Search results

This pilot study for a larger research project aims to quantify and categorise elements of food label information and establishes an indicative physical relationship between mandatory and other information thereby articulating the relative balance between information intended to inform healthy dietary choices and that intended to perform other functions such as aiding purchase decisions.

The methodology employs quantitative content analysis performed on a number of different canned food labels (n=9).

Findings indicate the amount of available space on labels devoted to mandatory information ranged between 17 and 31 per cent, whilst the amount allocated to commercial information ranged between 18 and 45 per cent. Unoccupied space varies between 32 and 54 per cent. This indicates there is an imbalance between mandatory and commercial information, with the weighting in favour of the latter.

The small sample size precludes generalization.

An extended version of this research could influence government and corporate policy in establishing a balance between the prominence given to different categories of label information, favouring that which is more “health positive”. Alternately, information could be presented in a larger format, thereby assisting a wider range of consumers to make healthy and informed dietary choices: both outcomes have positive health implications for the population. Another outcome is the formal classification of label information elements thereby enabling clearer comparisons to be made between consumers' food label interactions.

This is the first time content analysis has been conducted on food labels. The paper is also unique in proposing a formal taxonomy for food label information. It has value for those working on policy issues.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the influence of food retailer's Approaching the Expiration Date (AED) labelling on consumers' retailer-related response. Specifically, the main effect of food retailer's AED labelling on consumers' patronage intention, the mediation effect of food retailer's concern for consumers and the boundary condition of this effect are explored. The selected context of research is that food retailers are reluctant to stick an AED label on nearly expired food due to negative effect on selling them.

Two separate pretests and two separate experiments have been conducted to investigate the influence of food retailer's AED labelling on patronage intention. Pretest 1 develops the stimulus material of food retailer's AED labelling. Study 1 investigates the influence of AED labelling on patronage intention and mediation effect of consumers' perception of retailer's concern for consumers. Pretest 2 develops the stimulus material of government regulation on food retailer's AED labelling. Study 2 explores the boundary condition of the positive effect, namely the moderation effect of whether retailer's AED labelling is voluntary or mandatory.

The main findings of this research highlight the positive influence of food retailer's AED labelling on consumers' patronage intention. In addition, the current research reveals the underlying mechanism food retailer's concern for consumers and the boundary condition whether the AED labelling is voluntary or mandatory.

Although previous researches has explored the effect of food retailer's AED labelling on consumers' response, most of them focus on consumer purchase intention of the nearly expired food and neglect its effect on consumers' food retailer-related response. It is a need for food retailer to explore the potential positive influence of food retailer's AED labelling on consumers' patronage intention.

To encourage sustainable consumer practices, public policy makers introduce new ecological measures, including mandatory programmes that require companies to provide environmental information about their products, even if the information is not flattering. Few academic studies consider the potential impacts of such mandatory eco-labels on consumer behaviour; the purpose of this paper is to seek to identify conditions in which a generalized eco-label in stores might modify consumers’ purchase choices.

Two quasi-experimental studies (n=333, 126) manipulate environmental information with a simple, traffic light – shaped eco-label. The measures focus on respondents’ choice or purchasing intentions, perceptions of the environmental harmfulness of each product, and individual characteristics (i.e. environmental concern, price sensitivity, familiarity with environmental information about the product category).

The presence of an eco-label influences consumers’ beliefs about products’ environmental harm and thus choice. The effect of perceived harmfulness on choice is moderated by environmental concern and price sensitivity, though combined effects arise for only one of the two product categories tested (dish soap, not yoghurt). With a third product category (paper towels), Study 2 confirms the influence of familiarity with environmental information.

Familiarity with environmental information accounts for some differences across product categories, but other factors also come into play. These results must be interpreted carefully due to the use of a fictive eco-label.

This paper examines the potential effects of a generalized, mandatory programme. It also addresses the lack of consistent label effectiveness across product categories, with a possible explanation based on perceived familiarity with environmental information.

To survey consumers living in Paris, France, to determine the extent to which they use nutrition labels, and to determine the percentage of French consumers who use nutrition labels, how often they use nutrition labels, and how they would like to see current nutrition labels improved. The researchers also wanted to determine the reasons why consumers do not use nutrition labels, and to try and assess users' and non‐users' perceptions about mandatory nutrition labelling.

