Food Standards Australia New Zealand

• 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)
• Part 1- Executive Summary

4 Label interpretation

Respondents were asked a number of questions (questions 9-20) to measure their ability to use and interpret label information.

4.1.  Interpretation of combined nutrition information

In Question 9 all respondents were shown a picture of the nutrition information for a tub of yoghurt (see PowerPoint slide 55) and asked which pieces of information they would use when considering buying it for themselves or their family.The picture depicted an NIP (including serve information which is an integral part of the NIP) and an ingredients list (which included a percentage label.   Up to three mentions of information were recorded (ie, this was a multiple response question).  

The majority (75%) of responses indicated use of information provided on the NIP.  

The key pieces of NIP information reported to have been used were^{8 [1]} :

Sugar: 42% (n=606)

Total fat: 40% (n=576)

Fat (unspecified): 27% (n=395)

Energy: 25% (n=358)

Sodium: 21% (n=306)

Protein: 17% (=251)

Carbohydrate: 11% (n=163)

Saturated fat: 11% (n=155)

Both Total & Saturated fat: 8% (n=120)

Serving size: 4% (n=61)

Serving per package: 2% (n=35)

It is notable that most responses were related to the amount of fat in the product. Four percent (4%) of mentions related to serve information.   

Ingredients List

Ten percent (10%) of mentions related to information present in the ingredients list. The primary responses were¹:

Ingredients:63% (n=121)

Strawberries / fruit content:29% (n=44)

Sugar:23% (n=34)

4.2. NIP Interpretation

Questions 10-12 involved three short exercises that tested respondents’ ability to analyse and interpret the NIP.   Each exercise asked respondents to use a mock-up label card to answer three questions:

1.      Which of these foods do you think would be a wiser choice for a healthy diet?

2.      Which column of information did you mostly use to make your decision?

3.      Which nutrients did you mostly use to make your decision?

At the third question respondents were probed fully by the interviewer so that full rather than single response answers were captured (eg, If a respondent used fat and sugar in their decision making).

In order to contain the interview duration, and avoid respondent fatigue respondents were only asked to do two of the three exercises.   Question 10 (snack foods) was asked of all respondents, questions 11 (cracker biscuits) and 12 (chicken soup) were each rotated between respondents so that half of the total sample answered each question.   The reader is referred to the PowerPoint Report for a copy of the stimulus materials and graphed results (Slides 60-70).

It should be noted that questions related to the order in which nutrients are listed in the NIP were not included in this study.   However, the qualitative research reported that one of the reasons some consumers found NIPs confusing to use was the lack of consistency between products regarding the various nutrients that were listed, and the varying order in which they were listed by different manufacturers.  

NIP Exercise – Snack foods

Respondents were shown two NIPs side by side (Product A and B) and asked:Which of these foods do you think would be a wiser choice for a healthy diet? The correct response was Product B which was significantly lower in sugar (12.2g/100 versus 30.2g/100g).

Thirty five percent of respondents chose the correct product, while 39% selected the alternative product. A further 13% responded that it was too hard to choose and 8% reported that the two products were equal.

When respondents were asked Which column of information did you mostly use to make your decision? just over half (54%) of respondents reported using the average quantity per serving column. Thirty percent of all respondents selected reported the average quantity per 100g column. A smaller proportion (15%) reported using both columns. Either column could have been used (as serve sizes were the same for both products) but the fact that over half chose to use the per servecolumn gains significance in the context of the results in the next two exercises, whilst serve sizes varied between products.

Respondents were asked:which nutrients did you mostly use to make your decision. Whilst 48% reported using sugars (the appropriate nutrient to make their decision) the majority (64%) referred to total fat.   Of those who did refer to sugar in their interpretation (48%), only half (56%) made the appropriate product selection.   One quarter of those who referred to sugar (24% of 48%) selected the higher sugar product.   The rest said it was hard to choose because Product A is better in one way, Product B is better in another (13%), ortheydidn’tknow(<1%).

Summary: In this exercise, it appears that the majority of respondents did not consider the product’s overall nutritional value but concentrated on one nutrient.   They did not demonstrate an ability to correctly interpret the NIP.   As many respondents who answered correctly (35%) answered incorrectly (39%). When considered in isolation of the remaining exercises, these results indicate that consumers are confused about how to carry out product comparisons in order to make healthier choices.   This confusion appears to relate to determining the relative value of nutrient composition (ie, what nutrient value(s) should carry more consideration in product selection).  Given that two thirds of respondents referred to fat values, it could be hypothesised that a substantial proportion of respondents were led by popular perceptions about the importance of choosing ‘low fat’, even when their final product choice was only 0.1g lower in fat (which is an insignificant difference but may not have been recognised as such) compared to the alternative that was 18% lower in sugar.

