PART 1 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Part 1 - Executive Summary [ PDf format 63 kb ]
2. Background and objectives *
2.1 Background to the research
The ANZFA Act establishes the mechanisms for the development of joint food regulatory measures (a food standard or a code of practice) and creates the Australia New Zealand Food Authority as the agency responsible for the development and maintenance of a joint Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code.
The Australia New Zealand Food Authority (ANZFA) is an independent bi-national organisation that has the role, in collaboration with other organisations, to protect the health and safety of the people in Australia and New Zealand through the maintenance of a safe food supply.
Hence, one of the principle objectives behind the development of new food standards include to ensure that labels are easy to interpret and that they deliver information that is easy to understand and use, thereby enabling consumers to make informed choices about the foods they purchase.
Although food standards are developed by the Australia New Zealand Food Authority, responsibility for enforcing and policing these standards rests with the States and Territories in Australia and the New Zealand government in New Zealand. Each government has one or more agencies responsible for food surveillance within their health administration charged with the task of ensuring the requirements of the Food Standards Code are met. The Australian Quarantine Inspection Service (AQIS) is responsible for enforcing the Code for imported foods in Australia.
The current joint Food Standards Code was gazetted in December 2000 and is in the process of being implemented or adopted by industry over a two-year transition period.
The Section 10 Objectives of the Authority in developing food regulatory measures and variations of food regulatory measures **
(a) the protection of public health and safety; and
(b) the provision of adequate information relating to food to enable consumers to make informed choices; and(c) the prevention of misleading or deceptive conduct.
In developing food regulatory measures and variations of food regulatory measures, the Authority must also have regard to the following:
(a) the need for standards to be based on risk analysis using the best available scientific evidence;
(b) the promotion of consistency between domestic and international food standards;
(c) the desirability of an efficient and internationally competitive food industry;
(d) the promotion of fair trading in food.
In response to suggestions by the Australian National Audit Office, ANZFA wishes to develop a means to provide quantitative evaluation about the impact of the new code, how well the regulatory arrangements are working, and the level of monitoring and enforcement activity.
The preliminary research findings in this report are to assist with informing and developing that process, as well as to contribute to the design of following research phases.
* Based on Final Tender Document
** These are the current objectives as listed in the ANZFA Act, as amended in 2000 and are similar to those used in the review of the Australian and New Zealand regulations that were in the Act previously.
2.2 Overall research plan
Two research phases are planned: (A) a component of exploratory qualitative research followed by (B) a quantitative assessment of the effectiveness of the implementation of the joint Code.
Phase A: Exploratory qualitative research:
The first research phase is itself divided into two parts, namely (1)consumer research and (2) stakeholder research. The various components of the qualitative research program are illustrated below:
Phase B: Quantitative phase:
Each of the above mentioned qualitative research parts will provide guidance with the development of a survey instrument that will be used in the quantitative phase of the program, which, it is anticipated, will follow.
It is intended that the quantitative phase will measure the effectiveness of the implementation of the joint Code.
This report covers the findings of Part 1 of Phase A of the qualitative research, that is, the consumer research.
2.3 Research objectives for this component of research
This research component was solely focused on achieving input from consumers, and hence the key objective of this qualitative research was to:
- Explore consumer awareness, knowledge and understanding of food labels and behaviour towards food labelling.
The findings for the consumer research are presented herein. Further detail is included in the methodology section.
The specific objectives of the stakeholder research are outlined in the proposal and are not repeated here.
3. Methodology
Both qualitative and quantitative research was undertaken at this phase of the research.
Qualitative research (the primary component) in the form of 18 discussion groups was conducted with consumers - twelve groups in Australia and six groups in New Zealand.
And, at the same time, a small quantitative survey was conducted by intercept interview in selected supermarkets and this comprised observation of shopper product selection behaviour followed by structured interview.
Both research components are discussed in more depth in the sections following.
3.1 Qualitative research - discussion groups
All group participants were the main (or equal main) shopper in their household.
3.1.1 Group stratification
Groups were stratified by:
- Age: Food choices and shopping behaviour are known to vary by age, hence age is an important variable to consider when enhancing group rapport. Participants were therefore covered in three major divisions:
- Young (under 35)
- Mid (35-49)
- Older (50+)
- Health consciousness: Respondents were pre-screened (via the group recruitment questionnaire) into four segments based on their level of concern about health issues when purchasing food. The four segments were:
- Those with special health needs: that is, the respondent or a member of their household suffered from a food-related allergy or medical condition (eg diabetes; coeliac disease, heart disease, high blood pressure);
- Health-conscious food shoppers: that is, respondents who would regularly choose the healthy alternative (eg low fat; no sugar; etc);
- 'Conscientious' food shoppers: ie 'I try to choose nutritious foods but cost and convenience generally come first'; and
- Those who are less concerned about health issues when considering food purchases.