French consumers (n  =  355) were surveyed in supermarkets in Paris and its suburbs, using a 21‐item questionnaire in May 2004. Interviewers used questionnaires to assess the frequency of respondents' nutrition label use, to investigate the specific nutrient information most commonly consulted on nutrition labels, the types of products on which consumers most often tend to consult nutrition labels, and to collect demographic information.

Only 45.1 per cent of the sample reported reading nutrition labels, with the majority of consumers reading labels only occasionally. Non‐label readers cited lack of interest as the primary reason why they do not read labels, but 95 per cent of the sample, when asked about mandatory nutrition labeling, felt that nutrition labeling should be required of food manufacturers. Research limitations/implications The sample size was small, participation was voluntary and was limited to the city of Paris and its suburbs, and therefore cannot be generalized to the French population.

This is the first study to collect data in a point‐of‐purchase setting in order to examine whether or not French consumers use nutrition labels.

This study aimed to investigate consumers' understanding of country of origin (CoO) information and its relative importance in the context of their everyday food purchase decisions.

A cross-sectional intercept survey of 402 consumers in two cities in New Zealand was conducted. Respondents were asked to describe what they had considered when selecting a food item in their trolley. This was followed by questions to assess respondents' knowledge of CoO and their use and understanding of common CoO labels.

Price (42 per cent), taste (40 per cent), health (18 per cent), and quality (18 per cent) were the most important factors that respondents mentioned. Only 3.5 per cent of respondents mentioned CoO as one of the factors influencing their decision. Of respondents 61 per cent, when prompted, stated that they knew the CoO of the food product selected. Of these respondents, 90 per cent were correct. Of respondents 62 per cent stated that they look at CoO labels when making food purchase decisions. Yet, only one third of respondents correctly understood the difference between the “Made in” and “Product of” labels.

The findings suggest that consumers that do access CoO labels are misinterpreting this information which may form the basis of their assumptions about the source of origin of the brands and food products they routinely purchase.

Mandatory CoO labelling policies may add costs and reinforce misconceptions that consumers already hold about the meaning of these labels.

This study contributes to understanding of the extent to which consumers are competent in their knowledge and understanding of these informational labels.

Nutritional labeling of food products is not mandatory in India at present and the Indian Government is on the verge of introducing a code of conduct for it. The aim of this paper is to provide some initial guidelines for the above‐said purpose so as to have consumer friendly labeling policies.

A structured questionnaire‐based survey was used for the purpose of the study. A total of 100 respondents were considered for the study. Data were collected from two superstores located in New Delhi.

Food labels are read by the consumers for brand comparisons and not for consulting nutritional information. Difficult terminology, small font size and inability to understand nutritional labels are the major problems encountered by the consumers. Television, friends, magazines are commonly used for assessing nutritional information. Labels are considered more consumer friendly when benchmarks regarding serving size are provided. Income level, size of household, number of children and age did not play a role in the usage of nutritional labels by the consumers. Consumers with special dietary needs used nutritional labels regularly.

A small sample size is the limitation of the study.

This is the first study of its kind in India. It is valuable for the Indian Government in framing policies regarding nutritional labeling and for imparting nutritional education. It will also help it to draft consumer friendly labels for effective usage.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether the prepackaged foods in Malaysia are able to provide credible nutrition labels for consumers and how many prepackaged foods do not comply with the tolerance limits, regardless of whether the products are sold in Malaysia or exported to overseas even though there are no standardization of tolerance limits.

The present study consists of 300 samples (triplicate samples for each product) of core nutrients (energy, fat, carbohydrate and protein), which have been stratified into eight categories, were analysed and the analytical values were compared with the declared values. Compliance of products were obtained through the comparison with different guidelines.

About 34 per cent of analysed products did not comply with the tolerance limit according to the Food Act 1983, Malaysia (one way approach tolerance limit). Then, 73 per cent of products failed to comply with the tolerance leeway ±20 per cent (two-way approach) and 56 per cent of products did not comply with the tolerance limits set in the Local Authorities Coordinators of Regulatory Services.

