Qualitative consumer study related to nutrition content claims on food labels
Results - Part B
8 Comparative claims
8.1 Background and contextComparative nutrition content claims are those claims that compare a food with a similar food or class of foods such as ‘reduced’, ‘increased’ and ‘less than’.
Participants used the moderator’s showcard and real product examples as references during the discussion, as well as examples they recalled from their own experiences.
Key finding: Participants were highly familiar with the various comparative claims included in this study. More than any other type of nutrition content claim, comparative claims were described by consumers as ‘just a guide’, and required verification by using the NIP because the comparative claim terms were regarded as too generic to be useful in their own right. Comparative claims did imply that the product was healthier than the ‘original’, but not necessarily healthy or a better choice. There was a high level of scepticism about these terms in all groups, and a great deal of confusion between these and the other terms. ‘Reduced’ was understood to mean lower than the ‘normal’ version. Generally consumers were more sceptical about this term than ‘low’, but found it difficult to distinguish between them. The claim ‘increased’ was less familiar to consumers, because it is usually associated with nutrients of less significance to them. Consumers were much less sceptical about ‘increased’ claims, as they were about a ‘less than’ claim, as long as it is used in a quantified context. Quantified ‘less than’ claims were preferred as they were regarded as far less ambiguous or confusing. |
8.2 Familiarity with comparative claims
Consumers in this research were highly familiar with the various comparative claims included in this study. Everyone in every group recognised each of the examples and most had selected products at least partly based on a comparative claim. For most consumers use of comparative claims, as with most nutrition content claims, is not usually pre-meditated. Whilst consumers who are highly health conscious or shopping for special health needs are deliberately attentive to nutrition content claims, for most their use of them is spontaneous and ad hoc.
On the whole, ‘reduced’ claims were associated with sugar, salt and fat, ‘increased’ claims were most commonly associated with calcium, and ‘low’ claims were linked to fat and salt.
8.3 Use of comparative claims
More than any other type of nutrition content claim, comparative claims were described by consumers as ‘just a guide’, and required verification by using the NIP because the comparative claim terms were regarded as too generic to be useful in their own right. The process of verification was described by consumers as ‘getting more information’ and involved one or a more of the following:
– either finding out exactly how much of the nutrient in question was present in the product (using the NIP as a stand alone tool);
– comparing the product’s NIP with the NIP of another ‘original’ product that made no such claim (how much lower is low);
– comparing the product’s NIP with the NIP of another product that makes the same claim (is this ‘low’ as low as ‘that’ low?).
Consumers were more likely to use these claims in the third way, described above, if they were very interested in nutrition, or were highly health conscious.
8.4 Comparisons with reference foods
In this regard, many consumers are looking to make comparisons with a reference food, and many struggle to find the most appropriate reference food. For some, the most appropriate reference product is a similar product by another brand, for others it is another product in the same range.
Most consumers could not recall having noticed any labelling that provides a comparison to the reference food, either via an extra column in the NIP, or a statement on the label which compares to the reference foods, such as ‘30% reduced fat when compared to [brand] tasty cheese’ and ‘contains less than half the fat and 20% more protein than standard full cream milk‘. There were no available examples of the NIP column for reference foods; however when the reference food statement was brought to their attention, using a ‘reduced fat’ milk example, many participants felt this information was useful and valuable, and it was viewed as being quicker by those participants who did not wish to invest a lot of time reading NIPs. On balance however, amongst those interested in making comparisons, the ‘standard’ NIP was still regarded as more helpful and, for some, more believable for making comparisons between a ‘reduced’ product (eg milk) and a reference product (eg full fat milk) because one could hold the two NIPs side by side and directly compare the values in each NIP.
Often the process of verification is also one of self-education and inquirers use claims and NIPs to teach themselves and make decisions about products that are acceptable to them. Once the claim is verified, and the product is ‘tried and proven’ based on its nutritional value, taste and price, the claim is then used to quickly identify the same product again for a repeat purchase. Yogurts, cereals and canned foods were common product examples.
