In the following, numbers in parentheses refer to the studies listed in the Appendix
First, we can note that an impressive amount of work has been done with consumers on nutrition labels within this relatively short time period. We believe that two events have been instrumental in this. One is the move from the European Commission to re-look at the 16-year old Directive on Nutrition Labelling (90/496/EEC). The other is the debate on simplified front of pack labels (“signposting”), fuelled by some consumer associations, some major retailers and notably the work done by the UK Food Standards Agency.
There is a clear difference between the studies done in academia and published in refereed journals and the studies commissioned by stakeholders and usually carried out by a market research company. The former are typically based on smaller samples, often with limited geographical reach and partly driven by considerations of cost and convenience. On the other hand, they use advanced statistical methods and aim at explaining consumer behaviour, often with a combination of demographic, attitudinal and economic factors. The latter are typically based on samples of considerable size—series of focus groups with geographical spread when doing qualitative work, large quota samples when doing quantitative work. The methods used, on the other hand, are simple. Analysis of quantitative data is usually restricted to descriptive statistics, and there are only very basic attempts at explaining the behaviour described.
There are three main types of studies: cross-sectional surveys, qualitative studies mostly employing focus groups and experiments. Even within these categories, research design and methodologies employed vary considerably, so that many results are not readily comparable.
Across the studies covered by this review, there is a surprising degree of consistency in the conclusions about consumer interest in nutrition information and in their interest in getting this information from nutrition labels on food products. Participants were generally aware of the overall link between food and health, indicate an interest in nutrition and are also interested in getting information about the nutritional properties of the food they eat (2, 3, 6, 9, 11, 12, 20, 33, 38, 41, 46). Nutrition information is not, though, the top interest with regard to food, even in those countries where nutrition issues are of higher interest. In a Dutch study, for example, informants would rather talk about tasty food, food safety or issues like GMO before getting into nutrition (55). In a Swedish study respondents ranked health and nutrition sixth in importance after food safety, freshness, taste, free of pesticides and animal welfare (50). In a study on what kind of information consumers would like to see on meat labels in Europe, nutrition information was rated as of medium importance, lower than information on origin and best before date (5); in an Irish study the top five items respondents wanted from labels were best before data, additive content, fat content, production date and origin (19).
There are numerous qualifications. They refer to types of consumers, types of products, type of situation and type of label. Across the studies, a recurrent theme is that certain demographic groups have a higher interest in nutrition information. Women were generally more interested than men, and parents of children living at home, especially pre-teenage children, were more interested than pre-kids adults or empty nesters (6, 20, 24, 37, 58). However, young women may be interested in nutrition for reasons of weight control (21, 35) and aesthetic concerns (58). There was also an age effect with older informants more interested due to a generally increased health concern (20, 24, 33, 58), though this baseline interest may be counteracted by more difficulties in processing information in the high age groups. There seems to be a geographical/cultural effect as well, roughly following a North-South distinction, which can be seen best in the study by the European Commission (13). Informants in the Nordic countries, in the Netherlands and in the UK were most interested, whereas informants in countries like France, Greece and Spain were not so enthusiastic about the prospects of receiving more nutrition information. The UK may be special due to the high media attention that has been given to nutrition, as well as a history of more widespread application of nutrition information on labels.
However, some consumer differences cannot be attributed to demographics or country alone. In some of the studies, informants clearly also differed in their general attitude to food and health. There may be a trade-off between health and nutrition on one side and price and/or taste on the other, and some take sides for taste and/or price and attach lower importance to health and nutrition (e.g. 14, 27); there may be also a notion of resistance against attempts to impose a “scientific” approach to something that is very much linked to enjoyment (e.g. 15, 27).
Consumers are more interested in nutrition information for some products than others. In several studies, informants expressed a view that nutrition information is less relevant for fresh products like fruits, vegetables and meat (13, 38) and informants expressed reservations with regard to products that are regarded as a treat (13, 24, 27), which was especially clear in those studies dealing specifically with chocolate (35, 36). Products where interest is highest were typically processed products with a low degree of transparency, like ready meals (13, 24, 38).
When consumers are interested in nutrition information, this does not imply that they want to get this information from labels. They are generally positive about labelling, especially if it is applied systematically to all packaged products (e.g. 12, 13). When compared to other sources with high credibility like doctors, dieticians, and also friends and relatives, a Dutch study found that interest in getting information from them is generally higher (55).
