Project Management Panel (PMP) presentation of the final report on 'Comprehension and use of UK nutrition signpost labelling schemes'

Sue Duncan – PMP (Chair)
Alizon Draper – PMP
Ashley Adamson – PMP
Malcolm Rigg – PMP

Deirdre Hutton – FSA
Gill Fine – FSA
Terrence Collis – FSA
Rosemary Hignett – FSA
Karen Powell – FSA
Julie Lucas – FSA
Adam Treslove – FSA
Shaun Whelan – FSA
Beverly Cook – FSA

Stephen Spice – Waitrose
Alex Callaghan – British Heart Foundation
Jonathan Horrell – Kraft Foods
Jane Holdsworth – Sponsors
Bill Bartlett – McCain Foods
Jurgen Bolte – Cadbury
Jill Ardagh – British Soft Drinks Association
Colin Walker – Which?
Sue Davies – Which?
Christine Haigh – Sustain
Vanessa Gordon-Dseagu – Cancer Research UK
Beckie Lang – Coca-Cola GB
Sara Stanner – British Nutrition Foundation
George Gordon – Unilever UK and Ireland
Jane Landon – National Heart Forum
Melanie Ruffell – Food and Drink Federation
Vicky Pennington – Boots
Andrea Martinez-Inchausti – British Retail Consortium
Rachel Hackett – Institute of Grocery Distribution
Charlotte Parker – Sainsbury’s
Hayley Smith – Nestlé
Carolyn Meduski – Nestlé
Andrea Simpson – Co-operative Group
Shirley Griffiths – S&B Herba Foods
Paul Lorrimore – Bernard Matthews
Malcolm Taylor-Griffiths – Weetabix
Diana Axby – Provision Trade Federation
James Clark – Sainsbury's

The Chair welcomed stakeholders to the briefing for the presentation of the findings of the research on the ‘Comprehension and use of UK nutrition signpost labelling schemes’.

The Chair reminded stakeholders that the PMP was responsible for assuring the independence and robustness of the study, of which the aim was to evaluate the impact of the various front-of-pack (FOP) nutrition signpost labelling schemes on consumer understanding and behaviour. The research was conducted by BMRB Social Research, in association with the Food, Consumer Behaviour and Health Research Centre at the University of Surrey.

The Chair gave a short overview of the project, followed by the findings.

The aims of the study were to test comprehension of FOP labels, to understand how consumers use FOP labels in real life contexts and to assess whether the coexistence of a range of FOP label types affect ease of use. The Chair noted that it was the most comprehensive and robust study of FOP nutrition labelling published to date.

The level of comprehension for FOP labels was found to be generally high amongst shoppers (58-71%). Two types of label achieved the highest levels of comprehension; a label containing text (the words ‘'High, Medium and Low'), traffic light colours and percentage Guideline Daily Amount (%GDA), and a label containing text and traffic light colours only.

While calories were used by some shoppers, the presence of calories on the FOP label did not increase or decrease comprehension of the FOP label. Product type (both meal-sized products and smaller portion or snack products were tested) did not impact upon comprehension of FOP labels.

The study found that shoppers that are aged over 65, shoppers who have a lower level of education, or are from social groups C2 (skilled working class), D (working class) and E (underclass) had more difficulty understanding all FOP labels types. Certain FOP label types can, however, help to reduce the difference in comprehension between specific sectors of the population.

Preference of FOP label type was not a good indicator of comprehension. One of the top two preferred FOP labels was found to be one of the least well understood.

Shoppers were more likely to use FOP labels in the retail environment than at home, and used them to make single product evaluations and to make comparisons between products. Reported use was found to be higher than observed use, suggesting a degree of over-claiming.

FOP labels were valued by those that use them (the health conscious, those trying to lose weight or with specific health issues, or those shopping for children), but there were many competing factors which often took precedence in purchasing decisions (price, brand loyalty, healthy range information, health and nutrition claims, organic claims and appearance of product). FOP labels are not used by those not interested in healthy eating, or those that are confident they already know which foods are healthy.

Reported barriers to use of FOP labels included unrealistic and variable portion sizes, distrust of labels (seen as a marketing tool), visibility, inherent complexity of the product itself (combination of high and low nutrients requiring a value judgement to be made) and shoppers’ own ability to use them (level of nutrition knowledge).

