Food labelling issues:
A qualitative consumer study related to food labelling of infant foods
4 . Overall Comments and Observations
4 .1. General observations
Before the results are presented against the specific research objectives there are some general observations that can be made at a broader level, across all group discussions.
There was a great deal of consistency in the findings across all groups, in both countries, in terms of the way in which parents are informed about introducing solids, their process and pathway through trial and transition to more textured foods, and the role that food labels play in that process. Similarly, participants in the study responded to the labelling issues and concepts in only one of a few different ways, rather than having wide-ranging reactions, and these reactions were not country-specific.
First-time parents differed markedly from second-time parents in terms of their confidence in introducing solids and the attention they place on information sources, but not in the importance they attribute to those sources. Second-time mothers were much more likely to ‘throw the book away’ with their second child, and much more likely to rely on their own experience and instinct, and what worked or didn’t work with their first child.
Amongst the participants in this study, the majority of New Zealand parents introduced solids at 4 months or just before, compared to about quarter of the Australian parents with about half introducing solids at 5 months. Parents in Australia were mostly aware that the age of 6 months was the recommended target age for introducing solids, irrespective of whether their own behaviour followed this. New Zealand parents however were more likely to refer to the target as an age range of 4-6 months, although acknowledging that 6 rather than 4 months was recommended.
Across the New Zealand groups, participants were much more familiar with the breadth of physiological cues, such as the tongue extrusion reflex, that indicate a baby’s readiness for solids than were participants in Australia (see Section 7).
4 .2. Limitations of the study
From the onset of the project, FSANZ and the project Reference Group were concerned that the inclusion of parents with babies under 4 months of age might be inadvertently encourage them to introduce solids prior to 4 months of age, or that their involvement in the study might be misinterpreted as encouraging these parents to introduce solids early. Parents with babies under 4 months of age were therefore excluded from the study.
It became evident during the first wave of fieldwork that it was somewhat difficult for some participants to isolate the likely impact and implications of potential labelling changes from their current and previous experience, and the advice of their child health nurse. Given that the majority of participants had introduced solids, and all others had thought about it and discussed it with others, their views about what they might have done or thought in the context of the proposed labelling changes were unavoidably influenced by what they had in fact done, or now knew.
At this point it was identified that, although presenting the ethical dilemma described earlier, the study may have benefited from the inclusion of one or two additional groups with first-time mothers with babies under the age of 3 months (and hence prior to the exposure of unsolicited or solicited advice about introducing solids, whether that be from the child health nurse, family or friends). Alternatively, it was identified that the inclusion of women in late-term pregnancy might also provide a similar ‘uncontaminated’ perspective.
There are several reasons why it was not possible to include this additional group of parents:
- limited project budget which prevented the conduct of additional focus groups via professional recruitment; and
- limited time frame which prevented the conduct of additional focus groups recruited via local maternal health services, which would require ethics committee clearance.
The researcher therefore highlights this area of inquiry as a priority for future research.