Expressed interest was often linked to situations where a product is bought for the first time, and where information need is highest (1, 16, 20, 27, 38). Several informants across studies also mentioned that they are not interested in nutrition information in situations where they are time pressured (13, 20, 27, 28, 34, 36), which goes for many shopping situations.
The nutrition information spontaneously mentioned first as of interest by informants in the qualitative studies is often calories and/or fat (13, 23, 35, 58); others are sugar, salt, carbohydrates, vitamins and calcium. Informants also mention additives, “artificials” (colours, preservatives, flavours, see 35), E-numbers and sweeteners. Results of the quantitative studies differ in details, but usually have fat and/or calories, salt and sugar at the top of the list (1, 6, 19, 22, 24, 32, 34, 40, 46, 57).
While nutrition knowledge was not the primary aim of investigation in the studies reviewed, many address it as background information and possible determinant of label understanding and use. There is quite good consistency across the qualitative studies in the way nutrition knowledge is expressed. Informants express uneasiness and confusion, and are frustrated by what they perceive as contradictions among experts and the fact that new and different information is emerging all the time. There is generally a good understanding of calories (e.g. 15, 35, 37, 44), but confusion about nutrients.
The quantitative results are largely in line with this. Respondents could often express agreement that one should eat less food with sugar and fat and more fruits and vegetables (e.g. 22), a finding corroborated in other studies, both quantitative and qualitative. In the BEUC (6) study in five European countries, when presented with a product high in carbohydrate/sugar content, 12% of respondents thought it was nutritionally very good and 54% believed it was rather good. For five questions testing nutrition knowledge, correct answers varied from 19 to 51%. In an Irish study, more than half of the respondents answered “don’t know” when asked how much salt or fat they should eat on a typical day (44).
In our conceptual model, search referred to effortful activities by consumers to get access to information on nutrition labels, in contrast to situations where consumers are accidentally exposed to these labels and then may or may not process the information on them. On theoretical grounds, this distinction is important, because when consumers engage in effortful search, then the subsequent processing of the information will be more in-depth and chances of the information actually affecting food choices are higher. The distinction between effortful search and accidental exposure is almost never made in the studies analysed. The way in which the extent of effortful search can be investigated is either by consumers reporting on their own behaviour, or by observations in a real-world environment. The only observational study in this review is the one by Waitrose (58), where informants tended to make only limited effort to see labels. There were many studies dealing with self-reported behaviour, but usually they did not distinguish between effortful search and accidental exposure. There were two exceptions. The qualitative study by European Food Information Council (15), based on focus groups in France, Germany, the Netherlands and the UK, led to the impression that (some) consumers seek out labels actively in the UK, but less so in the other countries, which may be related to the differences in availability of and familiarity with labels that exist between these countries. In the quantitative French study by Consommation Logement et Cadre de Vie (11), based on a quota sample of 850, 22% reported that they are interested in nutrition labels and search for them actively, whereas another 41% reported that they read the information when they are exposed to it accidentally rather than seeking it out.
Since our conceptual model is post hoc, categorisation of research results is not always straightforward, and there is a fine borderline between perception, understanding and use. Perception, as defined above, deals with whether the label information actually is taken up by the consumer. Most of the research results categorised under perception have to do with the question whether consumers read the labels. Research on inferences made during or after reading the information will be dealt with under understanding.
In our conceptual model, we have made a distinction between conscious and subconscious perception. Exposure is known to lead to subconscious activation of certain familiar concepts the recipient of the information is exposed to. None of the studies perused addressed this.
Ways in which reading and awareness are measured differ considerably between studies, and results are thus not readily comparable. In the ACNielsen (1) study, which was conducted in 38 countries, 18% of the European respondents claimed that they “always” check the nutrition information on the package, with highest rates reported for Portugal (44%), Italy (31%) and Denmark (30%). In other studies, the percentages reporting to check nutrition information always or occasionally are correspondingly high, e.g. 52% for a study for Kellogg’s in the UK (30), 65% in an Irish study (44), 50% in a Swedish study (50) and (roughly comparable) 63% in France (11). In other studies the figures are still higher (31, 40), though the samples used there are either not clearly reported or of questionable representativity. Generally, such figures should be interpreted with caution and probably contain a good deal of over-reporting, and it may also not always be clear to respondents what the term “nutrition information” means. Some consumers are known to confuse nutrition information with ingredients lists, and also with nutrition claims, which are designed to attract attention to a much higher degree than nutrition tables [e.g. in the BEUC study (6), 59% claim that nutrition claims catch their attention and that they read them].