- Socio-economicstatus: based on information collected at recruitment, with regard to income and education levels, participants were allocated into:
- Upper SES;
- Mid SES; and
- Lower SES.
- Sex: Given the low incidence of male ' main (or equal) household food shoppers', an even mix of males and females in each group was not feasible. To increase group synergy, interviewers were instead instructed to recruit groups that were either all female, or had at least three males per group (to avoid the chances of having one male in an otherwise all-female gathering). In total, seven (7) men participated in the research (out of a total of 133).
- Location: It was agreed with ANZFA that conducting research in all States / Territories in Australia was neither necessary nor cost-effective, and therefore the final research locations were Western Australia (Perth, Bunbury and Busselton); New South Wales (Sydney, Coffs Harbour and Lismore) and New Zealand (Auckland, Wellington, Ashburton and Christchurch). These locations ensured that there was mix of different sized centres, both in terms of size of State / City, but also in terms of rural versus urban centres, included in the research design.
- Cultural / ethnic factors: Preliminary discussions with ANZFA indicated that it was not necessary to conduct specific groups with people from culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) or Indigenous backgrounds. Therefore CALD and Indigenous people were only included in the 'mainstream' population in the focus groups to the extent that this occurred without special interference. The exception to this was in New Zealand where a specific group of Maori consumers was conducted because they are a significant proportion of the population. This group was held in Wellington.
3.1.2 Recruitment
Recruitment of participants was undertaken by NCS Pearson in WA, J&S Research in NSW and NFO CM Research in New Zealand, using their group recruitment databases. Participants were selected on the basis of their responses to the recruitment questionnaire developed to record the demographic and other detail described in the section about group stratification.
A total of 133 people participated in the qualitative research.
3.1.3 Discussion guide and group materials
The discussion guide was developed by NFO Donovan Research in consultation with ANZFA, taking into account the issues that had been identified as needing to be covered with consumers.
Photographs used in the discussions for the purpose of illustrating various label features, and stimulating discussion were kindly provided by ANZFA. These contained a mix of new and old examples of the provisions of the new Code.
A copy of the discussion guide used is included in Appendix A, and the food product photographs are in Appendix D.
3.1.4 Group procedure
The groups were structured in approach. A series of self-completion sheets were developed to collect individual opinions about labelling in general, prior to the commencement of discussions. These tasks served two purposes. Firstly, it allowed researchers to have some record of individual reactions to issues, prior to the ideas being discussed in a group setting, and before people altered their perceptions based on general consensus or majority opinion. Second, the individual tasks helped to focus participants from the very general issues about food and shopping (the broader context) to specific types of labels and the more detailed context in which they are used.
Responses to these exercises were analysed and are reported on in the text where relevant.
Groups ran for two hours and participants were paid $50 (NSW and NZ) or $35 (WA) for their attendance.
3.2 Shopper observation and intercept interviews
This was a quantitative survey with interviewing undertaken in Australia by NCS Pearson and in New Zealand by NFO CM Research, in selected supermarkets.
The observation of product selection behaviour and selection of respondents for interviewing utilised a specific methodology that does not involve representative sampling of consumers. The objective of this part of the research was to provide a quantitative indication of the salience and use of labels in product selection, at the point of sale.
Shoppers were observed by the interviewer whilst they were selecting grocery items from the seven different packaged food types (meat; bakery/bread; spreads; biscuits; breakfast cereals; tinned foods; or snack foods). Observation took place only to the extent to which it was used to identify eligible shoppers for interviewing (based on the amount of attention they paid to food labels when choosing a product).
3.2.2 Questionnaire
The questionnaire was developed by NFO Donovan Research in consultation with ANZFA.
A copy of the questionnaire is included in Appendix B.
3.2.2 Interview locations
Observation and interviewing took place at the following locations:
| WA: |
|
| NSW: |
|
NZ: |
|
Our thanks are given to the personnel from Coles and Woolworths who kindly assisted in selecting suitable stores and to all staff who cooperated in the project.
3.2.3 Interview dates
In Australia interviewing took place between Thursday October 25 and Sunday October 28th, 2001. In New Zealand all interviews were conducted on Friday 26th October, 2001.
The following number of interviews were completed:
NSW n = 159
WA n = 44
NZ n = 53
4. Summary of findings
4.1 Awareness and Use of Food Labels
Consumers generally had a good appreciation of the range of information that is available on packaged foods. Their use of this information was two fold:
- Primarily, to assist in determining product choice while shopping - to make judgements about products based on the brand, price/value, ingredient and nutritional content versus taste;
- To learn more about the product, in order to seek reassurance that it is a ' safe ' choice. A ' safe' choice is determined at an individual level, which can include assessment of the country of origin, date mark, how it has been 'produced or treated' with regards to organic labelling and genetic modification, and whether the ingredient and nutritional content meets their needs.