There was also confusion caused by the use of different colour schemes. Some consumers did not realise that traffic light colours on FOP labels had meaning, and, equally, some consumers thought that pastel colours used on %GDA labels were intended to convey meaning. This confusion was especially significant when shoppers tried to compare different types of FOP labels in the retail environment. The coexistence of FOP schemes sometimes meant that the common element across schemes (weight of nutrient in grams) was missed by shoppers, so they were unable to use it to make decisions.

The key conclusions of the study were:

• FOP labels will always compete with other factors in shopping decisions
• the coexistence of a range of FOP label formats causes difficulty for shoppers
• comprehension levels are generally high, so there is potential for widening effective use among some groups of shoppers

The strongest labels are those which include all of the following:

• text (the words 'High, Medium and Low')
• traffic light colours
• % Guideline Daily Amount.

In response to the questions asked, the PMP confirmed that:

• The study tested objective understanding, i.e. whether shoppers were able to select the right answer (previously defined by a panel of nutritionists) using the FOP label information. The study focussed on comprehension; it did not test shoppers’ understanding of the underpinning criteria of the traffic light colours, or the basis of GDAs, since this was not essential to comprehension.
• The gram weight of nutrients was present on all labels used in the tests.
• The design/presentation aspects of the labels were held constant throughout the tests in the main factorial design (see link below). All labels were presented in a generic format, in the horizontal direction. A circular Traffic Light presentation label and a %GDA label containing pastel colours were included outside the factorial design to assess the impact of these presentational changes.
• The study tested all of the individual elements of the various schemes separately and in all possible combinations. This allows the impact on comprehension of each individual element, and the impact of the various combinations of elements, to be assessed.
• Text (the words ‘High, Medium and Low’) was the main driver of comprehension. The addition of traffic light colours and %GDA both increased overall comprehension marginally. All four of the labels that included text performed well. The label containing text, Traffic Light colours and %GDA was the strongest overall.
• The difference in comprehension between the label containing text, traffic light colours and %GDA (70%), and the label containing text and traffic light colours alone (71%), is not statistically significant. The former label was the only one that performed well on both preference and comprehension.
• Together with evidence of the difficulties caused for shoppers by the coexistence of different FOP schemes in the marketplace, the strongest label overall is one that combined text, traffic light colours and %GDA. Including all of these elements together allowed consumers to use the elements that they were most comfortable with.
• Monochrome FOP labels and pastel coloured %GDA labels were tested. Neither performed as well on comprehension as the label containing text, traffic light colours and %GDA.
• There was no evidence that shopper’s choice of supermarket (and hence familiarity with a certain type of FOP label) impacted upon FOP label comprehension. The study found that preference for a FOP label was not a reliable indicator of FOP label comprehension.
• Some consumers use calorie information and found it helpful in making purchasing decisions. However, the inclusion or exclusion of calories did not impact upon comprehension.
• Most of the individual comprehension tests took under 20 seconds to complete. There was no significant difference in the time taken to answer for the different FOP label types. As one would expect, people took longer to complete the comparison test.
• Approximately 3,000 interviews were undertaken as part of a representative UK survey of those with main responsibility for shopping in the household. The survey used random probability sampling, with interviews conducted face-to-face in the home. This is a very robust sampling method.
• Older shoppers (65 years and older), shoppers with lower levels of educational attainment and those shoppers from social classes C2 (skilled working class), D (working class) and E (underclass) are less likely to be able to accurately interpret FOP labels.
• The coexistence of multiple FOP labels in the market place caused difficulty in comprehension for shoppers. Shoppers expressed annoyance and frustration and said that it took too long and they would not undertake this task in the shopping environment.
• The way FOP label information was displayed in relation to portion size was sometimes seen as a barrier to label use. Consumers felt that stated portion sizes were often both unrealistic and were different across similar products. Some shoppers did not realise that on some products, the information provided related to only half the pack or bottle and therefore felt that they were being misled.
• In order to define the ‘correct’ answers to the comprehension tests (to enable the shoppers answers to be scored), a survey of nutritionists was conducted in the early stages of the project to establish an agreed answer to the tests. The expert nutritionists were given the weight of nutrients in grams only and asked the same questions as used for the main survey (using the same scales as used by shoppers in the main survey). Nutritionists were not provided with signpost labelling such as traffic light colours or %GDA.

The meeting was concluded by Rosemary Hignett, Head of Nutrition at the FSA. Rosemary briefly outlined the next steps for the FSA, which will use this research to develop its advice to Ministers.