CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 334Consumer Attitudes and Food LabelingConsumer Packaging Perceptions and TrendsConsumer behavior in food and health

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 23 of the 25 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Impact of different food label formats on healthiness evaluation and food choice of consumers: a randomized-controlled study

Open access
Borgmeier, Ingrid, Westenhoefer, Joachim·2009·BMC Public Health
DOI 10.1186/1471-2458-9-184PMC PMC2702386
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Front of pack food labels or signpost labels are currently widely discussed as means to help consumers to make informed food choices. It is hoped that more informed food choices will result in an overall healthier diet. There is only limited evidence, as to which format of a food label is best understood by consumers, helps them best to differentiate between more or less healthy food and whether these changes in perceived healthiness result in changes of food choice. METHODS: In a randomised experimental study in Hamburg/Germany 420 adult subjects were exposed to one of five experimental conditions: (1) a simple "healthy choice" tick, (2) a multiple traffic light label, (3) a monochrome Guideline Daily Amount (GDA) label, (4) a coloured GDA label and (5) a "no label" condition. In the first task they had to identify the healthier food items in 28 pair-wise comparisons of foods from different food groups. In the second task they were asked to select food portions from a range of foods to compose a one-day's consumption. Differences between means were analysed using ANOVAs. RESULTS: Task I: Experimental conditions differed significantly in the number of correct decisions (p < 0.001). In the condition "no label" subjects had least correct decisions (20.2 +/- 3.2), in the traffic light condition most correct decisions were made (24.8 +/- 2.4). Task II: Envisaged daily food consumption did not differ significantly between the experimental conditions. CONCLUSION: Different food label formats differ in the understanding of consumers. The current study shows, that German adults profit most from the multiple traffic light labels. Perceived healthiness of foods is influenced by this label format most often. Nevertheless, such changes in perceived healthiness are unlikely to influence food choice and consumption. Attempts to establish the informed consumer with the hope that informed choices will be healthier choices are unlikely to change consumer behaviour and will not result in the desired contribution to the prevention of obesity and diet related diseases.

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 · 10.1186/1471-2458-9-184

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 The nutrition labelling formats (a) simple tick; (b) traffic light format; (c) monochrome Guideline Daily Amount (GDA); (d) colour-coded GDA (CGDA). Translation Figure 1. 1.a) "eat healthy – stay healthy". Portion size (approx. 1 glass) is 200 ml. a-d) one portion (approx. 1 glass) is 200 ml. b-d) wenig: low; mittel: medium; viel: high; Kalorien: calories; Fett: fat; gesättigte Fettsäuren: saturated fatty acids; Zucker: sugar; Natrium: sodium. 1.c) each portion (200 ml/approx. 1 glass) contains xx% of your guideline daily amount. 1.d) each portion (20 gm/approx. 1 Tablespoon) contains xx% of your guideline daily amount.
Figure 1 The nutrition labelling formats (a) simple tick; (b) traffic light format; (c) monochrome Guideline Daily Amount (GDA); (d) colour-coded GDA (CGDA). Translation Figure 1. 1.a) "eat healthy – stay healthy". Portion size (approx. 1 glass) is 200 ml. a-d) one portion (approx. 1 glass) is 200 ml. b-d) wenig: low; mittel: medium; viel: high; Kalorien: calories; Fett: fat; gesättigte Fettsäuren: saturated fatty acids; Zucker: sugar; Natrium: sodium. 1.c) each portion (200 ml/approx. 1 glass) contains xx% of your guideline daily amount. 1.d) each portion (20 gm/approx. 1 Tablespoon) contains xx% of your guideline daily amount.CC BY · PubMed Central

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 15

  1. World Health Organization: Obesity and overweight: What are Overweight and obesity? Fact sheet N°311. 2006, Geneva: WHO
  2. Altgeld T, Geene R, Glaeske G, Kolip P, Rosenbrock R, Trojan A: Prävention und Gesundheitsförderung – Ein Programm für eine bessere Sozial- und Gesundheitspolitik. 2006, Bonn: Wirtschafts- und sozialpolitischen Forschungs- und Beratungszentrum der Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung Abteilung Arbeit und Sozialpolitik
  3. Max Rubner-Institut. Bundesforschungsinstitut für Ernährung und Lebensmittel: Nationale Verzehrs Studie II – Ergebnisbericht Teil 1. Die bundesweite Befragung zur Ernährung von Jugendlichen und Erwachsenen. 2008, Karlsruhe: Bundesforschungsinstitut für Ernährung und Lebensmittel
  4. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Ernährung, Österreichische Gesellschaft für Ernährung, Schweizerische Gesellschaft für Ernährungsforschung, Schweizerische Vereinigung für Ernährung: Referenzwerte für die Nährstoffzufuhr. 2001, Frankfurt/Main: Umschau Verlag
  5. Pudel V, Spirik J, Westenhöfer J: Zum Informationsnutzen der Lebensmittelkennzeichnung. Informationsnutzen der Lebensmittelkennzeichnung für deutsche Konsumenten als Entscheidungshilfe bei der Lebensmittelauswahl. Ernährungsbericht 1996. 1996, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Ernährung. Frankfurt: DGE, 307-325.
  6. European Commission: CORRIGENDA. Corrigendum to Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods. Official Journal of the European Union. 2006
  7. Navigator: Front of Pack Signpost Labelling. Exploratory Research. Report COI 280040 1095 JS. April 2007. 2007, London: Food Standards Agency
  8. EUFIC: EUFIC Press Release from 25/09/2008: One in four UK consumers look for nutrition information on food labels. [ http://www.eufic.org/jpage/en/page/PRESS/fftid/Consumer-Insights-UK-results/ ]
  9. Souci SW, Fachmann W, Kraut H: Die Zusammensetzung der Lebensmittel Nährwert-Tabellen 1989/90. 1989, Stuttgart: Wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft mbH, 4:
  10. Souci SW, Fachmann W, Kraut H: Die Zusammensetzung der Lebensmittel Nährwert-Tabellen. 1994, Stuttgart: medpharm GmbH Scientific Publisher's, 5:
  11. Fröleke H: Kleine Nährwerttabelle. 2005, Neustadt/Weinstr.: Neuer Umschau Buchverlag GmbH, 43
  12. Erhard J: EBISpro für Windows, Version 7.0. 2005, Stuttgart: Universität Hohenheim
  13. Food Standards Agency: Front-of-pack Traffic light signpost labelling Technical Guidance. 2007, London: Food Standards Agency
  14. The European Food Information Council: Making sense of Guideline Daily Amounts. FOOD TODAY. 2007, 3:
  15. Synovate: Qualitative Signpost Labelling. Refinement Research. 2005, London: Food Standards Agency

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 334

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Borgmeier, I., & Westenhoefer, J.
Affiliations
HAW Hamburg (DE)
Venue
BMC Public Health
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2009-06-12
Volume
9
Issue
1
Pages
184-184
ISSN
1471-2458 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/1471-2458-9-184
PMC
PMC2702386
OpenAlex
W2131451081
Cited by
334
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 27 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 29 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 29 · 2012: 28
FWCI
16.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • BMC Public Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Consumer Attitudes and Food Labeling
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Consumer Packaging Perceptions and Trends
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Consumer behavior in food and health
Keywords
traffic light labels, food choice, daily food consumption, obesity prevention
MeSH terms
Adult, Choice Behavior, Diet, Educational Status, Female, Food Labeling, Germany, Humans, Male, Nutritional Requirements, Sex Factors, Health Behavior, Body Mass Index, Nutrition Policy, Consumer Health Information

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