• Learning Centre
• Media centre
• Translated material
• Publications
• Monitoring and Surveillance
• Science in FSANZ
• APEC 2011
• About FSANZ

• Home
• Science and Education
• Publications
• Evaluation Report Series
• Food labelling issues:Quantitative research consumers(June 2003)

Food labelling issues: Quantitative research with consumers 

Part 1 Summary Report

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The current joint Australian New Zealand Food Standards Code (the Code) was agreed in November 2000 (gazetted in December 2000) and was implemented by the food industry over a two-year transition period, ending in December 2002 [1] .   One of the principal objectives behind the development of new food standards is 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.

This quantitative research with consumers was conducted at the time of transition from the old to the new Code in order to provide baseline indicators of consumer attitudes towards labelling, awareness and use of different labelling elements, beliefs about the clarity and trustworthiness of labels, and which label elements consumers find difficult to interpret.

It is intended that the baseline data will be used by Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) as a benchmark to evaluate the impact of implementing new regulatory measures on consumers.   The study supports one of six activities identified in the FSANZ 2001-2003 Evaluation Strategy².   The baseline study followed two stages of qualitative research; the “Qualitative Research with Stakeholders: Food Labelling Issues” Report³, and the “Food Labelling Issues: Qualitative Research with Consumers” Report⁴, conducted by NFO Donovan Research in 2001-2002.

FSANZ subsequently commissioned NFO Donovan Research to undertake a quantitative baseline study in Australia and New Zealand between August and September 2002.   The study was conducted via 1940 door-to-door interviews in metropolitan cities in both countries.   The questionnaire and stimulus materials for fifteen label elements included in the study were developed based on input from the qualitative research, pre-testing and two in-field pilot tests with interviewer debrief discussions.

Both unprompted and prompted awareness were measured. Unprompted awareness measures the respondent's ability to recall a food labelling element, it provides an indication of what elements are more ‘top of mind’ than others.   However, for this study, it is not the best way to measure awareness of specific label elements, particularly given the number of different elements included in the study, that some elements are much newer than others, and that some elements are similar or related to each other.   It was known from the qualitative research that some consumers described quite incorrectly the features of particular elements, and others use one label element name and mean another (e.g., nutrient claim versus NIP; ingredients list versus allergen declaration).  

For these reasons prompted awareness (measured using label illustrations) is a more realistic and accurate measure of awareness.   Therefore throughout this study, we refer to and report in more detail on prompted measures of awareness.

In order to maximise the usefulness of the survey data, results are documented under several reports:

• a summary of key findings is provided in this document, with the addition of an interpretive discussion of the more complex aspects of the survey – the label interpretation questions, and the segmentation analysis;
  
• detailed results are provided in graph format in a user-friendly interactive PowerPoint presentation, structured so that readers can easily find their way to and from the data they are most interested in;
  
• result data tables;
  
• a methodology report - together with a copy of all survey materials; and
  
• a pilot report.

The results of this study confirm the qualitative research findings that different consumers report to use labels for different reasons and in different ways and that some use many more label elements than others. For example, date marks were used more regularly for perishable foods (e.g., dairy) and allergen declarations were relied upon more for baked products such as biscuits, and dairy foods.   The study focussed on consumers’ awareness and use of specific food label elements in making food choices rather than assessing the influence of price or brand. Interestingly, consumers reported unprompted awareness of six label elements (ingredients, list, nutrition information panel or NIP, date mark, country of origin, percentage labels and nutrient claims) to be more ‘top of the mind’ than weight, brand and/or price.

The research indicates that there is a relatively high level of prompted awareness of most label elements, with health claims, novel foods and irradiated labels having the lowest prompted awareness.   The most widely used label elements were the date mark, ingredients list and NIP with over two thirds or more consumers reporting their use, and the least used were the genetically modified organism (GMO) declaration, health claim, allergen declaration, novel and irradiated food declarations.   However, with the exception of health claims, these latter set of label elements are only mandatory on food labels of products containing these ingredients and in some cases reflect new labelling provisions in the Code, therefore, awareness and use might be expected to be lower than for other label elements.  

