumers (including highly and moderately health conscious consumers) would not be prepared to pay more for small reductions (less than 5%) in the amount of their significant nutrient(s). For example, paying more for a 99% fat free product compared to a 96% fat free product would not be deemed good value for money. However, the influence of price and the constant offer of product specials also means that consumers are exposed to and are assessing many more product label elements than might first have been imagined. In this product special scenario, inquirers would still investigate the nutritional value of a discounted product before deeming it a suitable purchase for them, and would not necessarily buy the cheaper product if it did not meet their requirements for their significant nutrient(s).
- Taste
Nutrition content claims do not unequivocally imply that the product is ‘better’ or ‘good’, and it was widely acknowledged that nutrition content claims such as ‘less’/’low’/’free’ often come at the expense of taste. Such expectations are both imagined and also based on previous negative experiences.
“sometimes reduced means reduced taste as well”
“if having low fat means you’re going to have low taste, then there’s no point in eating it, to me I’d rather have something that’s high in fat and have a smaller amount”(Aust., lower SES, moderately health conscious, 45-64yrs)
- Intention for the product
The importance of the nutrition content claim will also depend on how the consumer intends to use the product – significant nutrients and health issues take on more or less influence depending on how much they intend to consume, what contribution it will make to the meal or snack, what else it will be eaten with, and who it will be eaten by.
It is important to note that no one of these factors outweighs the others every time; the decision to purchase and the role the nutrition content claim plays in that decision depends on the product itself. For example heavy margarine users placed more value on salt-reduced varieties of margarine than did consumers who described themselves as light users – hence the same consumer, for whom fat is the nutrient of significance, will vary the importance they place on a ‘salt-reduced’ claim depending on the product. Similarly a consumer might buy two types of margarine, one ‘salt-reduced’ and one that isn’t, so as to cater for the different health needs of her family.
Although the use and verification of a nutrition content claim can be a highly involved process, it is usually done only once for each particular brand and product, after which the claim is either trusted accepted and then used to identify the product as a suitable selection for repeat purchase. At this time the product may also be avoided because it failed to offer a tolerable taste trade-off.
All this takes time!
Inquirers appeared to spend a lot of in-store shopping time evaluating nutrition content claims. Consumers with special health needs and those who were most attentive to their nutrient(s) of significance were most prepared to dedicate ‘what ever it takes’ to ensure appropriate product selection. For these shoppers, the time-saving benefit of nutrition content claims was a somewhat of a myth, because most claims needed to be verified by using the NIP. However it is difficult to know whether these consumers would be reading the NIP regardless, or whether the increase of nutrition content claims in recent years has prompted their awareness of nutrient information and the NIP.
It should also be noted that not all consumers in this study dedicated this amount of time and effort to investigating nutrition content claims. The ‘non-user’ shoppers, particularly younger single people and men were less attentive. As well, this study excluded very young and older adults (under age 24 and over 65 years) and those who were unconcerned about health issues - two groups that we would assume, from previous quantitative research, would spend less time reading or using labels [1] .
6.3 What is inferred from nutrition content claims – how are they useful?
Nutrition content claims are most useful as a quick and easy way to find a previously ‘approved’ product, or to quickly make a shortlist of products that are then investigated via the NIP before a final decision is made.
There was a general recognition and agreement that nutrition content claims do not imply that the product is healthy, just ‘healthier’ than another in a comparative category or brand.
“Say, like this can here, and it says it’s got 5% fruit juice so you kind of take the attitude “well it’s gotta be better for you than something that hasn’t got any fruit juice at all”, or something like hilo milk, it’s gotta be better for you than full cream milk. You don’t 100% believe…it’s totally good for you, you don’t believe everything that is fed to you, but you do sort of think well, it’s gotta be better for me than this (the other) one. It all ads up.”
Although nutrition content claims and other label information are mainly used in the decision making process for never-tried products, this does not mean that such claims are rarely used. Consumers in this research were clearly exposed to new products and brands each time they shop, and were far more familiar with using nutrition content claims than they had first thought.
Most consumers were using nutrition content claims widely, hoping for a cumulative benefit over the day/week or for their overall diet. This was described as the overall benefit of ‘eating a little bit healthier’ during the day.
“I think for me it comes back to “every little bit helps”. My husband…I used to buy two lots of everything, two lots of milk and two lots of dressing…and that got a bit tiresome and expensive, so I must admit we’ve come to a bit of a compromise now in that, if I do the shopping I get mine, if he does the shopping he gets his, but I grab the fat free one because overall, I must be doing better than if I was not doing it.”
The role of the nutrition content claim is most important for health conscious shoppers and those with special health needs; however for most other consumers, price and taste remain the main reasons for buying the products they do.
Nutrition content claims are used mostly for ‘everyday’ foods, such as dairy foods, juice, breakfast cereals, and canned foods, and generally not for ‘special’ foods, such as cheese, chocolate, icecream etc. However, it was apparent that one person’s ‘special’ food, such as cheese, can be another person’s ‘every day’ food.
6.4 Trade offs
This study provides strong confirmation of consumers’ awareness of nutrient trade offs. This awareness was much more widespread than was first imagined, and was not limited to only the very health conscious consumers or those with special health needs. By far the majority of participants in this study were aware of nutrient trade offs, and have modified their label reading to accommodate them.
