Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 992

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Consumer understanding and use of nutrition labelling: a systematic review

Cowburn, Gill, Stockley, Lynn·2005·Public Health Nutrition
DOI 10.1079/phn2005666
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objective: To explore published and unpublished research into consumer understanding and use of nutrition labelling which is culturally applicable in Europe. Design: A systematic review undertaken between July 2002 and February 2003. Results: One hundred and three papers were identified that reported on consumer understanding or use of nutrition labelling, most originating from North America or northern Europe. Only a few studies (9%) were judged to be of high or medium–high quality. We found that reported use of nutrition labels is high but more objective measures suggest that actual use of nutrition labelling during food purchase may be much lower. Whether or not consumers can understand and use nutrition labelling depends on the purpose of the task. Available evidence suggests that consumers who do look at nutrition labels can understand some of the terms used but are confused by other types of information. Most appear able to retrieve simple information and make simple calculations and comparisons between products using numerical information, but their ability to interpret the nutrition label accurately reduces as the complexity of the task increases. The addition of interpretational aids like verbal descriptors and recommended reference values helps in product comparison and in putting products into a total diet context. Conclusions: Improvements in nutrition labelling could make a small but important contribution towards making the existing point-of-purchase environment more conducive to the selection of healthy choices. In particular, interpretational aids can help consumers assess the nutrient contribution of specific foods to the overall diet.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1079/phn2005666

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Research works printed but not linked: 42

  1. 10.1016/S0022-3182(12)80763-1 · doi:10.1016/s0022-3182(12)80763-1
  2. Sibbald, 2003, Canada's nutrition labels: a new world standard?, Canadian Medical Association Journal, 168, 887
  3. Sullivan, 1995, Food label nutrition literacy: tool development and assessment, Journal of the Canadian Dietetic Association, 56, 68
  4. 2001, Nutrition Labelling: Qualitative Research
  5. 2001, Review of Food Labelling 2001
  6. 10.1111/j.1467-3010.1986.tb01221.x · doi:10.1111/j.1467-3010.1986.tb01221.x
  7. 10.1108/00070700010348505 · DOI
  8. 1996, as amended
  9. Mohr, 1980, Aiding consumer nutrition decisions: comparison of a graphical nutrient density labeling format with the current food labeling system, Home Economics Research Journal, 8, 162, 10.1177/1077727X8000800301 · DOI
  10. 1993, The FDF–IEHO National Food Safety Report
  11. Black, 1992, Just Read the Label
  12. 10.1046/j.1440-6047.2002.00004.x · doi:10.1046/j.1440-6047.2002.00004.x
  13. 2003, A Systematic Review of the Research on Consumer Understanding of Nutrition Labelling
  14. 1998, Voluntary Nutrition Labelling
  15. 10.1046/j.1440-6047.2002.00002.x · doi:10.1046/j.1440-6047.2002.00002.x
  16. 10.1300/J052v20n02_03 · DOI
  17. 10.1016/S0002-8223(21)00563-0 · DOI
  18. 1994, Guide to Nutrition Labelling and Education Act (NLEA) Requirements
  19. 10.1108/00346650210436253 · DOI
  20. 2001, Codex Alimentarius Food Labelling Complete Texts
  21. 1999, Nutrition Labelling: Perceptions and Preferences of Canadians 9
  22. 10.1177/1077727X8601400308 · DOI
  23. 10.1177/0092070300283009 · DOI
  24. 10.1046/j.1467-3010.2000.00070.x · DOI
  25. 1998, Food, Nutrition and Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in the European Union
  26. Byrd-Bredbenner, 2001, The inherent educational qualities of nutrition labels, Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 29, 265, 10.1177/1077727X01293004 · doi:10.1177/1077727x01293004
  27. 2001, Report Number 4
  28. 1995, Nutrition Labelling Study
  29. 2001, Position Paper on the Labelling of Food
  30. 1993, Putting the Consumer First
  31. 10.1016/S0022-3182(98)70321-8 · DOI
  32. 1985, Consumer Attitudes to and Understanding of Nutrition Labelling: Quantitative Stage
  33. 2002, Report of the Application of Directive 90/496/EEC on Nutrition Labelling for Foodstuffs
  34. Wyn Thomas, 1997, Food Labelling and Healthy Food Choices
  35. 10.1016/S0022-3182(12)80422-5 · DOI
  36. 1994, Guidance Notes of Nutrition Labelling
  37. Levy, 1991, Nutrition labelling formats: performance and preference, Food Technology, 116
  38. Kafatos, 2001, Eurodiet Reports and Proceedings [special issue], Public Health Nutrition, 4, 265
  39. 10.1111/j.1745-6606.1981.tb00715.x · DOI
  40. 10.1108/00346650210423392 · DOI
  41. Paterson, 2001, Food Labelling Issues – Consumer Qualitative Research
  42. 1990, Official Journal of the European Communities, 40

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Cowburn, G., & Stockley, L.
Venue
Public Health Nutrition
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
2005-02
Volume
8
Issue
1
Pages
21-28
ISSN
  • 1368-9800 (ISSN-L)
  • 1475-2727
DOI
10.1079/phn2005666
OpenAlex
W2157398428
Cited by
992
References
1
FWCI
2.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified, 700 d)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.