However, some resent having to further investigate the claim, as illustrated by the following conversation between a number of participants.
“when they are not being specific on what the difference is why not have it on the front of the packaging that it is 10% reduced, why do I sort of have to turn to the back?” [NZ, lower SES, special health needs, 25-44yrs]
Moderator: “How do you feel about having to do that?”
Participants:
“annoyed. You should be able to just see it. It should say, like you said, it should just be there”
“stamped on the front”
“so you don’t have to turn it around and stand there for half an hour looking at each one”
“the printed matter is probably boring to the manufacturer they would probably rather have it pretty on the front where we want just the words on the front”[NZ, lower SES, special health needs, 25-44yrs]
More attention is paid to, and involvement invested in, comparative claims that refer to a consumer’s significant nutrient. If the claim is made about a nutrient other than the significant nutrient, or one that is lower down on their list of significant nutrients, the product may well still be noticed and examined initially in response to the claim, but will be assessed primarily on the significant nutrient rather than the claimed nutrient. In this context, inquirers begin to look for and assess nutrient trade-offs, and are not led by the claim alone. For example, a consumer who is unconsciously or consciously most influenced by fat content may well notice a ‘low salt’ claim on a product, pick up that product for it’s suggested health benefit, but from there on make a decision to purchase based on fat rather than salt content.
8.5 Understanding of comparative claims
Each of the three comparative claim terms was discussed in turn and then in the context of other claims using the terms ‘low’, ‘high’, ‘lite’ and ‘diet’.
The perception amongst most participants, in all groups, was that a comparative claim implied that the product was healthier than the ‘original’, but not necessarily healthy or a better choice. There was a high level of scepticism about these terms in all groups, and a great deal of confusion between these and the other terms. Most were not able to reach agreement as to whether a product was a healthy choice if it carried a comparative claim. At the root of consumers confusion is their search for a health recommendation rather than reference to a reference food.
“they might make you think subconsciously that they are healthy for you. You just don’t know, is it reduced within the healthy guidelines?” [Aust, low SES, highly health conscious, 24-44yrs]
‘ Reduced ’
‘Reduced’ was generally understood to mean lower than the regular or ‘original’ version.
Generally consumers were more sceptical about this term than ‘low’, but found it difficult to distinguish between the two terms. There was no understanding that the use of this term was regulated with maximum content conditions, and that there were therefore ‘boundaries’ around the use of the ‘reduced’ claim. Many participants were dissatisfied with the degree of ambiguity around this term, and felt that it was difficult or impossible to know how much the product had been reduced by unless it stated the % reduction as part of the claim.
“I wonder what it is reduced in comparison to. Is it less than previously? Or less than the tin next to it?[Aust, low SES, highly health conscious, 24-44yrs]
“well someone’s ‘reduced’ may not be half as much reduced as someone else’s…you could have ten brands that all say reduced, but they could be reduced to ten different extents”.[Aust, lower SES, moderately health conscious, 45-64yrs]
The obvious confusion over how the term ‘reduced’ differs to a ‘low’ claim confirms the findings of the previous quantitative research [1] , where nearly half of the consumers interviewed (46%) said that the ‘reduced in salt’ term meant that the food contains less salt compared to a similar food labelled ‘low salt’, and a further 26% said that the term meant that the food contains the same amount of salt. Only 11% said that the ‘reduced in salt’ term meant that the food contains more salt compared to a similar food labelled ‘low salt’ (the correct response).
There was a clear preference for ‘% reduced’ claims (on the front of the package) compared to general ‘reduced’ claims, accompanied by the reference statement on the back of the package. ‘% reduced’ claims were useful to consumers wanting to lower their intake of a particular nutrient in order to make a healthier choice, many of whom felt that they did not need to know how much of the nutrient remained in the product, or did not know how to find out.
However more active inquirers preferred even more information, so that the claim would say ‘reduced from X% to Y%’.
“I am a little cynical about the claims but I still notice them”
Moderator – “what is the cynicism about?”
“well you can reduce something from 80% to 75% fat and that is still reduced so I kind of want to know more”[NZ, upper SES, highly & moderately health conscious, 45-64 yrs]
“It is a claim that makes you quickly scan the shelves and you might see ‘reduced’ and that will be okay to buy it but in actual fact when you think about it, it’s not actually saying anything is it”
Moderator – “How come it is not telling us anything?”
“because it is not quantifying”
“and it is not saying what it is comparing it with”[NZ, upper SES, highly & moderately health conscious, 45-64 yrs]
These consumers were capable of using the NIP to ascertain exactly how much of the nutrient was present, but had developed their capacity to do this because they found the current claims unhelpful.
Amongst some, there was an expectation that in order to reduce a nutrient, something else has been added to replace it, which then makes the product undesirable. These products were perceived to have been ‘altered’ and to now have increased preservatives, ‘nasty chemicals’, or ‘added stuff’ in order to address the taste imbalance of lowering or removing the claimed nutrient. These concerns applied as much to ‘low’ and ‘free’ claims as they did to ‘reduced’ claims.
“I worry about what they’ve replaced it with. I think it would be artificial, your sweeteners and things”[NZ, lower SES, special health needs, 25-44yrs]
“you trust that they are taking sugar out, and fat out, but you don’t trust what they are putting in it” [Aust, low SES, highly health conscious, 24-44yrs]
‘ Increased ’
Generally consumers were less familiar with the term ‘increased’, associating it with micronutrients such as calcium, protein, iron, and fibre. This claim was less salient and less important to consumers because they were associated with nutrients much further down on their list of ‘significant’ nutrients. This claim was deemed relevant to shoppers who had special health needs, or young children at risk of particular nutrient deficiencies.
The term was interpreted to mean ‘added’ or ‘enriched’ and, unlike ‘reduced’ and ‘low’ claims, it was generally understood that the food was not intrinsically (or ‘naturally’) high in the increased nutrient when it carried an ‘increased’ claim.
‘Increased’ claims carried none of the negative connotations associated with ‘reduced’ claims with regards to product alteration and the addition of other substances in order to compensate for poor taste.
Consumers were less sceptical, and less opinionated generally, about the ‘increased’ claim, mainly because of an underlying assumption that manufacturers would not want to increase something unless it made the product a better choice, or because it was of less interest to them.
Participants were less inclined to comment on the healthiness of a product carrying an ‘increased’ claim, because healthiness was viewed as being, primarily, to do with the fat, sugar or salt content of a food and the ‘increased’ claim was never used in association with these nutrients.
‘ Less than ’
Consumers were also much less sceptical of ‘less than’ claims, when they were used in a quantified context, such as ‘less than 5 g of sugar’. For some, the quantification negated the need to refer to the NIP, especially when the claim involved a consumer’s significant nutrient.
A quantified ‘less than’ claim elicited much less scepticism and cynicism than ‘reduced’ claims because they were regarded as far less ambiguous or confusing.
8.6 Distinguishing between comparative claims and other claims
After the three comparative claim terms had been discussed independently, consumers were asked how they differed or compared to other nutrition content claims such as ‘low’ and ‘high’, ‘lite’ and ‘diet’. To generate discussion, participants as a group, completed a word sort task where they were asked to differentiate the claims according to the amount of an example nutrient they contained. Fat, and sometimes also salt and sugar were used as the examples.
As reported earlier, consumers across all groups had difficulty distinguishing between the terms ‘reduced’ and ‘low’, and many also were confused as to how ‘less than’ (unquantified) and ‘lite’ differed from these terms. No group could reach 100% agreement about which of these terms would contain the most or least of an example nutrient. In most groups, the exercise appeared to increase consumers’ confusion and frustration with the terms. Generally consumers agreed that it was difficult to make judgements about the terms without referring to the NIP. Some became quite frustrated with the task as they felt it was an impossible task.
