Search

Background: This study investigates the efficacy of Front-of-Pack Nutrition Labels (FOPNLs) as a cost-effective tool for improving dietary choices among Greek consumers. The purpose of the study was to investigate Greek customers' preferences and comprehension of commonly used European FOPNL schemes. Methods: The Hellenic Food Authority and the Agricultural University of Athens performed a representative online survey in March 2022, titled "The Role of Nutritional Labelling in Public Perception and Food Procurement." Consumers responded to a questionnaire separated into two parts. Part one included (i) personal, sociodemographic information, and (ii) subjective opinions on the FOPNL schemes, and part two comprised (iii) an objective understanding of NutriScore and NutrInform Battery, using 15 different foods. Participants were randomly allocated to these groups, and general mixed models were used for analysis. Results: A total of 1389 adults completed the first part of the survey, and 74.8% completed the second part. The Multiple Traffic Lights scheme was the preferred FOPNL, chosen by 48.4% of respondents, compared to 19.7% for NutrInform Battery and 12.3% for NutriScore. However, the mean objective assessment score was highest for NutriScore (5.8 ± 2.3) compared to NutrInform Battery (5.4 ± 1.9). Conclusion: The results highlight the necessity for comprehensive nutrition education programs by showing a considerable gap between subjective preferences and an objective understanding of nutrition labels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This study investigates the efficacy of Front-of-Pack Nutrition Labels (FOPNLs) as a cost-effective tool for improving dietary choices among Greek consumers. The purpose of the study was to investigate Greek customers’ preferences and comprehension of commonly used European FOPNL schemes. Methods: The Hellenic Food Authority and the Agricultural University of Athens performed a representative online survey in March 2022, titled “The Role of Nutritional Labelling in Public Perception and Food Procurement.” Consumers responded to a questionnaire separated into two parts. Part one included (i) personal, sociodemographic information, and (ii) subjective opinions on the FOPNL schemes, and part two comprised (iii) an objective understanding of NutriScore and NutrInform Battery, using 15 different foods. Participants were randomly allocated to these groups, and general mixed models were used for analysis. Results: A total of 1389 adults completed the first part of the survey, and 74.8% completed the second part. The Multiple Traffic Lights scheme was the preferred FOPNL, chosen by 48.4% of respondents, compared to 19.7% for NutrInform Battery and 12.3% for NutriScore. However, the mean objective assessment score was highest for NutriScore (5.8 ± 2.3) compared to NutrInform Battery (5.4 ± 1.9). Conclusion: The results highlight the necessity for comprehensive nutrition education programs by showing a considerable gap between subjective preferences and an objective understanding of nutrition labels.

The decision to adopt a unique mandatory front‐of‐pack nutritional label (FOPL) has currently been delayed by the European Union (EU) as contrasting evidence exists on which one might consistently better encourage customers toward healthier diets. In this context, little attention has been dedicated to investigating the potential effects of having more than one front‐of‐pack nutritional label on food products. This study aims to verify if a combination of front‐of‐pack nutritional labels (i.e., a "bundle") performs better for consumer understanding, trust, and preferences (such as liking) toward the label by helping consumers make healthier and more informed food choices. With this in mind, the study focused on three front‐of‐pack nutritional labels developed by public institutions that are central to the research and the recent EU policy‐making debate. In three controlled experiments, building upon the "directiveness" front‐of‐pack nutritional label schemes, we find that the combination of a nondirective (i.e., NutrInform Battery) and a directive (i.e., Keyhole) label outperforms both the combination of two directive labels (i.e., Nutri‐Score and Keyhole) and a single‐directive front‐of‐pack nutritional label (i.e., Keyhole) on subjective understanding, trust in the label and liking. Results cast light on the bundling of front‐of‐pack nutritional labels as a potentially different approach that might be further analyzed by researchers and provide a substantive contribution to managers and policy‐makers in their decision toward a unified front‐of‐pack nutritional label within the European Community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The incidence of overweight and obesity has generated significant concerns among European consumers and institutions. As part of a set of measures undertaken, the European Union (EU) called for one harmonized mandatory front-of-pack nutritional