Prompted awareness and use of nine of the fifteen elements differed between Australia and New Zealand consumers in the study, with New Zealanders reporting higher awareness and use for the NIP, advisory statements, warning statements, GMO declarations, preparation and storage instructions, and novel food declarations.   Respondents from New Zealand also reported higher awareness of the ingredients list, however Australian respondents reported higher awareness of nutrient claims, and a greater proportion reported using the country of origin label element than consumers in New Zealand.

Consumers reported using, on average, five label elements, with a range from one to fourteen elements out of a total of 15 label elements that were assessed. Across all label elements there were two key reasons reported for label non-use; disinterest in labels and habit or previous positive experiences with foods, rendering the use of a labels unnecessary.

Endorsements and date marks were rated by consumers as the most clear and easy to understand. The GMO declaration and the country of origin labels were deemed the least clear and easy to understand. Endorsements and date marks were also rated as the most trustworthy. The greatest proportion ofI’m not sure whether I trust it or notresponses, was in regard to the GMO declaration, followed by the ingredient list, novel foods and NIPs.

The survey results demonstrate that most consumers do not have any trouble in reading and interpreting NIPs on a single product, however they struggle to carry out product comparisons using this nutrient information.   When comparing the merits of two products consumers tend to focus on one nutrient only, and their evaluative thinking is dominated by fat levels.   When given a choice, many consumers choose a product slightly lower in fat over one where the difference in another nutrient, such as sodium or salt, is greater in value.   The results suggest that consumers are confused as to the relative value of nutrient composition. It should be noted that these conclusions are speculative and dedicated research should be conducted to truly understand NIP interpretation.

Consumers in this research had difficulty with the interpretation of nutrient claims with approximately half misunderstanding the meaning of the nutrient claims that were assessed in this study.   Given these consumers’ responses it is likely that many would make poor food choices as a result of their misinterpretation of nutrient claims.

One quarter of respondents were aware when shown an example of an ingredients list that the ingredients are presented in descending order of quantity.   The qualitative research previously undertaken with consumers indicated that once aware of this, many consumers find this information useful.   Similarly, the quantitative results indicated that most consumers (71%) have no trouble correctly interpreting percentage ingredient labels, once they are aware of them.

A ‘may contain nuts’ allergen statement was least likely to be considered very useful by consumers who purchase food for allergen sufferers, compared to the total sample, over half of whom considered it very useful.

Although nearly all consumers were aware of date marks when prompted, just under half the consumers surveyed did not understand the actual information given in the date mark, for example the “use by” date mark, considering it to be ‘only a guide’ and that it was quite safe to eat food products after the use by date had expired.

Segmentation analysis of label users produced six segments of label users, however there were no major differences in demographic characteristics between consumers that use many label elements, compared to those that use very few.

These findings could form the basis for a mass population approach for future information and education strategies for health professionals and other stakeholders interested in education activities. This approach is likely to be most cost-effective, and a broad-brushed approach to the dissemination of information and education would be of benefit to all segments of label users.  

This research provides in-depth information on consumers’ awareness, knowledge and use of food labels, as well as their capacity to interpret label information appropriately and make food choices that meet their needs.   The results suggest that many consumers are confused about how to use the information from some label elements, particularly those with nutrition information, and that they have varied levels of capacity to use them appropriately and successfully.  The findings suggest that if consumers are to use information on more label elements (or label information more often), then they need to be enabled to do so, possible ways in which this could occur include via information, education and practice.

1. Needs and Attitudes towards Food Labelling
   
2. Awareness of Label Elements
   
3. Use of Label Elements
   
4. Label Interpretation
   
5. Segmentation of Consumers

APPENDIX 1: Segmentation Analysis [ pdf 111kb ]