CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 21Consumer Attitudes and Food LabelingConsumer Packaging Perceptions and TrendsConsumer behavior in food and health

The Impact of the Australasian ‘Health Star Rating’, Front-of-Pack Nutritional Label, on Consumer Choice: A Longitudinal Study

Open access
Hamlin, Robert, McNeill, Lisa·2018·Nutrients
DOI 10.3390/nu10070906PMC PMC6073628
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Front-of-pack (FoP) nutrition labels are a widely deployed tool in public good marketing. This article reports on a field experimental test of the impact of one of these systems, the Australasian Health Star Rating system (HSR), on consumer choice in the breakfast cereals category in New Zealand. This study forms part of a time-series replication stream of research on this topic. The research applied a 2 × 2 factorial design with multiple replications to retail food consumers exiting from supermarkets in New Zealand. The first part of the time series, undertaken shortly after the HSR’s initiation in 2014, indicated that the HSR was ineffective. Between 2014 and 2016, commercial brands in the category within New Zealand massively promoted the HSR as a basis for consumer choice. The research presented in this article forms part of the second part of the series, undertaken in 2016, using an identical experimental methodology to the 2014 study. The results indicate that the HSR may be beginning to influence consumer choice as it was predicted to, but the impact of the system is still small, and statistically sub-significant, relative to other consumer decision inputs presented on the package.

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 · 10.3390/nu10070906

Cites

Statistics

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?

  • The proposed EU PEF label may be beyond the FMCG consumer's capacity to process in any useful way.

    “This research along with other similar experimental results [45,47] indicate that this may be beyond the FMCG consumer's capacity to process in any useful way.”

    From Marketing Tactics for Sustainable Fashion and the Circular Economy: The Impact of Ethical Labels on Fast Fashion Choice (2023) · cites this paper as [45]

    The Discussion and Conclusions (page unavailable) report that consumers did not use the Health Star Rating effectively to distinguish nutritional value in unprompted food choices. That supports concern about consumers' use of a front-of-pack label, but the study tested the Australasian nutritional label in one food category, not the proposed EU PEF label or FMCG consumers generally. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The fractionally replicated Latin Square design was used in this manner to ensure the validity of the results obtained.

    “The main reason for using the fractionally replicated Latin Square design in this manner was to ensure the validity of the results that were obtained [45,51].”

    From Marketing Tactics for Sustainable Fashion and the Circular Economy: The Impact of Ethical Labels on Fast Fashion Choice (2023) · cites this paper as [45]

    The Discussion and Conclusions section says extensive intra-study replication was essential to obtaining a reliable result, supporting the stated purpose of replication. But Materials and Methods describes a replicated 2 × 2 factorial design, not a fractionally replicated Latin Square design; our copy does not support attributing that specific design to this paper. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 48 · Cited by 21