label (FOPL) to improve consumer food nutritional knowledge and encourage healthier and more informed food choices. Different types of FOPLs, ranging from nutrient-specific labels—such as the NutrInform Battery—to summary labels—such as the Nutri-Score—have been developed and introduced in different markets, reporting different degrees of effectiveness in terms of understanding. The aim of this study is to provide actionable insights by analyzing a specific part of the complex consumers' decision-making process in food when aided by FOPLs. Adopting a between-subject experiment on a sample of 4560 respondents in 20 EU member countries, the study compares the consumer subjective understanding and liking of two labels currently under examination by the EU bodies, the NutrInform Battery and the Nutri-Score. At an aggregated level, the results show that NutrInform Battery is more effective than Nutri-Score in improving consumer subjective understanding and leads to a higher liking towards the label. A detailed by-country analysis highlights either a superiority or a parity of NutrInform Battery for subjective understanding and liking. Theoretically, this study, through a large panel of respondents, adds the fundamental perspective on subjective understanding, complementing the findings of extant research on objective understanding, and further clarifies the role of liking as a complementary element in the food decision-making process toward heathier and more informed food choices. This might be of significant relevance in providing additional evidence that can be used by policymakers in their attempt toward the selection of a uniform FOPL at EU level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• An increasing awareness of the importance of healthy eating has prompted consumers to gather nutritional cues from various sources, often resulting in conflicting nutrition information for the same food. • This conflicting information can lead to unintended consequences, such as decreased consumer interest in dietary information and even behaviors contrary to general healthy advice, particularly when the involved sources are deemed highly credible by consumers. • Using products associated with conflicting nutrition information, directive Front-of-Pack Nutritional labels generate conflicting nutrition information when combined with either internal or external entities (i.e., health knowledge from scientific information). In contrast, non-directive Front-of-Pack Nutritional labels do not, in either condition. • Consumers establish a lower level of congruence between information provided by the internal and external entities and Front-of-Pack Nutritional labels when the label is directive (compared to non-directive). This diminished congruence has a significant negative impact on consumer attitudes and their intentions to adopt Nutritional Labels. An increasing awareness of the importance of healthy eating prompted consumers to gather nutritional cues from various sources, often resulting in conflicting nutrition information for the same food. This can lead to unintended consequences, such as decreased consumer interest in dietary information and behaviors contrary to healthy advice, particularly when the sources are deemed highly credible by consumers. In a series of three experiments, we aim to uncover the underlying cognitive mechanisms connected to complementary information provided by Front-of-Pack Nutritional Labels (FOPLs), exploring if conflicting nutrition information is generated when consumers integrate the labels' information with other sources. Using olive oil as a case of products associated with conflicting nutrition information (CNI), Study 1 shows that directive labels (e.g., Nutri-Score) generate CNI when combined with either internal (i.e., pre-existing health knowledge) or external entities (i.e., knowledge from scientific information). In contrast, non-directive labels (e.g., NutrInform Battery) do not, in either condition. Study 2 explains that consumers establish a lower level of congruence between information provided by the internal entity and FOPL when the label is directive. Study 3 confirms a lower level of congruence between the information available from the external entities and FOPLs when the label type is directive, compared to non-directive. Furthermore, this diminished congruence has a negative impact on consumer attitudes and their intentions to adopt Nutritional Labels. Overall, this research delves into the interactions among various information sources from a congruence perspective, offering actionable insights for managers and policymakers to avoid becoming entangled by conflicting information. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In May 2020, the European Commission announced a proposal for a mandatory front-of-pack label (FoPL) for all European Union (EU) countries. Indeed, FoPLs have been recognized by several public institutions as a cost-effective measure to guide consumers toward nutritionally favorable food products. The aim of this study was to compare the performance and consumer preference of two FoPLs currently proposed or implemented in EU countries, the interpretive format Nutri-Score and the non-interpretive format NutrInform Battery, among Italian consumers. The experimental study was conducted in 2021 on a representative sample of 1064 Italian adults (mean age = 46.5 ± 14.1 years; 48% men). Participants were randomized to either Nutri-Score or NutrInform and had to fill out an online questionnaire testing their objective understanding of the FoPL on three food categories (breakfast products, breakfast cereals and added fats) as well as purchase intention, subjective understanding and perception. Multivariable logistic regressions and t-tests were used to analyze the answers. In terms of the capacity of participants to identify the most nutritionally favorable products, Nutri-Score outperformed NutrInform in all food categories, with the highest odds ratio being observed for added fats (OR = 21.7 [15.3–31.1], p < 0.0001). Overall, with Nutri-Score, Italian participants were more likely to intend to purchase nutritionally favorable products than with NutrInform (OR = 5.29 [4.02–6.97], p < 0.0001). Focusing on olive oil, participants of the Nutri-Score group had higher purchase intention of olive oil compared to those in the NutrInform group (OR = 1.92 [1.42–2.60], p < 0.0001) after manipulating the label. The interpretive format Nutri-Score appears to be a more efficient tool than NutrInform for orienting Italian consumers towards more nutritionally favorable food choices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The incidence of overweight and obesity has generated significant concerns among European consumers and institutions. As part of a set of measures undertaken, the European Union (EU) called for one harmonized mandatory front-of-pack nutritional label (FOPL) to improve consumer food nutritional knowledge and encourage healthier and more informed food choices. Different types of FOPLs, ranging from nutrient-specific labels—such as the NutrInform Battery—to summary labels—such as the Nutri-Score—have been developed and introduced in different markets, reporting different degrees of effectiveness in terms of understanding. The aim of this study is to provide actionable insights by analyzing a specific part of the complex consumers’ decision-making process in food when aided by FOPLs. Adopting a between-subject experiment on a sample of 4560 respondents in 20 EU member countries, the study compares the consumer subjective understanding and liking of two labels currently under examination by the EU bodies, the NutrInform Battery and the Nutri-Score. At an aggregated level, the results show that NutrInform Battery is more effective than Nutri-Score in improving consumer subjective understanding and leads to a higher liking towards the label. A detailed by-country analysis highlights either a superiority or a parity of NutrInform Battery for subjective understanding and liking. Theoretically, this study, through a large panel of respondents, adds the fundamental perspective on subjective understanding, complementing the findings of extant research on objective understanding, and further clarifies the role of liking as a complementary element in the food decision-making process toward heathier and more informed food choices. This might be of significant relevance in providing additional evidence that can be used by policymakers in their attempt toward the selection of a uniform FOPL at EU level.

The last decades have been marked by the introduction of front-of-pack labels (FoPL) as an institutional corrective action against obesity and nutrition-related illnesses. However, FoPL-related policy-making initiatives issued by the European Union evolved over time and led to a diversity of labels with different effects on consumers' decisions. As a result, the extant literature adapted to the regulative scenario over the years and investigated the effects of the labels, creating consensus on some topics while being fragmented on others. Similarly, policy-makers adapted some regulations to the evidence supported by the research. With the aim to systematize the overall structure and evolution of the literature on FoPL, investigate the presence of a consensus on specific topics through a co-citation analysis, and examine the evolution of the consensus and co-citation networks over the years and potential research gaps, we report the results of bibliometric and co-citation analyses and a systematic literature review involving 170 papers and a selection of 49 articles published in the last months, for a total of 219 articles, analysed according to three timespans (Period 1 (1989–2011); Period 2 (2012–2016) and Period 3 (2017–2022)). Our findings highlight the interplay of policy development and FoPL research, the presence of few self-reinforcing and well-established co-citation networks based on