Simplified nutrient labelling: consumers’ perceptions in Germany and Belgium

  • Anke Möser
  • Christine Hoefkens
  • John Van Camp
  • Wim Verbeke
GENERELLE ASPEKTE

Abstract

Growing consumer interest in food and health has motivated the European food industry to provide more simple information about the nutritional composition of foods. In addition to the traditional back-of-pack nutrition table, simplified front-of-pack labels have been introduced by the food industry to allow consumers making better informed and healthier food choices. In this study, consumers’ perceptions of simplified nutrition information, namely Guideline Daily Amount (GDA) and Traffic light (TL), in Germany and Belgium are explored. Consumer surveys in Germany (n = 147) and Belgium (n = 128) were conducted in 2008. Data were analysed by means of descriptive statistics and regression analysis. In both countries, the GDA is the most widely used simplified nutrition label. Whereas most consumers in Belgium indicate a preference for the GDA, in Germany the Traffic light is favoured most. Regression analyses indicate that the predilection for the different labels is affected by socio-demographic characteristics and perceptions towards the respective labels. European nutrition policy makers and food industries should be aware of cross-country differences regarding the perception of simplified nutrition labels. The challenge for both stakeholder groups is to raise awareness of the potential function of simplified labels in making informed and healthy food choices among European consumers.

Keywords

Nutrient profile labelling Nutrition policy European food industry Consumer Survey 

References

  1. Aid Infodienst (2008) Ampelkennzeichnung – Pro und Contra. BonnGoogle Scholar
  2. Akerlof GA (1970) The market for “Lemons”. Quality, uncertainty and the market mechanism. Q J Econ 84:488–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anonymous (2009) Erster deutscher Lebensmittelkonzern führt Ampel ein. http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/0,1518,628315,00.html. Accessed 04 June 2009
  4. Calfee JE, Papparlado JK (1991) Public policy issues in health claims for food. J Publ Policy Mark 10:33–53Google Scholar
  5. Commission of the European Communities (2008) Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the provision of food information to consumers. Brussels, 30.1.2008 COM(2008) 40 final 2008/0028 (COD). http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/labellingnutrition/foodlabelling/publications/proposal_regulation_ep_council.pdf. Accessed 05 June 2009
  6. Confederation of the Food and Drink Industries in the EU (CIAA) (2006) CIAA Recommendation for a Common Nutrition Labelling Scheme. Brüssel, 30.06.2006. http://www.ciaa.be/documents/press_releases/CIAA_Nut_recommendation.pdf. Accessed 11 May 2009
  7. Confederation of the Food and Drink Industries in the EU (CIAA) (2008) Press release. GDA nutrition labels gaining ground throughout Europe, survey shows. http://www.ciaa.be/asp/documents/detailed_doc.asp?doc_id=848 Accessed 27 May 2009
  8. Council Directive of 24 September 1990 on nutrition labelling for foodstuffs (90/496/EEC). BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  9. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Ernährung (DGE) (2007) DGE-Stellungnahme zur Anwendung von „Guideline Daily Amounts” (GDA) in der freiwilligen Kennzeichnung von Lebensmitteln. DGE (ed.). http://www.dge.de/pdf/ws/DGE-Stellungnahme-GDA.pdf. Accessed 11 May 2009
  10. Drichoutis AC, Lazaridis P, Nayga RM (2006a) Nutritional food label use. A theoretical and empirical perspective. Seminar paper presented at the European Association of Agricultural Economists 98th Seminar, 2–29 June 2006, Chania, Crete, Greece, http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/10033/1/sp06dr01.pdf. Accessed 8 June 2009
  11. Drichoutis AC, Lazaridis P, Nayga RM (2006b) Consumers’ use of nutritional labels: a review of research studies and issues. Acad Mark Sci Rev 9:1–22Google Scholar
  12. Foodwatch (2009) Ampelkennzeichnung. Ministerin Aigner will Ampel verhindern. http://foodwatch.de/kampagnen__themen/ampelkennzeichnung/index_ger.html. Accessed 27 May 2009
  13. Godwin SL, Speller-Henderson L, Thompson C (2006) Evaluating the nutrition label. Its use in and impact on purchasing decisions by consumers. J Food Distrib Res 37:76–80Google Scholar
  14. Golan E, Kuchler F, Mitchell L (2001) Economics of food labelling. J Consum Policy 24:117–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hartmann M, Lensch AK, Simons J, Thrams S (2008) Nutrition and health claims––call for and justification of governmental intervention from the consumers’ perspective. [Nährwert- und gesundheitsbezogenene Angaben über Lebensmittel – Notwendigkeit und Rechtfertigung einer staatlichen Regulierung aus Konsumentensicht.]. Agrarwirtschaft 57:130–140Google Scholar
  16. Jessup A (2001) Nutrition labeling. J Consum Policy 24:148–152Google Scholar
  17. Max-Rubner-Institut (MRI) (2008) Bundesforschungsanstalt für Ernährung (Hg.) Nationale Verzehrstudie II, Ergebnisbericht Teil 2, Karlsruhe. http://www.was-esse-ich.de/uploads/media/NVSII_Ergebnisbericht_Teil1.pdf. Accessed 5 May 2009
  18. Nayga RM (2008) Nutrition, obesity and health: policies and economic research challenges. Eur Rev Agric Econ 35:281–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foodsGoogle Scholar
  20. Petrucelli N (1996) Consumer and marketing implications of information provision. The case of the nutrition and labeling education act of 1990. J Public Policy Mark 15:150–153Google Scholar
  21. Rubin PH (2004) Regulation of information and advertising, Emory University Department of Economics and Emory University School of Law. http://ssrn.com/abstract=498683. Accessed 8 June 2009
  22. Stigler GJ (1961) The economics of information. J Political Econ 693:213–225Google Scholar
  23. Teisl MF, Bookstael NE, Levy A (2001) Measuring the welfare effects of nutrition information. Am J Agric Econ 83:133–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Verbeke W (2005) Agriculture and the food industry in the information age. Eur Rev Agric Econ 32:347–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Verbeke W (2008) Impact of communication on consumers’ food choices. Proc Nutr Soc 67:281–288CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. World Health Organisation (WHO) (2003) Obesity and overweight. WHO, GenevaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel/Switzerland 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anke Möser
    • 1
  • Christine Hoefkens
    • 2
  • John Van Camp
    • 3
  • Wim Verbeke
    • 2
  1. 1.Center for International Development and Environmental ResearchJustus-Liebig University GiessenGießenGermany
  2. 2.Department of Agricultural Economics and Department of Food Safety and Food QualityGhent UniversityGhentBelgium
  3. 3.Department of Food Safety and Food QualityGhent UniversityGhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations