Nutri-Score and Nutrition Facts Panel through the Eyes of the Consumer: Correct Healthfulness Estimations Depend on Transparent Labels, Fixation Duration, and Product Equivocality

Research on front-of-pack labels (FOPLs) demonstrated that Nutri-Score is one of the most promising FOPLs regarding healthfulness estimation accuracy. Nevertheless, as consumers are exposed to both the Nutri-Score and the mandatory Nutrition Facts Panel (NFP) in the supermarket, it is key to understand if and how both labels interact. This study investigates the contribution of Nutri-Score and NFP regarding healthfulness estimation accuracy, whether this impact differs depending on the product, and what role visual attention plays. We set up an eye-tracking experiment in a controlled setting in which 398 participants rated the healthfulness of 20 products. The results confirmed the positive impact of the Nutri-Score on healthfulness estimation accuracy, though the impact was larger for equivocal (i.e., difficult to judge) products. Interestingly, NFP either had no effect (compared to a package without Nutri-Score or NFP) or a negative effect (compared to a package with Nutri-Score alone) on healthfulness estimation accuracy. Eye-tracking data corroborated that ‘cognitive overload’ issues could explain why consumers exposed to Nutri-Score alone outperformed those exposed to both Nutri-Score and NFP. This study offers food for thought for policymakers and the industry seeking to maximize the potential of the Nutri-Score.

The consumer perspective of labeling on foodstuffs—review

Background The information present on food labels is essential to provide consumers with proper guidance on the quality of food products, allowing the choice of a nutritionally balanced diet. Easy-to-read systems can help hungry consumers make healthier choices at the time of purchase. The goal of this research is verifying the efficacy of different food labels on foodstuffs by the consumer choices. Methods Scientific articles were analysed from 2016 to 2020, based on Pubmed and Google Scholar. Keywords such as food label, foodstuffs, food industry and consumer were used. Results From scientific research, six articles were analysed. Thus, it is estimated the analysis of 2069 participants were recruited through a large web panel provider. Age, gender, and socioeconomic status quotas were applied to recruit a diverse sample of consumers. The participants choose the healthfulness (less healthy, moderately healthy, healthier) of the foodstuffs. The Multiple Traffic Light led to significant differences in choices between healthier and less healthy products, but not moderately healthy products. No significant differences in choices were observed by product healthfulness when the Daily Intake Guide was present. The Nutrition Facts Panel was viewed for only 7% of all packages. Conclusions On some food labels it is possible to find wrong information due to the use of ambiguous and confusing words that are easily disseminated. Effective strategies are needed to promote both food choices made by consumers and food industry formulations. Nutrition is an essential key to maintaining health, so it should be done as an incentive to improve health.

Low-calorie-sweeteners in foods with front-of-package child-directed advertising in Brazil

Background Low-calorie sweeteners (LCS) are currently found in ultra-processed foods, even in those with high content of sugar, without any front-of-package (FOP) information for LCS content. The aim was to assess the presence of LCS and the combination of LCS and added sugars in foods and beverages with FOP child-directed advertising in the Brazilian packaged food supply. Methods In this cross-sectional study, we used data from the nutrition facts panel (NFP) dataset that includes 11,434 unique foods and beverages collected in 2017 in the five largest food retailers in Brazil. We used information on the NFP and the list of ingredients to determine the presence of LCS and added sugars. A subsample of the packages had the available FOP advertising strategies classified using the INFORMAS methodology (n = 3,491). We estimated the prevalence of LCS and the combination of LCS and added sugar presence in the Brazilian food supply, and assessed the prevalence of foods and beverages with FOP child-directed advertising. Results Out of 3,491 products assessed, 8.9% of the products contained LCS, of which 12.9% were advertised towards children. Regarding the presence of LCS and added sugars, 7.3% of products presented that combination, with 14.6% of those having child-directed FOP advertising. The food groups with the highest prevalence of LCS were: sugary drinks (juices, nectars, fruit-flavored drinks, sodas and other beverages) (40.6%), breakfast cereals and granola bars (31.6%), and sweetened dairy products (23.5%). From those, 5.5%, 6.7% and 17.1%, accordingly, were advertised towards children. Conclusions In this sample, 9% of the foods contained LCS or a combination of LCS and added sugars. In products advertised towards children, we found higher rates of products with LCS and greater presence of LCS in beverages, breakfast cereals and granola bars with children-directed advertising. Key messages This study demonstrates that almost 9% of Brazilian packaged foods have LCS, and that 7% have both LCS and added sugars. In products advertised towards children, such rates were higher (13 - 15%). A clearer information on the front-of-package of foods and beverages regarding the presence of LCS in Brazil is necessary, particularly among those products advertised towards children.