It is therefore more interesting to look at how the figures differ by consumer groups and situations. In line with the differences between demographic segments noticed in the section on interest, women report more reading of nutrition labels than men (19, 30, 49), and also some of the other factors mentioned in the section on interest (older consumers, parents) occur again. As for situation, several studies address whether a product is being bought for the first time, which increases reported reading rates [41% for the European part of the ACNielsen study (1), see also (27, 28)], and in the qualitative studies there are indications that time pressure decreases likelihood of reading nutrition information (27). Also selective reading of information on certain nutrients is reported, mainly following the results reported above for interest. In two large comparative studies, information on fat content and calories (in that order) were reported most often as being read (1, 6).
Self-reported reading measures are based on respondents’ interpretation of their own past behaviour and may be of limited predictive power for perception of future labelling initiatives. Perception of new information can be analysed in field experiments or by tachistoscopic tests in the laboratory. Steenhuis et al. (47) introduced new labelling in an experimental set-up of Dutch supermarkets, supported by an educational campaign, and found that while 50% of respondents had noticed the intervention, only 25% had noticed the labels. A tachistoscopic investigation for Kellogg’s (29), involving 1-s and 2-s flashes of packages with an added GDA label, showed perception rates of 3–4% for the 1-s flash and about 20% for the 2-s flash.
A good deal of research has been done on liking—whether consumers like the idea of simplified labels and front of pack signposting in general, but in particular how they like different types of label formats. This covers both qualitative studies, where informants are confronted with different types of label formats and are openly asked for their reactions, and for quantitative research, where different formats have to be rated according to general preference or according to a number of different dimensions.
At the general level across the studies, consumers generally like the idea of improved nutrition labels, and they like the idea of front of pack signposting as a shopping aid (e.g. 21, 26). Having said that, opinions begin to differ considerably once people are confronted with concrete proposals for, or examples of, simplified nutrition labels. In order to reconcile the various findings, we would like to hypothesise, based on the findings analysed, that there are three basic considerations that guide consumer liking for various signposting formats. First, consumers like simplification (e.g. 8, 16, 20, 27). They know that in a real shopping situation they have limited time and possibility to look at back of pack labels, of which they are critical because of bad legibility and unknown terms (see below section on understanding). They also find it difficult to interpret various nutrients, compare numbers, and are generally wary about the cognitive load that comes with trying to make use of nutrient tables. Second, however, when presented with simplified information like traffic lights or health logos, consumers still would like to know what this simplified information stands for and how the red light or the health logo has been arrived at, and are wary of the fact that somebody may have made a decision for them that they do not understand, even when this someone has good credibility (e.g. 3, 16, 27, 37). Third, nutrition information can create resistance in consumers when they feel coerced or pushed to make choices that they do not want (e.g. 8, 12, 17, 20, 25, 35, 37).
Obviously, these three considerations have different and partly incompatible implications, and nutrition labelling systems that consumers like therefore have to be a compromise balancing these different criteria. Also, consumers will differ in the weight that these different criteria have for them. We believe that this idea of a trade-off in the mind of the consumer can help in providing structure to a range of the findings on liking of various formats.
The research done on liking of various formats can be divided into four groups or issues
The first deals with comparing the three major groups of formats that have been discussed: traffic light systems, GDA-based systems and health logos/ratings. Simple traffic lights and health logos were mostly less liked (e.g. 10, 12, 37, 53). They are formats that provide the most simplification, but fail on the other two criteria. Simple traffic lights have been characterised as “too didactic” (21) or “paternalistic” (37), and similar reactions have been observed for health logos (27), although reactions there depend on the perceived intent. A “be treatwise” or an “an occasional treat” logo, tested for use on chocolate bars and perceived as a mild reminder not to overindulge, was received positively (27, 36). Energy labels, which are another way of presenting information with a high degree of simplification, were generally liked (16), but there were also concerns that the purpose of energy labels is to encourage people to count calories, which has a coercive element (17).