Almost all participants reported reading labels on at least one product, but most do so only when the are contemplating buying a new product for the first time, or when an alternative brand is on special.
Most people read labels in the store, at the point of selection,prior to the purchase of a product they haven' t tried before - either a new product on the market, or a product they don' t usually buy that is on special.
However, many consumers report feeling ' rushed' and ' pressured' to make a quick product selection in the store and not get in the way of other shoppers, which limits their capacity to study labels in detail. Avid label readers would put the purchase off till another visit when they had more time, or were without their children. This may be one way of reducing any perceived ' risk' associated with a rushed product purchase.
Occasionally labels are read retrospectively, at home, either during meal preparation, while eating at the table, or when cleaning out the pantry.
The importance of and interest in label reading is to a great extent determined by life stage,rather than purely age. Parents of young children are much more interested in reading labels than those without children or those with grown up children, particularly regarding the use of the nutrition information on a product. A person's health consciousness is also clearly a determining factor - those with self or medically-determined health priorities are again more label-attentive.
The usefulness and importance of different labels varies by food product. Apart from price and brand information, the ingredients list, the nutrition information panel, date marks, nutrition claims, and food additive information are rated as the most important types of labels for the following products:
CATEGORY | 1ST MOST IMPORTANT | NEXT MOST IMPORTANT |
Dairy foods | Date Marking | NIP, Food Additives |
Breakfast Cereals | Ingredient List | NIP, Nutrition Claims |
Confectionary | Ingredient List | NIP, Date Marking |
Savoury Snacks | Ingredient List | NIP, Food Additives |
Frozen Sweet / Savoury Food | NIP | Date Marking, |
Tinned F & Veg | NIP | Ingredient List, |
Bakery/Bread | Date Marking | Ingredient List, NIP |
4.2 Nutrition Labels
Consumers' knowledge and understanding of nutrition information is piecemeal, mostly gathered from the media (television, newspapers and magazines) and word of mouth.
There was a lot of misunderstanding, confusion and a lack of confidence about how to use and interpret the Nutrition Information Panel (NIP) however this dissatisfaction is as much a reflection of people' s frustrated misunderstanding about specific nutrition information, for example the relationship between energy, fat, carbohydrates and sugar as it is about the label itself.
This general misunderstanding about nutrition appears to exist amongst consumers, at least those involved in this research, irrespective of age or socio-economic factors, life stage and/or health consciousness. Nutrition is one of those topics that everyone thinks they know quite a lot about (and are ready to articulate what they believe to be true), yet when it comes right down to it, what they do know isn't really that comprehensive. Having said this, there was a general trend amongst younger people and people recruited into the higher SES groups, who appear to be generally better informed about nutrition information; nonetheless they were still likely to voice inaccurate information as ' fact' and/or admit to being confused by other nutrition theories.
Most shoppers tended to have one or two ' pet ' nutrients they check and then they ignore the rest, with only a minority saying they assess the whole NIP (and this is usually for breakfast cereal). Fat content was usually monitored by people when choosing foods for themselves (or their partner) whereas sugar content was evaluated by parents buying food for their children. The in-store survey found that 70% of shoppers used the NIP to look for the fat content information and 53% to look for the sugar content.
The majority of people who were (or would have been) interested in using the NIP found at least parts of it difficult to read or interpret. The main problems stemmed from confusion over:
|
Participants were divided in their preferences for information to be presented per 100g (%) or per serve, the overall preference tended to be for per 100g as this was viewed as easier to work with. Nonetheless, having both was viewed as an acceptable format and of value in different circumstances.
People who consciously try to make healthier food choices often use their own rules or thresholds for key nutrients such as fat, sugar, salt and fibre. However for the vast majority who don't have a benchmark against which to compare a new product, the ability to compare against a number of products is a very important step in establishing one. Most people struggle to ascertain what is legitimately ' low / lower ' or ' high / higher ' in fat/salt/sugar etc and therefore a 'good' choice.
Furthermore, participants appear to use many different 'rules of thumb' to speed up their product selection choices. These included rules about the acceptable amount of fat or sugar (the 10% rule, less than 30gs of fat); assumptions about probability of low fat products being high in sugar, rules about avoiding food additive numbers etc. It is clear that consumers (at least those in this research) use such mental shortcuts to process the myriad of different pieces of information they have about food and nutrition, and streamline what is most useful or most relevant for their own needs.
Consumers generally liked the nutrition claims on packages because they were a quick and easy way to decide between two products without having to read the entire label. Many participants admitted that the presence of nutrition claims on the front of the package did influence their decision to purchase.
