4.5 Article

Perception and understanding of health claims on milk powder for children: A focus group study among mothers in Indonesia, Singapore and Thailand

期刊

APPETITE
卷 105, 期 -, 页码 747-757

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2016.06.034

关键词

Health claims; Southeast Asia; Consumers; Perception; Understanding; Regulatory affairs

资金

  1. Singapore Economic Development Board
  2. Danone

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Health claim regulations and guidelines on food products have been established in some Southeast Asia (SEA) countries. Health claims on food products aim to help consumers make informed food choices to achieve a healthy diet. This study aimed to investigate the perception and understanding of health claims and the associated regulatory frameworks of SEA mothers using semi-structured focus groups conducted in Indonesia, Singapore and Thailand. Milk powder for children for three years and above was used as product focus. The mothers recognised and recalled some specific nutrients and food constituents by name but lacked full understanding of their function. The findings indicated that the mothers in all three countries trusted health claims made on the products which was, in part, explained by their trust in their governments and the international brand manufacturers. Their understanding of health claims was influenced by several factors such as their familiarity of the nutrient, previous knowledge of the nutrients, the perceived relevance of the nutrient, the use of scientific terms, the choice of words, and also the phrasing and length of the claims. Consumer education efforts via Public, Private Partnerships could be an approach to educate SEA consumers and help them to better understand health claims. The findings of this study may be relevant to different stakeholders such as local regulatory bodies, policy makers, food industry, academia and non-profit organisations that aim to effectively communicate health claims. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据