When comparing multiple traffic lights and GDA-based systems, the results are not clear-cut (e.g. 7, 10, 12, 37, 51). Also, there is a hybrid format, the colour-coded GDA format, which combines elements of both. Referring back to the three criteria for liking discussed above, multiple traffic lights seem to outperform GDA-based systems in simplicity, but the GDA-based systems score higher on the two other dimensions. In a study commissioned by Tesco (51), for example, Tesco’s GDA system won higher agreement on the statement “gives me all the information I need” compared to the traffic light system. The colour-coded GDA clearly outperformed the multiple traffic light in terms of liking in a Food Standards Agency study (24), with 65% preferring the colour-coded GDA as compared to 30% for multiple traffic lights. This result is compatible with our reasoning about liking being based on three dimensions: the colour coding provides the simplicity (since the processing of the label can be limited to the colours, ignoring the rest), but the GDA information gives reassurance by providing numbers that one, in principle, could go back to for verification, giving an impression of more transparency and less paternalism.
The second group comprises studies comparing colour-coded systems with other systems. Results here show that the use of colours to provide information seems to be liked by many consumers (3, 28, 35). In the Food Standards Agency studies, multiple traffic lights and the colour-coded GDA emerged as the two formats clearly liked most, as noted above, and when comparing the colour-coded GDA with a monochrome GDA, respondents overwhelmingly preferred the coloured one (23, 25). Variations of this general theme, like Sainsbury’s Wheel of Health (that combines colour coding with giving numerical information on nutrients) also seem to obtain high degrees of liking.
A number of studies have compared different formats of providing GDA-related nutrition information. One question addressed is whether GDA charts should contain information in grams, in percentages or both. Results were mixed (10, 25, 28, 35), with informants in the qualitative studies expressing both liking and disliking percentages. Reasons given for liking in the qualitative studies are that they simplify the information and make it more difficult to ignore (28), reasons for disliking that they increase the complexity and do not add extra information (25, 28) and that some report having had problems with them already back in their school days (25). In a quantitative study comparing three formats in three countries, a format containing grams per serving and percentages was more liked than formats containing % only or grams and a bar chart in the UK and Germany, with no clear preferences in France (10). Various forms of visualisation, like bar charts, pie charts and different uses of colour have been tried (23, 29, 36), but have mostly been found to be disliked as being too complicated.
Several studies have looked at liking of reporting nutrition information per 100 g or per serving. Participants in the studies generally agreed that it is important that it is absolutely clear what a “serving” is, and often this is far from the case, but apart from that preferences for these various formats seem to vary a good deal, with preferences found both for information per 100 g (38), for information per serving (3, 10) and for providing both (34, 40). One study indicates that these preferences vary by product (18), and another indicated that preferences for one or the other may also depend on what the information is to be used for—comparison between products or how much of a nutrient is present in a serving of the product (16).
Research on perceived understanding of existing nutrition labels is somewhat equivocal. On the one hand, when asked in quantitative surveys whether they understand such labels wholly or partly, the majority of respondents usually answer yes (1, 6, 11, 19, 22, 31, 44, 57). At the same time, respondents usually also answer yes to questions on whether such labels need improvements (6, 11, 31, 34). In qualitative studies, the critical aspects predominate. Existing nutrition information on food packs is criticised for being hard to find, having poor legibility, using unknown terms and being confusing (9, 15, 16, 21, 23, 27, 58). In the extensive qualitative study on labelling by the European Commission (13), criticism related to finding information difficult to locate, difficult to read, concealed by stick-on labels, small font size, multi-lingual labels, lack of colour contrast letters/background, lack of standardisation and “obscure” wording.
The overarching result with regard to the various new front of pack signposting schemes proposed is that participants in the studies generally find them easy to understand. In quantitative studies comparing various formats (typically traffic light systems, GDA-based systems and health logos or rating systems), levels of self-rated understanding did not vary very much (12, 51, 53, 57). In the qualitative studies conducted on behalf of the Food Standards Agency (21, 23) in the UK, traffic light formats and colour-coded GDA formats were viewed as best in terms of understanding, whereas reactions were a bit more mixed with regard to some of the other formats. Thus, comments on both simple traffic lights and health symbols included that it was difficult to know what they cover, and a monochrome GDA was regarded as more difficult to understand than a colour-coded one. Other qualitative studies focusing specifically on the two most debated systems, multiple traffic lights and various versions of GDA-based systems, also found generally that participants viewed them as easy to understand (8, 23, 36, 45). For traffic light formats, the picture may change a bit though, when consumers are confronted with them not in a single product context, but in a meal context; understanding what the system means when trying to compose a meal may be different than understanding what it means when choosing a particular product (36). The different variations of calorie signposts tested by the European Food Information Council (16) were also perceived as easy to understand.