Impossible to Go Beyond Beef? An Unbiased Metabolomics Analysis

Objectives Novel plant-based meat alternatives are becoming increasingly popular with consumers. The new generation of meat alternatives is specifically formulated to closely mimic the taste, sensory experience, and nutritional composition of meat. The goal of this work was to perform unbiased analysis of the biochemical composition of ground beef versus a novel plant-based meat alternative to determine their nutritional equivalency. Methods Ground beef from eighteen different steers was purchased from Alderspring Ranch, ID. Eighteen different packages of a plant-based meat alternative were purchased from a local grocery store. Non-targeted metabolomic analysis of sample homogenates was conducted via gas chromatography/electron-ionization mass spectrometry (GC/ei-MS) in the Metabolomics Laboratory of the Duke Molecular Physiology Institute. Following log-transformation, t-test were used to compare all individual analytes using a p-value (false discovery rate) cutoff of P < 0.01, without adjustment for multiple comparisons. Multivariate analyses (principal component and cluster analysis) was performed using software procedures in MetaboAnalyst 4.0. Results A total of 159 out of 184 detected metabolites were found to be different between beef and the plant-based meat alternative (P < 0.01). Metabolites such as niacinamide, calcium pantothenate, creatinine/creatine, anserine, hydroxyproline, and glucosamine were only found in beef, while metabolites such as delta-tocopherol, 3-hydroxyanthranilic acid, vanillic acid, and various plant sterols were only found in the plant-based alternative. Conclusions Despite suggested similarity based on their Nutrition Facts panel, we show that metabolites with important regulatory roles in human health are either absent or present in lower quantities in the plant-based meat alternative. These data suggest that novel plant-based meat alternatives should, at present, not be viewed as direct nutritional replacements for red meat. Funding Sources None.

How Much Sugar is in My Drink? The Power of Visual Cues

Despite widespread attempts to educate consumers about the dangers of sugar, as well as the advent of nutritional labeling, individuals still struggle to make educated decisions about the foods they eat, and/or to use the Nutrition Facts Panel. This study examined the effect of visual aids on judgments of sugar quantity in popular drinks, and choices. 261 volunteers at four different locations evaluated 11 common beverages. Key measures were estimates of sugar in the drinks, nutrition knowledge, and desire to consume them. In the experimental condition, participants viewed beverages along with test tubes filled with the total amount of sugar in each drink; the control condition had no sugar display. Both groups were encouraged to examine the Nutrition Facts Panel when making their evaluations. Correlational analyses revealed that consumers exposed to the visual aid overestimated sugar content and the length of time needed to exercise to burn off the calories; they also had lower intentions to consume any of the beverages. Individuals asserting to use the Nutrition Facts Panel (NFP) in general were also less likely to admit using it in this particular study (r = −2, p = 0.001). This study suggests that a simple visual aid intervention affected judgments and choices towards curtailing sugar intake. This has implications for labeling format implementation.