validated evidence in the literature and the presence of alternative emerging theories that offer different and valid perspectives overlooked by mainstream co-citation research networks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Plastic packaging might negatively affect consumer attitudes and purchase intentions, even for healthy foods that, for reasons of preservation and maintenance, must necessarily be stored in plastic. • Our research shows that Front-of-Pack Nutritional Labels affect not only the perception of food quality but also the perception of the package itself. • Among labels, Non-directive ones, such as NutrInform Battery, show higher effects compared to Directive labels, such as the Nutri-Score. • Moreover, the perceived quality of the food improves when the plastic packaging is perceived as more sustainable. Over the last decades, Front-of-Pack Nutritional Labels (FOPLs) have been introduced in multiple forms as a strong signal to support consumers in making more informed and healthier food choices. Limited attention has been devoted to how such labels interact with other package cues in affecting customers' food selection processes. Our research aims to investigate the under-explored topic of how the interplay between Front-of-Pack Nutritional Labels and package material affects food quality perception. By exploring the case of healthy foods in plastic packages through a multi-method research approach, we demonstrate across 3 studies (N=524) that healthy foods (e.g., cereals, salads) packed in plastic packages featuring FOPLs (versus no FOPLs) are perceived as more trustworthy by consumers, moreover we showed that compared to directive labels like the Nutri-Score, non-directive labels such as the NutrInform Battery increase perceived trust in the packaging material, which in turn generates higher perceptions of food health quality. Furthermore, we found that this effect is magnified when the plastic food packaging contains virtuous elements signaling sustainability. This research advances existing knowledge on food labels by offering new insights into their role as external cues that affect not only perceptions of food quality but also perceptions of packaging materials. This includes materials like plastic, which are negatively evaluated by consumers but are in some cases essential for food storage and preservation. Our findings provide valuable insights for both policymakers and managers aiming at designing initiatives to promote healthy food in the presence of packaging materials perceived as unhealthy or unsustainable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The adoption of supplementary nutrition information, i.e., front-of-pack labeling (FOPL), on pre-packed food products is advocated as a tool to improve the consumers' knowledge of the nutrient content or the nutritional quality of foods, but also to drive products reformulation by the food industry. Ultimately, FOPL should help people to select foods in order to compose an overall balanced diet, which is essential for health. However, the extent to which the different FOPL systems proposed in the European Union (EU) (interpretative or informative) are effectively able to convey the information useful to improve both food choices and dietary habits of the consumers is still under debate and needs to be analyzed in detail. The use of 3 FOPL schemes proposed within the EU (Nutri-Score, Keyhole and NutrInform Battery) to compare products available on the Italian market within different food categories, highlights some critical issues: (1) different FOPL provide to consumers different kinds of information; (2) systems based on similar theoretical approaches can provide conflicting information; (3) the algorithms on which interpretative FOPL are based can give the same summary information for products differing in nutrient composition, impact on the overall dietary balance and therefore on the health of people with different characteristics, physiological/pathological conditions, and nutritional requirements; (4) on the other hand, products with similar nutrient composition can obtain different interpretative FOPL; (5) informative systems are generally more complex and require greater both attention and knowledge from the consumer; (6) FOPL based on 100 g of product overlook the role of portion (and frequency of consumption) in determining the nutrient intake without informing on the contribution of a single food to the overall diet; (7) FOPL based on scoring systems could promote the reformulation of selected products, especially with a composition very close to the threshold limits; (8) for the portion-based informative FOPL systems, the incentive for reformulation could essentially involve the reduction of portion size. Finally, the importance of nutritional education interventions, which are required to encourage the use by consumers of informative FOPL systems, cannot be neglected to improve the quality of diets regardless of the FOPL used.