The most well recognised trade offs anticipated by consumers are for products that make a fat claim, which may be high in sugar or energy or salt; for products that make a sugar claim, which may be high in energy; and for products that make a salt claim but are high in sugar.
There was also a recognition that the trade off may result in a product being lower than ‘normal’ in the claimed nutrient, but consequently higher than ‘normal’ in the trade off nutrient. Whilst some inquirers were capable of searching for and distinguishing between trade offs of some magnitude (ie two products that differed markedly in a trade off nutrient), it is suspected by the researchers that they, as well as most other consumers in the study, would struggle to assess the relative importance of nutrient differences and make the wisest choice for a healthy diet. In several cases participants admitted this themselves, disclosing a lack of confidence in deciding which was the best product choice, once significant differences had been observed in more than one nutrient. Whilst it was not the purpose of this research to investigate consumers’ capacity to evaluate the nutritional value of two products, using the NIP, the previous quantitative research [2] has indicated that many consumers are not very good at assessing relative differences between nutrients.
Participants approach trade offs differently
Some participants look for trade-offs based on their significant nutrient first – ie if their ‘significant’ nutrient is fat, yet they have been drawn to a product because of a salt claim, they usually resolve their choice based on fat. Others will initially select a product based on the fat claim, and then look at content of other important nutrients, such as salt or sugar.
There was no indication that manufacturers’ nutrition content claims are misleading consumers in this study when it comes to trade offs. Often products with nutrition content claims are put back on the shelf after the trade off has been investigated, because the trade off nutrient, even though it is not the most ‘significant’ nutrient for a consumer, is unacceptably high. Consumers report that they are usually able to find a product that offers sufficiently low or high amounts of their significant nutrient, without compromising on unacceptably low or high amounts of another significant nutrient.
6.5 The credibility of nutrition content claims
Consumers hold several beliefs about the credibility of nutrition content claims, which are not mutually exclusive.
There is an underlying level of scepticism and cynicism about nutrition content claims and the intention of manufacturers in using them. Most consumers, therefore, assume that nutrition content claims should not be trusted, implicitly, and that manufacturers are using such claims to persuade them to buy a product, rather than simply inform them about the product. We have reported earlier the clear distinction that consumers across the board make between information on the front of the pack (advertising) and on the back of the pack (fact or truth).
Many consumers referred to particular nutrition content claims, on particular products as ‘misleading’. Many participants in all groups spontaneously and frequently used this particular term. Some, but not the majority, of these participants also subscribe to a more general belief that all claims are ‘misleading’. However most consumers are also able to discern the difference between a claim being misleading and untruthful. Very few participants perceived that a manufacturer was lying or being dishonest in their claim.
Most consumers do not believe that they are being misled by manufacturers, and often pride themselves on their ability to see through a nutrition content claim and make their own assessment of the nutritional value of a food. Their knowledge and reported behaviour regarding their use of the NIP and the ingredients list suggests that, in spite of feeling that nutrition content claims can be misleading (for others), they are quite capable of looking out for nutrient trade offs.
The concern of these consumers is vested in ‘other’ shoppers, whom they assume are less knowledgeable or able than themselves, and may well be mislead into buying products for one nutritional benefit, unaware that it has another nutritional trade off.
“there’s a lot of people…we’re talking about educated people, we’ve obviously all been educated and we can read and understand these labels and everything that’s in them, but there’s a lot of people out there that are illiterate and they see a label like that, lite, and they think ‘this is good and healthy for me’ and they pick it up and they take it, they don’t understand”[Aust, lower SES, moderately health conscious, 45-64yrs]
It is speculated that the ‘misleading’ that concerned consumers refer to may well be occurring on an ad hoc basis amongst infrequent shoppers, or those who generally do not care about the health content of the foods they eat, but are now and then spontaneously persuaded by nutrition content claims.
6.6 Are there too many nutrition content claims?
There were two views about the number of nutrition content claims, and more broadly speaking information on food labels. A small proportion of participants felt that product labels are too congested and that there are too many versions of ‘standard’ foods these days. These consumers harp back to the ‘old days’ when there were only one or two versions of each food, and when it was easy to find the ‘plain’ one.
However, the majority of participants in this study support the use of nutrition content claims, as long as they are accompanied by a NIP on the back. Most consumers would rather have more rather than less information, but many would like to see what they term ‘standardisation’ of nutrition information on packages.
“I like to have a fair bit of information on labels”
“if we get too many terms, we won’t look at anything”
“Got to be standardised guidelines, they should not be able to make up words that don’t mean anything”
7 Familiarity with and use of nutrition content claims
Consumers’ awareness and use of nutrition content claims was assessed in three ways:
- Spontaneous (unprompted) recall: via a written task at the commencement of the group;
- Prompted recall of eight different categories of nutrition content claims: via a second written task prior to the influence of the group discussion; and
- Structured questioning and free-flowing group discussion.
This section deals with the written task findings. Following sections report in more detail on familiarity and use of specific nutrition content claims.
7.1 Familiarity with Nutrition Content Claims
The nutrition content claims most ‘top of mind’, as demonstrated by spontaneous (unprompted) recall, were (in order of mention):
- Low (calories/kilojoules/fat/in cholesterol/salt/sugar/in carbohydrates)
- % fat free;
- High in (fibre/calcium/iron