Research works printed but not linked: 45

  1. [1]Lichtenstein A.H. Appel L.J. Brands M. Carnethon M. Daniels S. Franch H.A. Karanja N. Diet and lifestyle recommendations revision 2006: A scientific statement from the American Heart Association Nutrition Committee Circulation 2006 114 82 96 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.106.176158 16785338 · DOI · Paper page
  2. [2]Abe S. Nishino S. Kanaya T. Inoue T. Yummy food is made from fat and sugar Circ. J. 2017 81 1100 1101 10.1253/circj.CJ-17-0661 28679973 · DOI
  3. [3]Kelly B. Hattersley L. King L. Flood V. Persuasive food marketing to children: Use of cartoons and competitions in Australian commercial television advertisements Health Promot. Int. 2008 23 337 344 10.1093/heapro/dan023 18755740 · DOI
  4. [4]Matthews A.E. Children and obesity: A pan-European project examining the role of food marketing Eur. J. Public Health 2007 18 7 11 10.1093/eurpub/ckm015 17522154 · DOI
  5. [5]DiNicolantonio J.J. O’Keefe J.H. Wilson W.L. Sugar addiction: Is it real? A narrative review Br. J. Sports Med. 2017 52 910 913 10.1136/bjsports-2017-097971 28835408 · DOI
  6. [6]Avena N.M. Rada P. Hoebel B.G. Evidence for sugar addiction: Behavioral and neurochemical effects of intermittent, excessive sugar intake Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 2008 32 20 39 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2007.04.019 17617461 PMC2235907 · DOI · Paper page
  7. [8]Bray G.A. Popkin B.M. Dietary sugar and body weight: Have we reached a crisis in the epidemic of obesity and diabetes? Health be damned! Pour on the sugar Diabetes Care 2014 37 950 956 10.2337/dc13-2085 24652725 PMC9514031 · DOI
  8. [11]Drewnowski A. Fat and sugar: An economic analysis J. Nutr. 2003 133 838S 840S 10.1093/jn/133.3.838S 12612164 · DOI
  9. [12]Drewnowski A. Darmon N. The economics of obesity: Dietary energy density and energy cost Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2005 82 265S 273S 10.1093/ajcn/82.1.265S 16002835 · DOI
  10. [14]Cowburn G. Stockley L. Consumer understanding and use of nutrition labelling: A systematic review Public Health Nutr. 2005 8 21 28 10.1079/PHN2005666 15705241 · DOI
  11. [15]Miller L.M.S. Cassady D.L. The effects of nutrition knowledge on food label use. A review of the literature Appetite 2015 92 207 216 10.1016/j.appet.2015.05.029 26025086 PMC4499482 · DOI
  12. [16]Scrinis G. Parker C. Front-of-pack food labeling and the politics of nutritional nudges Law Policy 2016 38 234 249 10.1111/lapo.12058 · DOI
  13. [17]Kanter R. Vanderlee L. Vandevijvere S. Front-of-package nutrition labelling policy: Global progress and future directions Public Health Nutr. 2018 21 1399 1408 10.1017/S1368980018000010 29559017 PMC10261279 · DOI
  14. [18]Vyth E.L. Steenhuis I.H. Brandt H.E. Roodenburg A.J. Brug J. Seidell J.C. Methodological quality of front-of-pack labeling studies: A review plus identification of research challenges Nutr. Rev. 2012 70 709 720 10.1111/j.1753-4887.2012.00535.x 23206284 · DOI
  15. [19]Draper A.K. Adamson A.J. Clegg S. Malam S. Rigg M. Duncan S. Front-of-pack nutrition labelling: Are multiple formats a problem for consumers? Eur. J. Public Health 2011 23 517 521 10.1093/eurpub/ckr144 22140250 PMC3662013 · DOI
  16. [20]Watson W.L. Kelly B. Hector D. Hughes C. King L. Crawford J. Chapman K. Can front-of-pack labelling schemes guide healthier food choices? Australian shoppers’ responses to seven labelling formats Appetite 2014 72 90 97 10.1016/j.appet.2013.09.027 24126243 · DOI
  17. [21]Campos S. Doxey J. Hammond D. Nutrition labels on pre-packaged foods: A systematic review Public Health Nutr. 2011 14 1496 1506 10.1017/S1368980010003290 21241532 · DOI
  18. [22]Hamlin R.P. Front of pack nutrition labelling, nutrition, quality and consumer choices Curr. Nutr. Rep. 2015 4 323 329 10.1007/s13668-015-0147-1 · DOI