In recent years, increasing attention to the utilisation of Front-Of-Pack Labels (FOPLs) as a tool to prompt individuals towards healthier food choices has been observed both in regulatory bodies and academic research. However, few theoretical models have been used to understand their role in consumer decision-making, as well as the antecedents that induce individuals to accept the information provided by the label, and to benchmark FOPL performance in different markets. Through a sequence of two studies conducted in Italy, France and the UK on 2812 primary grocery shoppers, we developed a new theoretical framework, the Front-Of-Pack Acceptance Model, applicable both in contexts in which FOPL are present, and in which they should be introduced. Our findings suggest a structural link between the usefulness and ease of use of the labels and the way consumers form their attitudes and intentions towards buying healthier products. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims: There is a significant knowledge gap regarding the effectiveness of front-of-pack labeling (FoPL) systems in helping food choices that meet specific nutritional requirements. This study sought to compare the effectiveness of the Nutri-Score (NS) and NutrInform Battery (NIB) labels in assisting consumers to select food products with low sodium or low saturated fat., Methods and Results: Utilizing a controlled experimental design, a sample of 1512 participants (aged 18-70, 50.8% females) was exposed to scenarios through computer-assisted web interviewing, where they selected food products suitable for people with suboptimal blood pressure or plasma cholesterol levels, labeled with either NS, NIB, or no label (blind). The NIB proved significantly more efficacious than NS in guiding participants towards making selections in better agreement with nutritional needs, for blood pressure or cholesterol control. Furthermore, the NIB was generally viewed more favorably, with participants rating it as more trustworthy, informative, and useful for the required task. Notably, younger participants, those with higher nutritional knowledge, and those less inclined towards intuitive or spontaneous decision-making demonstrated a greater propensity for making health-congruent food choices when using the NIB., Conclusion: The findings suggest that the informative FoPL system, NIB, may offer greater advantages in addressing specific dietary requirements. This underscores the important role of FoPL systems in promoting public health and meeting diverse and specific consumer needs. Further research is needed to confirm these results in broader contexts and for additional health conditions., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Different Front-of-Pack (FOP) nutritional labels have been implemented in order to increase consumers' awareness of food nutritional quality and encourage healthier choices. However, few studies have analysed the effects of FOPLs on consumers' subjective understanding and liking across different socio-cultural contexts. This study tests the effect that the new enriched informative label NutrInform Battery and the summary label Nutri-Score have on subjective comprehension and liking across 2776 respondents of seven European countries (France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Romania and Spain). Main effects regarding socio-demographic differences are also explored according to extant literature and highlighting significant effects of education and income. This study therefore extends the current research on subjective understanding and liking with a cross-country analysis. Findings suggest that NutrInform Battery can help consumers in understanding information in a relevant way, obtaining the highest performance across countries and showing limited impact of socio-cultural differences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The last decades have been marked by the introduction of front-of-pack labels (FoPL) as an institutional corrective action against obesity and nutrition-related illnesses. However, FoPL-related policy-making initiatives issued by the European Union evolved over time and led to a diversity of labels with different effects on consumers’ decisions. As a result, the extant literature adapted to the regulative scenario over the years and investigated the effects of the labels, creating consensus on some topics while being fragmented on others. Similarly, policy-makers adapted some regulations to the evidence supported by the research. With the aim to systematize the overall structure and evolution of the literature on FoPL, investigate the presence of a consensus on specific topics through a co-citation analysis, and examine the evolution of the consensus and co-citation networks over the years and potential research gaps, we report the results of bibliometric and co-citation analyses and a systematic literature review involving 170 papers and a selection of 49 articles published in the last months, for a total of 219 articles, analysed according to three timespans (Period 1 (1989–2011); Period 2 (2012–2016) and Period 3 (2017–2022)). Our findings highlight the interplay of policy development and FoPL research, the presence of few self-reinforcing and well-established co-citation networks based on validated evidence in the literature and the presence of alternative emerging theories that offer different and valid perspectives overlooked by mainstream co-citation research networks.

In May 2020, the European Commission announced a proposal for a mandatory front-of-pack label (FoPL) for all European Union (EU) countries. Indeed, FoPLs have been recognized by several public institutions as a cost-effective measure to guide consumers toward nutritionally favorable food products. The aim of this study was to compare the performance and consumer preference of two FoPLs currently proposed or implemented in EU countries, the interpretive format Nutri-Score and the non-interpretive format NutrInform Battery, among Italian consumers. The experimental study was conducted in 2021 on a representative sample of 1064 Italian adults (mean age = 46.5 ± 14.1 years; 48% men). Participants were randomized to either Nutri-Score or NutrInform and had to fill out an online questionnaire testing their objective understanding of the FoPL on three food categories (breakfast products, breakfast cereals and added fats) as well as purchase intention, subjective understanding and perception. Multivariable logistic regressions and t-tests were used to analyze the answers. In terms of the capacity of participants to identify the most nutritionally favorable products, Nutri-Score outperformed NutrInform in all food categories, with the highest odds ratio being observed for added fats (OR = 21.7 [15.3–31.1], p < 0.0001). Overall, with Nutri-Score, Italian participants were more likely to intend to purchase nutritionally favorable products than with NutrInform (OR = 5.29 [4.02–6.97], p < 0.0001). Focusing on olive oil, participants of the Nutri-Score group had higher purchase intention of olive oil compared to those in the NutrInform group (OR = 1.92 [1.42–2.60], p < 0.0001) after manipulating the label. The interpretive format Nutri-Score appears to be a more efficient tool than NutrInform for orienting Italian consumers towards more nutritionally favorable food choices.

