Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Front of Pack Nutrition Labelling, Nutrition, Quality and Consumer Choices

  • Cardiovascular Disease (JHY Wu, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Nutrition Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article reviews recent research on front of pack (FoP) nutritional labelling systems and their relationship to consumer choice. The mechanics of the major FoP label types are described, and recent research that tests the impact of these FoP systems on consumer choice is reviewed. Recent theoretical developments in food consumer choice are then discussed. The implications of these developments for the major FoP label types are then developed. The article concludes that several major types of FoP labels, falling into two major groups, evaluative and reductive, are now fully developed and are being deployed. FoP research that is developmental in nature is thus redundant. There is no possibility that evaluative and reductive types can both be effective. Therefore, there is a critical need for a research that tests these FoP labels and that identifies whether evaluative or reductive labels are compatible with food consumer choice before further deployment occurs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Whitney E, Sizer F. Nutrition: concepts and controversies. Independence, KY: Brooks Cole; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Swinburn B et al. The global obesity epidemic shaped by global drivers and local environments. Lancet. 2011;378(9793):804–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Mozaffarian D, Afshin A, Benowitz NL, Bittner V, Daniels SR, Franch HA, et al. Population approaches to improve diet, physical activity, and smoking habits: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2012;126(12):1514–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2011) Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Available at: http://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2010/DietaryGuidelines2010.pdf, Accessed 28th. September, 2015.

  5. Brown K et al. A review of consumer awareness understanding and use of food-based dietary guidelines. Br J Nutr. 2011;106:15–26.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. van Kleef EV, Dagevos H. The growing role of front-of-pack nutrition profile labeling: a consumer perspective on key issues and controversies. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2015;55(3):291–303. This article contains a recent review of research in the field of FoP nutrition labelling from a consumer perspective.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Campos S, Doxey J, Hammond D. Nutrition labels on pre-packaged foods: a systematic review. Public Health Nutr. 2011;14(8):1496–506. This article contains a recent review of research in the field of FoP nutrition labelling. It covers developmental research in detail.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hodgkins C et al. Understanding how consumers categorise nutritional labels: a consumer derived typology for front-of-pack nutrition labelling. Appetite. 2012;59(3):807–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. van Herpen E, van Trijp H. Front-of-pack nutrition labels. Their effect on attention and choice when consumers have varying goals and time constraints. Appetite. 2011;57(2):148–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Fischer LM, Sutherland LA, Kaley LA, Fox TA, Hasler CM, Nobel J, et al. Development and implementation of the guiding stars nutrition guidance program. American Journal of Health Promotion. 2011;26(2):e55–63. A detailed description of the only FoP nutrition label type to date that has produced an observable effect on consumer choice.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Foodwatch. (2013). The new British traffic light label – a case of foul play, Available at: http://www.foodwatch.org/en/what-we-do/news/the-new-british-traffic-light-label-a-case-of-foul-play/, Accessed 21st September, 2015.

  12. Campbell D. All supermarkets to adopt ‘traffic-light labelling’ for nutrition, The Guardian, Wednesday 24th Oct. 2012, p4.

  13. Underwood RL, & Klein NM. Packaging as brand communication: effects of product pictures on consumer responses to the package and brand. J Mark Theor Prac. 2002;58-68.