  19. [23]Julia C. Blanchet O. Méjean C. Péneau S. Ducrot P. Allès B. Hercberg S. Impact of the front-of-pack 5-colour nutrition label (5-CNL) on the nutritional quality of purchases: An experimental study Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Activ. 2016 13 101 10.1186/s12966-016-0416-4 27645372 PMC5028942 · DOI
  20. [24]Arrúa A. Curutchet M.R. Rey N. Barreto P. Golovchenko N. Sellanes A. Ares G. Impact of front-of-pack nutrition information and label design on children’s choice of two snack foods: Comparison of warnings and the traffic-light system Appetite 2017 116 139 146 10.1016/j.appet.2017.04.012 28428151 · DOI
  21. [25]Lachat C. Tseng M. A wake-up call for nutrition labelling Public Health Nutr. 2013 16 381 382 10.1017/S1368980012005666 23343783 PMC10273216 · DOI
  22. [26]Findling M.T.G. Werth P.M. Musicus A.A. Bragg M.A. Graham D.J. Elbel B. Roberto C.A. Comparing five front-of-pack nutrition labels’ influence on consumers’ perceptions and purchase intentions Prev. Med. 2017 106 114 121 10.1016/j.ypmed.2017.10.022 29066375 PMC5764801 · DOI
  23. [27]Crosetto P. Muller L. Ruffieux B. Helping consumers with a front-of-pack label: Numbers or colors? Experimental comparison between Guideline Daily Amount and Traffic Light in a diet-building exercise J. Econ. Psychol. 2016 55 30 50 10.1016/j.joep.2016.03.006 · DOI
  24. [28]Cecchini M. Warin L. Impact of food labelling systems on food choices and eating behaviours: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized studies Obes. Rev. 2016 17 201 210 10.1111/obr.12364 26693944 · DOI
  25. [29]Machín L. Aschemann-Witzel J. Curutchet M.R. Giménez A. Ares G. Does front-of-pack nutrition information improve consumer ability to make healthful choices? Performance of warnings and the traffic light system in a simulated shopping experiment Appetite 2018 121 55 62 10.1016/j.appet.2017.10.037 29102533 · DOI
  26. [30]Méjean J.C. Péneau S. Buscail C. Alles B. Fézeu L. Kesse-Guyot E. The 5-CNL front-of-pack nutrition label appears an effective tool to achieve food substitutions towards healthier diets across dietary profiles PLoS ONE 2016 11 e0157545 10.1371/journal.pone.0157545 27322033 PMC4913953 · DOI
  27. [31]Julia C. Hercberg S. Nutri-Score: Evidence of the effective-ness of the French front-of-pack nutrition label Ernahrungs Umsch. 2017 64 181 187 10.4455/eu.2017.048 · DOI
  28. [32]Ares G. Varela F. Machin L. Antúnez L. Giménez A. Curutchet M.R. Aschemann-Witzel J. Comparative performance of three interpretative front-of-pack nutrition labelling schemes: Insights for policy making Food Qual. Pref. 2018 68 215 225 10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.03.007 · DOI
  29. [33]Talati Z. Norman R. Pettigrew S. Neal B. Kelly B. Dixon H. Shilton T. The impact of interpretive and reductive front-of-pack labels on food choice and willingness to pay Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Activ. 2017 14 171 10.1186/s12966-017-0628-2 29258543 PMC5735812 · DOI
  30. [34]Neal B. Crino M. Dunford E. Gao A. Greenland R. Li N. Webster J. Effects of Different Types of Front-of-Pack Labelling Information on the Healthiness of Food Purchases—A Randomised Controlled Trial Nutrients 2017 9 1284 10.3390/nu9121284 29186803 PMC5748735 · DOI
  31. [35]Volkova E. Neal B. Rayner M. Swinburn B. Eyles H. Jiang Y. Mhurchu C.N. Effects of interpretive front-of-pack nutrition labels on food purchases: Protocol for the Starlight randomised controlled trial BMC Public Health 2014 14 968 10.1186/1471-2458-14-968 25236611 PMC4192397 · DOI
  32. [36]Newman C.L. Burton S. Andrews J.C. Netemeyer R.G. Kees J. Marketers’ use of alternative front-of-package nutrition symbols: An examination of effects on product evaluations J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2018 46 453 476 10.1007/s11747-017-0568-z · DOI
  33. [37]Ducrot P. Julia C. Méjean C. Kesse-Guyot E. Touvier M. Fezeu L.K. Péneau S. Impact of different front-of-pack nutrition labels on consumer purchasing intentions: A randomized controlled trial Am. J. Prev. Med. 2016 50 627 636 10.1016/j.amepre.2015.10.020 26699246 · DOI