Front-of-pack nutritional label (FOPL) systems have been developed worldwide to amplify and simplify nutritional information and induce healthier choices. This study explores consumers' internal reactions - in terms of subjective understanding and liking - to a new FOPL: the NutrInform Battery. The investigation aims to assess the clear comprehension by consumers of the information provided by the NutrInform Battery FOPL scheme, based on a sample of 200 Italian respondents, in a real-life setting, with products representative of the most widely consumed food categories, using a between-subject design. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the two conditions: products marked with NutrInform Battery or Nutri-Score labels. The results provided evidence of the effectiveness of NutrInform Battery in being perceived by consumers as an informative FOPL scheme. Specifically, consumers found NutrInform Battery more informative and helpful than Nutri-Score in terms of their understanding of the product composition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the context of the ongoing debate on front-of-pack labels (FOPL), extant research highlights a lack of clear indications on which label is most effective in increasing consumers’ knowledge of food nutritional quality, and in favoring informed food choices. In this study, we have compared the effects of two different labels, one nutrient-specific label (i.e., NutrInform Battery) and one summary label (i.e., Nutri-Score), in terms of consumers’ “subjective understanding” and “liking”. Our work advances prior research on FOPL performance by focusing on two different countries—which have different socio-political contexts and which, from previous studies, present limited evidence on the topic—Slovenia, currently utilizing the Protective Food logo, and the Netherlands, who has recently adopted the Nutri-Score. The study also confirms, in line with previous research, a higher effectiveness of the nutrient-specific label, NutrInform Battery, on all analyzed dimensions in tested countries, when compared to the summary label, Nutri-Score.

Objectives: In the current open debate at the European level on what would be the best Front-of-Pack Label (FOPL) to support customers' healthier and more informed food choices, little effort has been dedicated to analyzing the potential effects of bundling existing FOPLs. This study aims to compare the effects of consumers' subjective understanding and liking of different types of FOPL bundles., Methods: We performed an experimental design by manipulating the FOPLs' scheme, where different types of FOPL bundles were designed according to the "directiveness" of the FOPLs' scheme. A "mixed" bundle was composed of a non-directive label (i.e., NutrInform Battery) and a directive label (i.e., Keyhole), and a "double-directive" bundle was composed of two directive labels (i.e., Nutri-Score and Keyhole). This study was conducted among a sample of 327 Swedish individuals responsible for purchases recruited through international web panel providers., Results: The results showed that a mixed bundle has been more effective than the double-directive bundle and the single-directive label (i.e., the existing FOPL in the investigated market) in allowing consumers to improve their subjective understanding (in terms of comprehensibility, help-to-shop, and complexity reduction) and liking towards the labels., Conclusions: This study extends the current research on bundling in general and on FOPL bundles in particular by providing evidence regarding consumers' subjective understanding and liking of the labels. Additionally, the research provided findings that might be relevant for policymakers by suggesting to investigate bundle of FOPLs to help the consumers' understanding in their process toward healthier and more informed food choices., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Front-of-pack labels (FOPLs) aim at communicating to consumers the health value of food items in support of public health policies. Two main types can be discerned: directive and semidirective FOPLs using color schemes (e.g., Nutri-Score) and informative FOPLs (e.g., Nutrinform Battery). Directive approaches tend to show a "wear-out effect" and, additionally, they tend to have various underlying conceptual problems. Usually, their nutritional scores are calculated using changing, arbitrary algorithms and involve a reductionist set of parameters of debatable validity. Thus, they overstate the effects of selected nutritional factors, such as saturated fat and energy, while overlooking the food matrix and the more holistic aspects of nourishment. Moreover, they do not reflect the portion that is consumed, ignore the preparation steps at home, and fail to serve as a useful basis for composing a healthy diet. Also, so long as the nutritional formulations match the algorithmic standards, they tend to allow ultra-processed products. Thus, this might confuse and mislead consumers. Overconfidence in green-colored labels could even result in unbalanced dietary