NIP Exercise – Cracker Biscuits

The first NIP exercise was then replicated with NIPs for either cracker biscuits or chicken soup. In the exercise for cracker biscuits the healthier product (Product A) was determined by the substantially lower amount of salt, compared to Product B.

In contrast to the first exercise, the majority (73%) of respondents chose the correct product when asked to select the healthier choice.   Only 14% selected the incorrect product.   A small proportion (4%) reported that the two products were both the same. Nine percent (9%) reported it was hard to choose / did not know.

In this exercise, the average serving per 100 grams column should have been used in the interpretation as serve sizes differ between product A and B.   Only one third of respondents (31%) used the per 100g column in their decision making, however of those, three quarters made the correct product selection.   Fifty five percent of respondents reported (inappropriately) using the average quantity per serving column, however a similar proportion (78%) still made the correct product selection.   A small proportion (13%) reported they used both columns to make their decision.

Respondents were then asked Which nutrients did you mostly use to make your decision?  While they should have based their decision on sodium content as both products have similar levels of all other nutrients, only 35% of respondents used sodium in their decision making.   Two thirds (65%) used total fat and 38% reported using sugars. The majority of respondents who looked at sodium made the correct product selection - of those 82% correctly selected Product A.  

Of concern however is that the majority of respondents who made the correct product selection (A) based their decision on total fat and/or sugars (not sodium), both of which were only marginally lower in Product A than Product B, compared to the almost 45% differential in sodium content. Again, although differences in fat and sugar content were substantially less than that for sodium, some consumers appear to have made a choice based on the levels of these nutrients.   This would indicate that people are making an assessment based on their own interpretation of what is most important or of most concern.

NIP Exercise – Chicken Soup

The key difference between the two product NIPs in this exercise was the substantially lower amount of fat (total and saturated) and energy in Product B. The majority of respondents made the right product selection for a healthier choice, 66% answered correctly (versus 22% who selected the alternative product, 7% reported one was better in one way, while the other was better in another, 2% who stated that the two NIPs were the same and 5% reported they don’t know or found it hard to choose).

Either the per 100g or theper serve column could have been used in interpreting the NIPs, as serve sizes were the same for both products.   Preference for each column was evenly divided; 54% reported using theper serving column to reach the decision, and 53% reported the per 100gcolumn and 13% reported using both.

When asked what nutrients they used to make their decision,   68% reported total fat, 34% stated sugars,33% reported energy, 31% reported saturated fat, and 22% reported using sodium.  Once again, reference to fat exceeded all other nutrients, although use of energy values was higher than in other exercises where energy content was the same for both products.   The majority of respondents who looked at total fat made the correct product selection (79%), as did those looking at energy (59%).   However, nearly one third of those who used energy in their decision making (30%) still incorrectly selected Product A.

Summary The proportion of ‘correct’ (ie, healthier) product selections in the second/third exercise were much higher than in the first.   There are at least two reasons that could account for this, both of which have implications for education strategies as well as any review of labelling effectiveness: Firstly, it could be that the second exercise undertaken by each respondent (cracker biscuits or chicken soup) was easier, although this is not likely.   The cracker biscuits exercise involved assessing differences of the same magnitude, for only one nutrient (all other nutrients being of similar value between products), although interpretation was much easier if respondents used the per 100g column instead of the per serve column.   The chicken soup exercise could be argued as easier again, because the NIPs differed on two nutrients, fat and energy (both in the same direction) – ie, the ‘weight of evidence’ may have made interpretation easier. Second, it could be that a ‘familiarity’ or ‘learning’ effect was at play, ie, respondents became better at interpreting the NIP having practised the task in the first exercise.   If such an effect did occur, this could also suggest that respondents don’t in fact need much practice to become better at interpreting NIPs, particularly when ‘learning’ under a structured, but fairly simplistic exercise.

NIP Exercise – Frozen Dinner

For this exercise, respondents were shown NIPs for a frozen dinner and asked 2 different questions that tested their label literacy (ie, ability to find and report nutrient values) for different serve sizes (ie, no comparison of nutrients).  