There have been a few studies on how consumers infer perceived overall healthiness of a product from the information provided. One interesting result from a multi-country study (France, Germany, UK) was that respondents rated the overall healthiness of a product as higher when the product was displaying a health logo or health rating system, as compared to formats providing a range of indicators, such as multiple traffic lights and GDA systems (10); a similar result was obtained in a Dutch study (18). A qualitative study (28) suggested that consumers may combine information from the nutrition label with information from the ingredients list to arrive at inferences about overall healthiness. Generally, we know little about the inferences made when processing nutrition information on packages.
Objective tests of understanding come in various forms: asking people to replay part of the label information, asking them to evaluate a given product based on a given nutrient, asking them to compare two products based on a given nutrient, asking them to evaluate the overall healthiness of a product. Usually, a majority of respondents can correctly replay information given on one nutrient, though the percentage of correct answers may depend on the format in which the information is given. For example, in a study conducted by Cereal Partners Worldwide (10), when asked to indicate the correct amount of whole grain contained in a cereal product, 91% could answer correctly after having seen a product with a GDA format referred to as “industry standard” (grams and percentages for five key nutrients including calories), compared to 71% when the same information is given in a bar chart format. On the other hand, when asking for which of the nutrients on the label contained the highest proportion of the GDA, 60% could give a correct answer when using a bar chart, compared to 37% for a pie chart (29). Different formats may thus facilitate processing in different ways for different tasks. This is, of course, not surprising. In one of the Food Standards Agency studies (24), respondents had to evaluate whether a product was high, medium or low on two key nutrients. Of four formats tested, the multiple traffic light led to most correct answers, ahead of the colour-coded GDA information, a finding that may be related to the fact that the multiple traffic light provided exactly this information, and nothing else. When, however, respondents were asked which of two products was higher on these two key nutrients, the colour-coded GDA outperformed the traffic light system. Both clearly outperformed a simple traffic light system. In a study commissioned by Which? (57), the multiple traffic light system clearly outperformed various versions of a GDA-based system when the task was to find out whether the level of four nutrients in the product was low, medium or high. Most of these results can be interpreted on the background of the simple hypothesis that share of correct answers increases in line with a decrease in the requirements for processing of the information provided in order to give a correct answer. In the Which? study, the four formats tested did not differ in the likelihood of aiding respondents to classify a given product as healthy or unhealthy (according to criteria predefined by the Which? food team), with about half of the respondents classifying the product incorrectly (according to the Which? criteria). However, when confronted with pairs of products, 90% of the respondents could correctly identify the product that was healthier (again, according to a predefined objective criterion), with the multiple traffic light system leading to more correct classifications than the three GDA-based systems (97 compared to 87%).
There were mixed results with regard to the effects of demographic factors on understanding. Concerning objective understanding, the Food Standards Agency (22) study and the French study by Consommation Logement et Cadre de Vie (12) found that the older age group and the lowest social status groups/less educated respondents performed worse than the rest on the indicators of objective understanding. The Which? study (57) found that respondents in lower socioeconomic groups had more difficulties in correctly classifying key nutrients as high, medium and low when confronted with the GDA-based system used by Tesco (colour-coded, but not traffic lights). But in terms of subjective understanding, research commissioned by Tesco (51) showed that ethnic minorities, respondents over 55 and respondents from the DE social grades generally found both GDA-based labels and multiple traffic lights easy to understand, and the experimental study by Unilever (53) could not find effects of education in perceived understanding.
There are limitations in the research that has been conducted on understanding of nutrition labels. As for subjective understanding, it is reassuring to know that consumers mostly feel they understand the information, but with regard to any desired health or nutrition effects of labels it would be more important to analyse what they think they have understood, i.e. to shed more light on the inferences made from the label. This topic has only been touched upon. As for the objective understanding tests, most of them do not go beyond demands for simple replaying some of the label information, and in addition they have all been conducted in forced exposure situations that are not typical for real-world shopping.