However, there was also a belief amongst some that the products themselves might often not be any more of what is claimed than a similar alternative brand, and that reference to the more detailed nutrition label was essential to certify the manufacturers claims, because of an underlying feeling that manufacturers often try to dupe you. People were most sceptical about fat free and lite claims, and were well aware of the fat/sugar trade off where products labelled as low in fat were instead high(er) in sugar.
4.3 Ingredient Labelling
There was widespread recognition and understanding of the term ' ingredients list' and all participants were able to locate the list on the food example they had in front of them. About half of the participants knew that the ingredients were arranged by quantity from most to least.
For those people who were interested in monitoring the amount of a particular ingredient in a product, or in comparing the perceived ' value' of two similar products, there was a preference for percentage labelling. It was clear, amongst this group of shoppers, that percentage labelling could become a very useful ' tool' for making value judgments between products. However, based on the fact that so many people were unable to spontaneously recognise a benefit for percentage labelling until it was explained to them, a considerable amount of consumer education would need to be provided for its potential use to be maximised.
The food additive numbering system was well recognised by all participants in the research. Attitudes towards the numbering system were that it was undesirable; people perceived that the numbering system either referred to additives that were only ' bad', or the numbers were ' meaningless' .
4.4 Country of Origin Labels
When discussed in it's own right, the majority of participants thought country of origin labelling was very important, and quite a few said that it is the first thing they look at. The in-store survey data did not support this view as strongly, however, country of origin information was a significant consideration for spreads and tinned food.
There are two main reasons for wanting to know country of origin information:
- Being able to identify the source of the product; and
- Supporting the local economy.
The main problem with country of origin labelling appears to be the many and varied forms of the statement, and the meaning of what they claim. ' Made in Australia/New Zealand ' type labels were viewed as confusing, and people called for a standardisation of these terms.
4.5 Date Marking
All participants were aware of date marking and used it regularly, and almost all were aware that there were two different markings - 'best before' and 'use by'. Date marking was felt to be useful and important for all food products, and especially so for perishable goods such as dairy foods, eggs, bread and meat. It was also agreed across all groups that date marks were generally reliable.
4.6 Genetically Modified, Irradiated and Novel Foods
Genetic Modification
Whilst no-one could categorically state that they knew exactly what genetic modification is or how it is done, there was a feeling that whatever it is, it is intrinsically bad. The issue is extremely emotive yet there is a great deal of misunderstanding and misinformation about genetic modification.
The concern over the use of GM illustrates the level of general apprehension about the food supply and the perceived importance of maintaining stringent control over it. Most people agreed that they would try to avoid consuming GM foods, and would rely on labels in order to do so. It should be noted that the timing of this project, and this finding predates mandatory GM labelling.
Consumers expressed an absolute right to know about any GMOs included in any products. It was generally thought by most people that even if a product was not specifically labelled as 'GMO-free' it would not be genetically modified. That is, they would expect any product that contained genetically modified organisms to be clearly labelled that this was the case. There were mixed views and preferences as to whether a ' GMO Free' label was more helpful than not. It was at the point of seeing the example provided that the lines of demarcation between what is and is not readily identified as GM by consumers became blurred.
The effect of the term 'GMO-free' on purchases would need to be tested further. Although people did state their expectation that all GM foods would be labelled, they also acknowledged the potential likelihood that they would use the term GMO-free as a differentiator when purchasing, ie the alternative product might be the same but the GMO-free attribute could effectively swing the balance.
Irradiated Foods
There was even less awareness and more misunderstanding about irradiated foods.
The word 'irradiation' is almost synonymous with 'radiation' [also connoting 'nuclear'] and is consequently suspected to be unsafe or bad for you.
Much would need to be done by ANZFA to educate people about exactly what irradiation means, how irradiated foods compare safety-wise and nutritionally to similar products preserved in other ways, and what the potential benefits are before it would be acceptable to consumers at large.
4.7 Reliability of Food Labels and the Role of the Government / ANZFA
There is a dichotomous attitude towards the governance of food labelling. There is a feeling that the amorphous 'government' stringently controls what goes into our food, etc and there is a lot of faith that the food we eat is subject to the strictest tests to ensure it is safe for consumption. There is an over-riding belief that the food system in Australia and New Zealand is safe, and this sense of trust is extended to food labels. People generally have faith that the labels will be fairly accurate and reliable - as long as the governing body continues to check the products to ensure compliance. In this way there is a belief in 'good' governance.
However, this trust is attributed to the assumption that safety (and label reliability) is regulated by a higher independent authority, rather than food manufacturers. Where people believe (or see evidence that) manufacturers are not compelled to provide certain product info