Simulating the impact of sodium reduction from packaged foods on population sodium intake in US adults and children

Objective:To simulate the impact that Na reductions in food categories that are the largest contributors to dietary Na intake would have on population Na intake from packaged foods among US adults and children.Design:24 h Dietary recall data were used. For each store-bought packaged food product reported by participants, we generated sales-weighted Na content at the median and 25th percentile using Nutrition Facts Panel data from 193 195 products purchased by US households. The impact that Na reductions would have on population Na intake, overall and by sociodemographic subgroup, was examined.SettingsUS households.Participants:Children aged 2–18 years (n 2948) and adults aged >18 years (n 4878), 2011–2012 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.Results:Na intake from packaged foods was 1258 (se 21) mg for adults and 1215 (se 35) mg for children. Top-ten packaged food group sources contributed 67 % of Na intake. For adults and children, there was a decrease of 8·7 % (109 mg) and 8·0 % (97 mg), respectively, in Na intake if the top-ten sources reduced Na from the median to the 25th percentile. Although absolute reduction in intake varied between sociodemographic subgroups, significant differences were not observed.Conclusions:The study demonstrated that if Na reduction shifted the top-ten packaged food group sources of dietary Na intake from the median to 25th percentile, population Na intake would be reduced by 9 % in US adults and children. These findings will help inform the US government’s Na reduction targets, as well as policy makers’ understanding of differences in intake of critical sub-populations in the USA.

Trans Fat Labeling Information on Brazilian Packaged Foods

Although the adverse effects of trans fat consumption are well documented, industrially-produced trans fats are still used in a variety of food products. Our objective was to investigate the presence of trans fat information on the nutrition facts panel, in the list of ingredients, and the use of trans fat claims in packaged food and beverages marketed in Brazil. This was a cross-sectional study that used data from packaged food and beverages available in the five supermarket chains with the largest market share in Brazil. Of the 11,434 products that were analyzed, 81.3% did not present a source of trans fats in the list of ingredients. The percentages of products with specific (hydrogenated fats or oils) and unspecific trans fat terms (margarine, vegetable fat, and vegetable cream) in the list of ingredients were 4.1% and 14.6%, respectively. Bakery products, cookies and crackers, candies and desserts, snacks, and convenience foods had the highest percentages of trans fat claims. We also found claims in products with ingredients that are sources of trans fats. In conclusion, trans fat ingredients were found in almost one-fifth of the Brazilian packaged foods. The current Brazilian legislation is not sufficient to inform consumers about the content of trans fats in packaged foods. Along with measures to restrict the use of industrially-produced trans fats, improvements in nutritional labeling are also needed.

Are Online Grocery Stores Being Designed to Support Consumer Nutrition Information Needs? Results from a Marketplace Survey (P04-151-19)

Objectives The aim of this study was to describe the availability of nutrition-related information and features on leading online grocery store websites. Methods This study was a cross-sectional design. A systematic protocol was followed to assess availability of nutrition-related features on twelve online grocery shopping websites. The availability of nutrition facts panel and ingredient statement information for 26 food products across a variety of food categories was assessed along with the availability of additional nutrition-related features such as the ability to filter food search results by nutrition attributes. Means, frequencies, and percentages were calculated. Results Common nutrition-related search filters available on the store websites included organic (10 of 12 stores), gluten free (nine of 12 stores), low in fat (six of 12 stores), and sugar-free/no sugar added (five of 12 stores). Nutrition facts panel information was available on the websites for 42%-100% of the packaged food and 33%-58% of the fresh produce items. Foods with available ingredient information ranged from 25%-100% for packaged foods to 50%-58% for the fresh produce items. Conclusions Nutrition facts panel and ingredient statement information may be less available online for packaged foods than in physical stores where all packaged products must have labels. However, this information was sometimes available online for produce items even though labeling is not required on ‘unpackaged’ foods like fresh produce. Many online stores included nutrition-related features not available or feasible to provide in physical stores. Online grocery shopping marketplaces have the potential to support shoppers in making healthful food purchase decisions. Funding Sources This research was supported by a University of Minnesota Division of Epidemiology and Community Health J.B. Hawley Research Award.