Many researches have proved that consumers used nutrition label as a tool to improve their healthy lifestyles. The misleading of nutrition label will elicit detrimental effect to consumers especially who always rely on the nutrition label before purchasing. Hence, credibility of nutrition label is imperative. However, this research only focussed on four major core nutrients. Nutrients such as trans-fat and sodium have proved that are detrimental to human’s health are not covered in the study.

First, this research could directly reflect the credibility of nutrition label in the market. The government of the country should improve the surveillance activity on nutrition label. Meantime, free trade activities especially on food industries are active now; an accurate nutrition label is the first key to success in the business. This research can inject awareness to food producers who incline to do global free trade business shall always assure the accuracy of the nutrition label no matter the tolerance or guidelines are different among the countries.

There are many research about improvement in consumers’ awareness towards nutrition label but very little research conducted on the accuracy of nutrition label. The main purpose of those research is to improve public health awareness but this may become insignificant if the values of nutrition label are inaccurate. Then, the asymmetric of tolerance limits would trigger awareness from policy makers or food manufacturers to be more responsible in providing credible nutrition label. At the end, consumers are protected from inaccurate nutrition labels and a healthy nation can be sustained.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the prevalence and types of country associations on product labels and packages across a range of grocery product categories.

An audit of New Zealand and Australian country associations as they appeared on products in 26 categories was conducted in a major New Zealand supermarket outlet.

The results of the content analysis of 788 brands revealed that the majority featured at least one country of origin (COO) association and indicated that they were either “made in” New Zealand or Australia.

Even though the findings are potentially restricted to the New Zealand context, this paper provides evidence of the prevalence of common and distinctive country associations across a diverse range of product categories. This suggests that these associations are still relevant to grocery manufacturers and supermarket retailers as a way of positioning their branded products.

The findings offer supermarket retailer buyers and regulatory agencies insight into the use of COO associations from the perspective of FMCG manufacturers. In addition, the findings provide FMCG manufacturers with an indication of the prevalence of different country associations in the categories that they compete.

In spite of debate about the costs and benefits of COO labelling and place references on grocery product packaging, little is known about how these associations are actually used by FMCG manufacturers. This paper addresses this question by auditing brands on the supermarket shelf.

This paper aims to compare the use of front-of-pack nutrition claims made on 32,257 food labels launched in 2009 in the US and the EU.

Information from Mintel's Global New Product Database was analyzed, for 25,417 products launched in the EU and 6,840 in the US. The hypothesis was that “products launched in the US and EU have a different frequency of front-of-pack nutrition claims”. Using inferential statistics, significant differences (two-tailed Z-tests) in the number of claims are explored and compared to differences in legislation standards and consumer preferences.

The initial analysis revealed that there were six significant differences between the presence of the seven health and nutrition claims across 16 product categories in the US and the EU. Further analysis of the 16 product categories revealed a range of significant differences between the frequency of US and EU claims.

The emerging relevance of front-of-pack nutrition labeling as a marketing tool makes such differences pertinent. This paper marks the first systematic comparison of the use of claims between the US and EU.

The purpose of this paper is to fulfil gaps in knowledge regarding food packaging practices in Southeast Asia by examining the informational content of food labels on a variety of packaged foods.

Using local and imported food products found in supermarkets in Singapore, a quantitative content analysis of food label claims in a wide range of packaged food products was conducted. A codebook was developed to capture the attributes of the food labels and claims, content categories, product names, food categories, sources of manufacture and countries of brand origin. The three main regions of analysis of country of manufacture were the USA, European Union (EU) and Southeast Asia.

Analysis of food products manufactured in five Southeast Asian countries revealed the presence of various claims in food products, and a number of specific claims exceeded the percentages found in products from the USA or EU. The results showed that a significant proportion of products from Southeast Asian countries display nutrient content and nutrient function claims, as well as general marketing claims and non-nutrient claims. However, there were variations in practice amongst the five Southeast Asian countries.

The sample was limited in being collected from one geographic location. Future research needs to expand data collection both geographically and longitudinally.

The findings are valuable for the national health authorities in addressing policies on food package labelling, and homogenization efforts pertaining to regional/international labelling policies. These in turn could influence food marketing practices.

The findings are useful in crafting educational programming and guidelines for health and nutrition education.

This research is the first to explore food labelling practices in multiple Southeast Asian countries and compare them cross-sectionally with EU and US practices.