“words don’t mean anything until you look at the panel”[Aust, lower SES, moderately health conscious, 45-64yrs]
Some specific findings are reported below.
Low
In the general unstructured discussion, the term ‘low’ was used by participants interchangeably with ‘reduced’, and initially most perceived these terms to mean the same thing. Only after more focused discussion and the word sort exercise, did most groups agree that ‘low’ probably inferred more of a reduction than ‘reduced’.
As with the ‘reduced’ claim, many participants did not feel that the presence of a ‘low’ claim made the product a better choice, or that it was the lowest version or brand available. Most were familiar with having to use the NIP to compare with another product in order to ascertain the best choice for them.
“but you always compare it with the subject next to it. Like if it’s low fat cheese, you pick it up and look at that one and then you look at the other one and often it is actually higher in some cases”[NZ, upper SES, highly & moderately health conscious, 45-64 yrs]
In a couple of groups participants sought clarity about whether ‘low’ meant that the product was ‘naturally’ (intrinsically) low in the claimed nutrient, or if it meant it was now low because it had been reduced in that nutrient. This distinction then became a suggested point of differentiation between the ‘low’ and ‘reduced’ claims. That is, for many people ‘low’ claims relate to products intrinsically low in the claimed nutrient, while ‘reduced’ products are ones that have been altered to contain lower amounts of the claimed nutrient.
The majority of consumers also recognised that a manufacturer’s use of a ‘low’ or ‘reduced’ claim was voluntary, and therefore one product carrying a ‘low’ (or ‘reduced’) claim could still be higher in the claimed nutrient than another product not labelled with a ‘low’ claim. For this reason the usefulness of these claims was regarded as fairly limited.
‘ Lite ’ and ‘ Diet ’ vs ‘ increased ’ and ‘ low ’
Consumers were also very familiar with ‘lite’ and ‘diet’ claims, and reactions to them are discussed in detail in sections 14 and 15. In comparison to the other claims, consumers across all groups were most cynical about the ‘lite’ claim. There was a high level of awareness that ‘lite’ could refer to many different things (a nutrient, colour, texture etc). ‘Lite’ was considered to be the most misleading of all claims. As well, many consumers, particularly those in the 45+ age groups strongly objected to the spelling of the word ‘lite’ and reported that they deliberately avoided buying products that carried the claim.
There was therefore much disagreement, within and across groups, as to how ‘lite’ and ‘diet’ differed from ‘low’, ‘reduced’ and ‘less than’. Most could not suggest how the terms could be distinguished from each other. Whilst some participants felt the terms inferred that they contained the least amount of a nutrient (compared to other terms such as ‘low’ and ‘reduced’ and ‘less than’), others felt as strongly that it could contain the same amount or more, and others again felt there was no way of knowing. Whilst the terms ‘lite’ and ‘diet’ are not classified as comparative terms, most consumers felt that the only way of correctly interpreting these claims would be to compare with another product that did not carry the claim.
High vs increased
Consumers initially found it difficult to distinguish between these terms, and until the focus group discussion had not given this comparison any thought. Once again they used the terms interchangeably. When pressed on this issue by the Moderator it was assumed that a food labelled with a ‘high’ claim (eg high in fibre) would probably contain more of the nutrient compared to a product labelled ‘increased’ (eg ‘increased in fibre’); however consumers had no confidence that their assumption was correct. The discussion also raised the question as to whether ‘high’ meant ‘naturally’ high or whether it also included foods that had added fibre, whereas ‘increased’ clearly inferred that fibre had been added to the product during manufacturing.