Respondents were firstly shown a single NIP and asked how much saturated fat do you think there is in the whole packet? Two thirds (65%) correctly reported the fat information; a further 12% looked at the wrong fat values.

Respondents were then shown another two NIPs of frozen dinners, and asked: Which dinner would you give the most…and were asked to reply for energy, sodium, total fat and saturated fat.  Seventy seven percent of respondents achieved 4 correct responses.

Summary/conclusions about NIP interpretation Use of the per serve column appears to be either an intuitive or habitual preference, which in the case of product comparison, can lead to the wrong conclusions about what is the healthiest choice.   The qualitative research that preceded this study adds weight to this conclusion – consumers did not then, nor do they in this study, appear to understand that the per 100g column is most useful for product comparison when serving sizes differ; Fat dominates all thinking – it appears that even when two products differ markedly in a nutrient other than fat, there is a significant proportion of consumers who will be led by the ‘fat is bad, above all else’ theory.   This group of consumers, it is hypothesised, will select a product that is only marginally lower in fat (e.g., 0.1g) over one that is substantially lower in another nutrient (e.g., sodium).   The consumers in this study at least, do not appear to have any sense of the relative balance of nutrient values that should guide their selection.   [This conclusion does not of course take into account the fact that there will be some consumers who, because of special needs, will select products arbitrarily on the basis of one nutrient only]. Consumers in this study do not appear to have any major trouble in reading and interpreting NIPs for a single product (their difficulty lies in product comparison – see dot point one).   Furthermore, it could be concluded that some consumers learn fast when the learning is facilitated, such as it was in this study.   Participation in the task itself could well have been an educational process – some interviewers reported anecdotally that when they asked the subsequent questions requiring respondents to explain how product selection was made (which column,? which nutrient?) some respondents at that point realised they had made the wrong selection. It should be noted that these conclusions are speculative, and dedicated research should be conducted to truly understand NIP interpretation.

Again for reasons of containing interview duration and respondent fatigue, respondents were asked only a selection of the remaining interpretation questions.   Through even rotation in two batches of questions, half the sample was asked either questions 15-18 or 19-20.

4 .3. Interpretation of the ingredient list

In question 15a respondents were firstly asked whether they knew if the ingredients are presented in any particular order. Almost half the sample (47%) correctly indicated ‘yes’, that the ingredients are listed in a particular order (37% said ‘no’ and 16% didn’t know).

Interestingly, two thirds (66%) of those who did think ingredients were listed in a particular order were aware that they are listed in descending order (25% of the total sample).   Of the remainder of respondents, 6% stated that the ingredients were listed in ascending order; 9% reported that they did not know, and 19% selected ‘other’.   There was some concern amongst the researchers that this question would falsely elevate the proportion of respondents who selected either ‘descending’ or ‘ascending’ order because respondents would assume that their real choice of response was one of the two.   The fact that one fifth of respondents felt that an ‘other’ response was correct gives confidence that ‘true’ in the validity of responses to this question.

4.4.  Interpretation of percentage labels

There were two exercises which aimed to assess the interpretation of percentage labels (questions 16 a and b).

Percentage labelling exercise – Strawberry yoghurt

Respondents were shown a picture card with the nutrition label for strawberry yogurt, including an ingredients list featuring a percentage label (strawberries 9%).   They were given three possible responses to the question what does the nine percent mean after the ingredient ‘strawberry’?

Nearly three quarters (71%) provided the correct response - 9% of this product contains strawberries; 18% responded that the ingredient “strawberries” is only 9% strawberries, and the remaining 11% selected ‘other’ or ‘don’t know’.

Percentage labelling exercise – Fruit juice drink

Respondents were then shown a picture card featuring a different ingredients list and percentage label, for fruit juice drink.   When asked:what percentage of this product would you say comes from fruit? the majority of respondents (84%) answered correctly, summing the percent given for pineapple and mango puree.

4 .5. Interpretation of allergen labels

In question 17 respondents were shown an example of a product (chocolate bar) with an allergen statement, and asked  imagine if you suffered from an allergy when eating nuts, how useful would you find a statement on a snack bar that said ‘may contain traces of nuts’?    From a choice of three responses, over half (53%) of respondents selected       v ery useful, because I am told when there is even a chance that nuts are present.  Twenty six percent stated it was not very useful, because it doesn’t say whether nuts are definitely in the product and the remaining 20% said  quite useful, because it reminds me I may be eating a product containing nuts.

