4.3 Article

Irish consumers' use and perception of nutrition and health claims

Journal

PUBLIC HEALTH NUTRITION
Volume 14, Issue 12, Pages 2213-2219

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S1368980011000723

Keywords

Nutrition claims; Health claims; Food labelling; EU legislation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To investigate Irish consumers' use and understanding of and their belief in nutrition and health (NH) claims in the context of the European Union (EU) legislation (Regulation no. 1924/2006), which permits a number of NH claims on food products. Design: An interview-assisted questionnaire was administered to consumers (n 400). Preference for three types of NH claims across six products was tested. Perception of NH claims was assessed across a further eight food products. Claims were categorised as content, structure-function and disease-risk factor reduction claims. Setting: Six supermarkets in the Republic of Ireland. Subjects: Four hundred adult Irish supermarket consumers. Results: Older (P<0.001), female (P<0.01) consumers were more likely to seek NH claims. Structure-function and content claims were preferred across six products. Consumers' perception was associated with the health benefit claimed rather than with the strength of the claim itself. Preference for claim type and claim perception differed with gender, age and educational level. Conclusions: Irish consumers prefer content and simpler NH claims rather than more complex disease-risk factor reduction claims. The food industry may thus be better served using these types of claims. Although the reported levels of understanding were high, evidence of positivity bias and misinterpretation was found. Thus, with regard to Regulation 1924/2006, consumers need more information on both simpler and more complex claims. Public health messages should be targeted according to gender, age and educational level.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available