Research on use of nutrition information on labels is in four categories. The first is self-reported use of labels already existing. The second is imagined (hypothetical) use of new label formats not yet on the market. The third covers studies on how label information affects intentions to buy the labelled products. Finally, there could in principle be studies on actual use, though only limited information was found in this category.
Measures on self-reported use are close to measures on self-reported perception, the difference being in questions posed, such as “do you usually read...” as compared to “do you usually use...”. Since perception and use are conceptually different—you may read (and understand) labels, but not use them in your decision-making—we keep this distinction here, but when it comes to self-reporting measures, measures of reading and using are probably addressing much of the same thing. Not surprisingly, therefore, the results reported now on self-reported use follow closely the results described above on self-reported reading.
Both in qualitative and quantitative research, many participants claim that they use nutrition information from packages. For example, in the French study by Consommation Logement et Cadre de Vie (11), 33% of respondents claimed they buy based on nutrition claims and 24% based on nutrition labels. Figures as high or higher have been reported also for France by Mannell et al. (34), for Greece by Drichoutis et al. (14), for the UK by the Food Standards Agency (22) and the Institute of Grocery Distribution (27), for Spain by Gracia et al. (26), and for Sweden by Svederberg et al. (50). A range of demographic effects have been reported, including higher self-reported label use by women, by older consumers, by more educated consumers and by consumers in the higher social strata, though the results do not compare easily across the various studies. Price interest correlates negatively with self-reported label use (14, 26). Label use is positively linked to buying new products (1, 16, 27) and negatively to time pressure (27, 20). There are also differences according to product category, and the main tendency seems to be that self-reported use is higher for products with a higher degree of processing (34, 38, 45).
When testing new formats, in some studies participants were encouraged to speculate about the ways in which they would use the information. This applies especially to health logos, traffic light systems and GDA-based systems. One finding is that informants in some qualitative studies underlined that red lights or other deterring signals, including unfavourable GDA data, would not prevent them from eating products they like for their taste or as a treat, even though this may lead to some moderation (3, 27). In some of the Food Standards Agency research, informants could imagine using this type of information as a heuristic in screening products, especially when the information is colour-coded, and especially in cases where there is a range of product alternatives (in the same product category) that may differ in their “colour range” (23). Some informants believed that colour-coded information would be more difficult to ignore than other formats and therefore would have more impact on their purchases (25), and some foresaw some confusion when signposting information was to be used to choose not only single products, but whole meals or weekly shopping baskets (21). In a Dutch study (17), informants imagined that health logos would mostly be used when choosing products where they were in doubt about the product’s health status.
A few studies measured future buying intentions for products that were shown with and without nutrition signposts (18, 53). They found that the buying intentions for the less healthy products decreased when they had the logo or signpost. This effect was largely independent of the format used.
There were only a few references to anything resembling real-world use of nutrition labels. The Dutch experiment by Steenhuis et al. (47) experimentally introduced fat labels in some supermarkets and measured fat intake of clients by a food frequency list; the experimental group where labels were introduced could be compared to another experimental group where educational material, but no labels, were introduced, and a control group. No significant changes in fat intake could be detected. Both Sainsbury’s (45) and Tesco (52) have provided some material showing that, after introduction of their signposting system (the Wheel of Health, a colour-coded GDA system, for Sainsbury’s and a not colour-coded GDA system for Tesco), sales of some healthier products went up whereas sales of comparable products with less favourable nutrient information went down. The evidence is more anecdotal, though, since there is no control for other factors and details are not reported. Waitrose (58) commissioned a think-aloud study where informants were followed on a shopping trip, which yielded some interesting insights. For yoghurt, for example, the perception that this product generally is healthy led most informants not to look at additional nutrition information, and for both ready meals and sandwiches choices were determined by appearance, expected taste and convenience, and nutrition information played almost no role. For cereals, information is used when making decisions, but is no longer used once brand loyalty is established.
Overall, the studies give only very limited insight into label use. As with the results on self-reported perception, self-reported use is most likely heavily over-reported, though the demographic differences found are probably valid. The results on hypothetical use are interesting for formulating hypotheses on how signposting information, and especially colour codes, may be used, but need not have any relationship to actual use. The results on intention are interesting, but may be subject to demand effects. With regard to actual use, there are practically no studies.
We would also like to briefly draw attention to our distinction of different types of use. To the extent we have indicators about use at all, they mostly refer to use in the decision to buy the product that carries the label or not. As explained earlier, this is only the most direct and immediate form of use.