choices, whereas avoidance of red products may eliminate certain foods from the diet that are rich in essential nutrients (e.g., cheese), leading to opposite results than aimed for. The latter is particularly relevant to vulnerable populations, such as the young, pregnant women, and older adults, or for individuals with specific needs. Taken together, directive FOPLs such as Nutri-Score contradict the declared intent of the European Commission to empower consumers to undertake healthy and balanced diets based on easily accessible and robust information. Although informative systems usually also keep the focus on a few selected nutritional parameters, they have are less paternalizing and obviate the need to classify foods as healthy or unhealthy. They also focus attention on the individual portions that are consumed (even if the definition of portion size remains contentious). Given the importance of dietary patterns, rather than individual foods or nutrients, directiveFOPLs of the Nutri-Score type represent a regretful case of nutritionism. Finally, attempts to associate the adoption of a FOPL with an improvement in the health status are few and mainly applied in virtual settings; none of which are longitudinal, nor have they been able to identify a causal link., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The adoption of supplementary nutrition information, i.e., front-of-pack labeling (FOPL), on pre-packed food products is advocated as a tool to improve the consumers' knowledge of the nutrient content or the nutritional quality of foods, but also to drive products reformulation by the food industry. Ultimately, FOPL should help people to select foods in order to compose an overall balanced diet, which is essential for health. However, the extent to which the different FOPL systems proposed in the European Union (EU) (interpretative or informative) are effectively able to convey the information useful to improve both food choices and dietary habits of the consumers is still under debate and needs to be analyzed in detail. The use of 3 FOPL schemes proposed within the EU (Nutri-Score, Keyhole and NutrInform Battery) to compare products available on the Italian market within different food categories, highlights some critical issues: (1) different FOPL provide to consumers different kinds of information; (2) systems based on similar theoretical approaches can provide conflicting information; (3) the algorithms on which interpretative FOPL are based can give the same summary information for products differing in nutrient composition, impact on the overall dietary balance and therefore on the health of people with different characteristics, physiological/pathological conditions, and nutritional requirements; (4) on the other hand, products with similar nutrient composition can obtain different interpretative FOPL; (5) informative systems are generally more complex and require greater both attention and knowledge from the consumer; (6) FOPL based on 100 g of product overlook the role of portion (and frequency of consumption) in determining the nutrient intake without informing on the contribution of a single food to the overall diet; (7) FOPL based on scoring systems could promote the reformulation of selected products, especially with a composition very close to the threshold limits; (8) for the portion-based informative FOPL systems, the incentive for reformulation could essentially involve the reduction of portion size. Finally, the importance of nutritional education interventions, which are required to encourage the use by consumers of informative FOPL systems, cannot be neglected to improve the quality of diets regardless of the FOPL used., Competing Interests: Authors AP and FM are, respectively, President and Scientific Director at NFI, a non-profit organization partially supported by 18 food companies. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Martini, Marangoni, Banterle, Donini, Riccardi, Poli and Pellegrini.)

In the context of the ongoing debate on front-of-pack labels (FOPL), extant research highlights a lack of clear indications on which label is most effective in increasing consumers' knowledge of food nutritional quality, and in favoring informed food choices. In this study, we have compared the effects of two different labels, one nutrient-specific label (i.e., NutrInform Battery) and one summary label (i.e., Nutri-Score), in terms of consumers' "subjective understanding" and "liking". Our work advances prior research on FOPL performance by focusing on two different countries—which have different socio-political contexts and which, from previous studies, present limited evidence on the topic—Slovenia, currently utilizing the Protective Food logo, and the Netherlands, who has recently adopted the Nutri-Score. The study also confirms, in line with previous research, a higher effectiveness of the nutrient-specific label, NutrInform Battery, on all analyzed dimensions in tested countries, when compared to the summary label, Nutri-Score. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]