Of more interest is how those results change when we examine the responses for respondents with special dietary needs.   People with special needs were most likely to consider the allergen statement ‘not very useful…’ (29% any special need versus 21% no special need, compared with 26% total sample).   Importantly, the results differed more significantly with a respondent’s type of special need with 36% of those with an allergy to nuts and 28% with other allergies not finding it useful

4.6. Interpretation of date marks

Respondents were shown an example of a date mark on a package, and asked Which of these two statements do you think applies to a use-by date?. Fifty six percent were aware that it is illegal to sell a food product past its use-by date as the food can be potentially harmful. However, 44% of respondents responded the use-by date is only a guide – it is quite safe to eat some food products after the use-by date has expired.

4.7. Interpretation of country of origin labels.

In question 19 respondents were shown three types of labels that describe country of origin: a‘made in…’label;a‘product of’…label; (Australian and New Zealand versions used) and a  ‘made from Australian / New Zealand ingredients  ’label.  Respondents were asked to select which product has the most Australian/New Zealand ingredients.

The highest proportion of respondents (60%) correctly selected the ‘product of’ label.Nearly one third (31%) selected the ‘made in’ label, 3% selected the‘made from Australian / NZ and imported ingredients’ label and 6% stated that they did not know.

Interestingly, significantly more New Zealanders incorrectly selected the‘made in’ label (37% versus 27% Australians), though this is not surprising given that mandatory country of origin labelling applies only to a few products in New Zealand.

4.8. Interpretation of nutrient claims.

Questions 20a-d measured consumer understanding of nutrient claims. The claims investigated were: “lite”, “no added sugar”, “reduced in salt” and “94% fat free”.

‘Lite’ claim – Strawberry Yoghurt

A picture of a strawberry yoghurt package with the nutrient claim “Lite” was shown to respondents, who were asked to select which of the following does lite refer to? (fat, sugar, energy, colour, fruit content, any of the above, don’t know).   Multiple responses were allowed.   The majority(77%) responded fat.   A further 19% responded sugar, 6% said energy, 3% said colour and 2% said fruit content, 8% said any of the above and the same proportion did not know (8%).

Respondents were then asked how confusing they felt the claim was.   Most   respondents found this labelling elementvery confusing(29%) or a bit confusing(45%), however one quarter (25%) reported that it was not at all confusing.

When asked about how misleading they thought the term was, 33% stated it was either very misleading,46% said a bit misleading,and 20% stated it was not at all misleading.

‘No added sugar’ claim – Tinned Peaches

Respondents were shown a picture of a tin of peaches displaying the term ‘no added sugar’. They were subsequently asked:would you say this term (‘no added sugar’) means this food……..Responses and results are detailed below:

Could be either a low, medium or high sugar food:38% (correct)

Contains small amounts of sugar: 30%

Contains no sugar: 28%

Don’t know / not sure: 4%

The results show that consumers are confused about what this claim means, with responses evenly distributed between the three response options above.    In addition, those consumers who responded ‘don’t know’ were then asked if they were not sure because they found the claim confusing or misleading.   Just over half (55%) reported that they found the claim confusing, and one third (35%) reported that they found it misleading.

‘Reduced in Salt’ – Baked Beans  

After being shown a picture card of a can of baked beans displaying the term ‘reduced in salt’, respondents were asked whether they would ‘say this food…’Responses and results are detailed below:

Contains less salt compared to similar food labelled ‘low salt’ :46%

          Contains the same amount of salt compared to similar food labelled ‘low salt’:26%

          Contains more salt compared to similar food labelled ‘low salt’:11% (correct)

          Don’t know / not sure:17%

The majority of respondents were not able to correctly interpret the ‘reduced in salt’ claim.   More importantly, almost half interpreted the claim in a way that would lead them to make a poor choice if they were trying to purchase a low-salt product.

Respondents who indicated that they didn’t know the answer were then asked if they were not sure because the term was confusing, misleading or neither.   Sixty five percent said it was because they found the claim confusing and 28% found the claim misleading.

‘94% fat free claim’ – Rice crackers

After being shown a picture card of a packet of rice crackers displaying the term ‘94% fat free’, respondents were asked whether they would ‘say this food is…’ Responses are detailed below:

A low fat food:75%

A medium fat food:16% (correct)

A high fat food:3%

Don’t know:7%

Three quarters of respondents incorrectly interpreted this term to mean the food was low fat.   Of the 7% who didn’t know, 49% stated that this term was confusing, and a similar proportion (48%) reported it was misleading.