8.7 Relative differences compared to the reference food
Consumers were quite adamant that products carrying any of the claims discussed earlier should differ significantly from their ‘regular’ counterparts. There was strong agreement that reductions in particular, but additions as well, of only small amounts should not be permitted under these claims. However most did not believe that this was currently the case, indeed many participants felt that that products currently claiming ‘reduced’ or ‘low’ could in fact be only reduced by quite tiny amounts.
“Technically they could (reduce it) by anything, by point one.
Moderator: Do you think that happens?
“Yes, I think it happens all the time.”
The acceptable relative difference between a food carrying a comparative claim and the reference food varied between participants; however there was most agreement for a difference of about 25% or one quarter less or more than the ‘regular’ food. Differences of less than 10% were deemed unacceptable.
8.8 Trust and credibility of comparative claims
Compared to some other nutrition content claims such as ‘free’ and ‘% free’ and ‘no added sugar’, consumers were highly sceptical about comparative claims, particularly ‘reduced’. They were not deemed to be trustworthy, where trust implies ‘reliability’ – very few consumers in this study felt that they would rely on a comparative claim when purchasing a product for the first time.
“I’d still read the label to see where it (the fat/salt/sugar) is coming from…I wouldn’t trust them”[Aust, lower SES, moderately health conscious, 45-64yrs]
However, consumers did not regard these claims as unbelievable, where believable implies ‘truth’. Most acknowledged that the claim ‘reduced’ truthfully implies that the product contains less of the claimed nutrient than its ‘original’ counterpart. However, these claims were viewed as providing incomplete information, which can then be misleading if taken at face value. Most of these claims were viewed as misleading because of their perceived ambiguity, which is assumed to be deliberate on the part of manufacturers who are just trying to sell their product.
“I think it can be misleading sometimes too though because I mean I have seen it where people have real problems with weight issues so they tend to go for the low or the reduced because they think fat, but if they actually looked at the back they would see the carbohydrates have been shot right up, it is actually worse for them than if they had gone for the ordinary thing, so it can be misleading”[NZ, lower SES, special health needs, 25-44yrs]
“It is just trying to lure you to it that it is better than something else but you don’t know what the something else is”[NZ, lower SES, special health needs, 25-44yrs]
“it is basically a sales point because if you actually had time to sit and compare one packet with the other you would probably find there is no difference anyhow”[NZ, lower SES, special health needs, 25-44yrs]
However, whilst most consumers in this study were concerned and even angry about the vagueness of these claims, there was no indication that they themselves were being misled by manufacturers. Most have learned to moderate their behaviour, by using the NIP, to make decisions about the value of comparative claims. Their concern over the misleading nature of these claims was for ‘other’ less able shoppers who were unable to use NIPs.
9 ‘ Free ’ claims
9.1 Background and context
Examples of ‘free’ claims include; for example ‘fat free’, ‘sugar free’, ‘cholesterol free’, ‘gluten free’. After the pilot group the ‘gluten free’ and ‘lactose free’ claims were excluded from the scope of this study for two reasons: firstly because they have a public health and safety issue which other ‘free’ claims don’t have; and secondly because in the pilot group their perceived importance overwhelmingly overshadowed discussion about other ‘free’ claims such as ‘fat free’, ‘sugar free’ and ‘cholesterol free’. These claims are permitted under certain circumstances in the Code of Practice on Nutrient Claims in Food Labels and in Advertisements in Australia (see Appendix D). In contrast to gluten and lactose claims, trace amounts of the nutrient (e.g. 0.15g of fat per 100g of food for a ‘fat free’ claim) are allowed because they are nutritionally and physiologically insignificant.
Participants used the moderator’s showcard and real product examples as references during the discussion, as well as examples they recalled from their own experiences.