  14. Hamlin RP, McNeill LS, Moore V. The impact of front-of-pack nutrition labels on consumer product evaluation and choice: an experimental study. Pub Health Nutr. 2014;18(12):2126–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Lachat C, Tseng M. A wake up call for nutrition labelling. Public Health Nutr. 2013;16(3):381–2. A succinct summary of the state of FoP research as it stood in 2013.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hawley K, Robert C, Bragg M, Liu P, Schwartz M, Brownell K. The science on front-of-package food labels. Public Health Nutr. 2013;16(3):430–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. van’t Riet J. Sales effects of product health information at points of purchase: a systematic review. Public Health Nutr. 2013;16(3):418–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Chimhundu R, Hamlin R. Future of the brand management structure in FMCG. J Brand Manag. 2007;14(3):232–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Andrews JC, Lin CTJ, Levy AS, Lo S. Consumer research needs from the food and drug administration on front-of-package nutritional labeling. J Public Pol Mark. 2014;33(1):10–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Newman CL, Howlett E, Burton S. Shopper response to front-of-package nutrition labeling programs: potential consumer and retail store benefits. J Retail. 2014;90(1):13–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Maubach N, Hoek J, Mather D. Interpretive front-of-pack nutrition labels. Comparing competing recommendations. Appetite. 2014;82:67–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Cawley J, Sweeney MJ, Sobal J, Just DR, Kaiser HM, Schulze WD, et al. The impact of a supermarket nutrition rating system on purchases of nutritious and less nutritious foods. Public Health Nutr. 2015;18(01):8–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Boztuğ Y, Juhl HJ, Elshiewy O, Jensen MB. Consumer response to monochrome Guideline Daily Amount nutrition labels. Food Policy. 2015;53:1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Brunton C. Research report: the ability of New Zealand consumers to use the Health Star Rating System. Auckland, NZ: Colmar Brunton; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Sheppard BH, Hartwick J, Warshaw PR. The theory of reasoned action: a meta-analysis of past research with recommendations for modifications and future research. J Consum Res. 1988;15(3):325–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Steptoe A, Pollard TM, Wardle J. Development of a measure of the motives underlying the selection of food: the food choice questionnaire. Appetite. 1995;25(3):267–84. A highly influential research exercise that describes and defines the application of reasoned action as the current dominant paradigm of food consumer choice.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Tversky A, Kahneman D. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science. 1974;185(4157):1124–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Gigerenzer G, Brighton H. Homo heuristicus: why biased minds make better inferences. Top Cogn Sci. 2009;1(1):107–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Hilbig BE, Richter T. Homo heuristicus outnumbered: comment on Gigerenzer and Brighton (2009). Top Cogn Sci. 2011;3(1):187–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Scheibehenne B, Miesler L, Todd PM. Fast and frugal food choices: uncovering individual decision heuristics. Appetite. 2007;49(3):578–89. An article that describes heuristics as an alternative paradigm to reasoned action as a basis for food choice.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Hamlin RP. Cue-based decision making. A new framework for understanding the uninvolved food consumer. Appetite. 2010;55(1):89–98. An article that develops the heuristic paradigm above into a workable model of food consumer choice.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Cohen DA, Babey SH. Contextual influences on eating behaviours: heuristic processing and dietary choices. Obes Rev. 2012;13(9):766–79.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Schulte-Mecklenbeck M, Sohn M, de Bellis E, Martin N, Hertwig R. A lack of appetite for information and computation. Simple heuristics in food choice. Appetite. 2013;71:242–51. An article that develops the heuristic model of food consumer choice further.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Michaelidou N, Dibb S. Consumer involvement: a new perspective. Mark Rev. 2008;8(1):83–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Ehrenberg, A. My research in Marketing. Admap Magazine. 2005;471.

  36. Argyriou E, Melewar TC. Consumer attitudes revisited: a review of attitude theory in marketing research. International Journal of Management Reviews. 2011;13((4):431–51. A very well written review of consumer attitudes and how they can be applied to both reasoned and heuristic consumer choice.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Volkova E, Neal B, Rayner M, Swinburn B, Eyles H, Jiang Y, Michie J, Ni Mhurchu C. Effects of interpretive front-of-pack nutrition labels on food purchases: protocol for the Starlight randomised controlled trial. BMC Public Health. 2014;14:968. Available at: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/14/96, Accessed: 28th September 2015.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Marketing, University of Otago, PO Box 56, Dunedin, New Zealand, 9001

    Robert Hamlin

Authors
  1. Robert Hamlin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert Hamlin.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Robert Hamlin declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Cardiovascular Disease

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hamlin, R. Front of Pack Nutrition Labelling, Nutrition, Quality and Consumer Choices. Curr Nutr Rep 4, 323–329 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13668-015-0147-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13668-015-0147-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation