4.5 Article

Effect of front-of-package labels on consumer product evaluation and preferences

Journal

CURRENT RESEARCH IN FOOD SCIENCE
Volume 5, Issue -, Pages 131-140

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.crfs.2021.12.016

Keywords

Eye-tracking; Front of package (FOP) label; Nutrition labeling; Packaged food products; Consumer research

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study shows that color-coded FOP labels attract more attention and are more easily understood by consumers than black and white labels. Consumers use the information provided on the FOP for shopping goals, but the FOP labels do not directly influence their decisions. Moreover, there is a difference between consumers' perceived and actual understanding of nutritional information.
Front-of-Package (FOP) labels highlight important nutrients and help consumers make informed decisions about food purchases. In this study, we investigated consumer comprehension, opinion, and preference associated with two different formats of FOP labels and compared consumer shopping behavior and general trends related to nutrition labeling. Consumer eye-tracking was used for measuring perceived understanding of nutritional information objectively. Results revealed that a color-coded FOP label would garner more attention than a black and white FOP label. Subjects found color-coded FOP labels more straightforward than black and white labels. Participants used the information provided on the FOP for shopping goals. Still, FOPs did not affect objective consumer attention to labels, and labeling schemes did not significantly affect participants' decisions. Participating subjects did use FOP labels instead of the nutrition facts panels. Still, FOP groups scored lower on a nutrition literacy quiz, indicating that their perceived and actual understanding of nutritional information differed. Our findings suggest that subjects pay attention to FOP labels but do not make decisions.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available