Key findings: All consumers were familiar with these claims, which are being used more extensively by them. In comparison to comparative claims, ‘free’ claims are viewed much more favourably, because they are not making any sort of comparison to any other food, and are viewed as more helpful and more definite than claims like ‘reduced’ or ‘low’. ‘Free’ claims are regarded as quicker and easier to use by less ‘active’ inquirers, believers and moderately health conscious shoppers, but just as many fully ‘active’ inquirers would seek to verify the claim using the NIP. Every group came to the unanimous decision that ‘free’ should mean ‘zero’, although some felt it was unlikely that this was how manufacturers used the term. There was also universal agreement that ‘free’ should be based on absolute absence and not nutritional insignificance. Views about ‘free’ also differed for fat compared to sugar. Whilst ‘fat free’ claims were viewed as more straightforward, some consumers were highly distrustful of ‘sugar free’ claims because it was felt that ‘free’ did not mean the product was free of other sweeteners or hidden types of sugar. |
9.2 Familiarity with and use of ‘free’ claims
All consumers, in all groups were familiar with these claims, which are being used more extensively by them. They were most commonly recalled being on dairy foods and breakfast cereals, and to a much lesser extent salad dressings, confectionary, jars of salsa, and fresh produce such as kiwi fruit and avocados.
In comparison to comparative claims, ‘free’ claims were viewed much more favourably, because they are not making any sort of comparison to any other food, and were viewed as more helpful and more definite than claims like ‘reduced’ or ‘low’, and therefore less confusing or misleading.
“This was the one I trusted the most, because if it says that it is not comparing itself with something else. It is not ‘a little bit better’ or what ever.” [Aust., Upper SES, moderately health conscious, 25-44yrs]
“I would buy fat free and sugar free against ‘reduced’ because I haven’t got time to read all the labels on the end and to me I would have to say that free is better than reduced.”[Aust, lower SES, moderately health conscious, 45-64yrs]
When confronted with a ‘free’ claim on a product they haven’t seen or bought before, most consumers felt that they would be initially attracted to the product and inclined to pick it up. ‘Free’ claims were regarded as quicker and easier to use, particularly for only moderately health conscious and those who are less ‘active’ inquirers. These consumers wanted to be able to use a ‘free’ claim without having to use the NIP as well.
“I want to believe that [points to fat free claim’ has no fat in it and that [point to sugar free claim’] has not sugar in it …and [other participant’s name] was saying that should read the packet but I think there is no need, because that to me says something.”[Aust, lower SES, moderately health conscious, 45-64yrs]
9.3 Using the NIP for verification
There were, however, just as many consumers who sought to verify the claim as there were consumers like those discussed above, who took a ‘free’ claim at face value. Verification was done by using the NIP to compare the amount of the claimed nutrient with another product that does not make the same claim, or by looking for nutrient trade-offs. Those who verify the claim were more likely to be highly health conscious consumers, those with special needs and/or ‘active’ inquirers. These consumers were more sceptical of ‘free’ claims and actively looked for nutrient trade offs, such as high amounts of sugar or carbohydrate on products such as yogurt and lollies that carry ‘fat free’ claims. In a typical group, half the participants would investigate and verify ‘free’ claims in this way, another quarter would have some suspicion of a trade off but would not have investigated, and the remaining one or two participants would have trusted the claim without further thought or investigation.
The following conversation was highly typical of consumers’ reaction when the moderator introduced a confectionary product, in this case marshmallows, carrying a ‘fat free’ claim.
Moderator “why are we laughing?”
“because of the sugar in there. I would look in there and see if it was saccharin or sucryl or something that was a replacement and then I would buy it if it was”
Moderator “how do we feel about them putting fat free on things which are high in sugar like that one?
“one of those roll your eye things”
Moderator– “what does that mean?”
“the whole thing is that that is not a fatty product and we all know that so we are not stupid and you are making it look good but come on!”
“well it wouldn’t make me think ‘oh it’s fat free I’ve got to buy it’, I would be quite sceptical about what is actually still in it”
“It is a ploy to try and get you to buy it, what are they hiding? People think they can eat that without guilt”.[NZ, lower SES, special