  34. [38]Talati Z. Pettigrew S. Kelly B. Ball K. Dixon H. Shilton T. Consumers’ responses to front-of-pack labels that vary by interpretive content Appetite 2016 101 205 213 10.1016/j.appet.2016.03.009 26970293 · DOI
  35. [39]Mhurchu C.N. Eyles H. Choi Y.H. Effects of a voluntary front-of-pack nutrition labelling system on packaged food reformulation: The health star rating system in New Zealand Nutrients 2017 9 918 10.3390/nu9080918 28829380 PMC5579711 · DOI
  36. [41]Hamlin R.P. McNeill L.S. Does the Australasian “Health Star Rating” front of pack nutritional label system work? Nutrients 2016 8 327 10.3390/nu8060327 27258305 PMC4924168 · DOI · Paper page
  37. [42]Hamlin R.P. McNeill L.S. Moore V. The impact of front-of-pack nutrition labels on consumer product evaluation and choice: An experimental study Public Health Nutr. 2015 18 2126 2134 10.1017/S1368980014002997 25529170 PMC10271474 · DOI · Paper page
  38. [43]Maubach N. Hoek J. Mather D. Interpretive front-of-pack nutrition labels. Comparing competing recommendations Appetite 2014 82 67 77 10.1016/j.appet.2014.07.006 25038407 · DOI
  39. [45]Energy Efficiency Commission of Australia (EECA) & Ministry of Business Innovation and Enterprise (MBIE) (NZ) Programme Review: E3 Programme 2016 Available online: http://www.mbie.govt.nz/info-services/sectors-industries/energy/energy-efficiency-environment/energy-efficiency/documents-images/final-review-equipment-energy-efficiency-e3.pdf (accessed on 10 February 2018)
  40. [47]Sanjari S.S. Jahn S. Boztug Y. Dual-process theory and consumer response to front-of-package nutrition label formats Nutr. Rev. 2017 75 871 882 10.1093/nutrit/nux043 29069484 · DOI
  41. [48]Scheibehenne B. Miesler L. Todd P.M. Fast and frugal food choices: Uncovering individual decision heuristics Appetite 2007 49 578 589 10.1016/j.appet.2007.03.224 17531348 · DOI
  42. [49]Hamlin R.P. Cue-based decision making. A new framework for understanding the uninvolved food consumer Appetite 2010 55 89 98 10.1016/j.appet.2010.04.007 20420871 · DOI · Paper page
  43. [52]Walsh M.F. Page Winterich K. Mittal V. Do logo redesigns help or hurt your brand? The role of brand commitment J. Prod. Brand Manag. 2010 19 76 84 10.1108/10610421011033421 · DOI
  44. [53]Kwon E.S. Shan Y. Lee J.S. Reid L.N. Inter-study and intra-study replications in leading marketing journals: A longitudinal analysis Eur. J. Mark. 2017 51 257 278 10.1108/EJM-07-2015-0450 · DOI
  45. [54]Hamlin R.P. How small sample size and replication can increase accuracy in experiments: Lessons that marketing may learn from agricultural scientific method Australas. Mark. J. 2017 25 166 174 10.1016/j.ausmj.2017.05.002 · DOI

Authors
Hamlin, R., & McNeill, L.
Affiliations
University of Otago (NZ)
Corresponding author
Hamlin, Robert
ORCID
Venue
Nutrients
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2018-07-16
Volume
10
Issue
7
Pages
906
ISSN
2072-6643 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3390/nu10070906
PMC
PMC6073628
OpenAlex
W2883900252
Cited by
21
References
48
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1
FWCI
2.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Nutrients (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
University of Otago (Internal research grant)
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
Health Star Rating, front-of-pack nutrition labels, consumer choice, breakfast cereals, supermarket consumers, food labeling policy, purchase decision, New Zealand
MeSH terms
Diet, Healthy, Choice Behavior, Consumer Behavior, Food Labeling, Health Promotion, Humans, Legislation, Food, Longitudinal Studies, New Zealand, Nutritive Value, Time Factors, Visual Perception, Nutrition Policy, Recommended Dietary Allowances

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