Nutri-Score – Do consumers understand what it means?

The prevalence of adult obesity has more than doubled worldwide since 1990 (World Health Organization [WHO] 2024). Obesity-related diseases caused about 11% of deaths in 2019 (WIOD, 2022). A healthy diet is recommended to prevent obesity; however, only few consumers are interested in learning about this topic (IfD Allensbach, 2023, as cited in Statista, 2023).

Front-of-pack (FOP) labels, particularly the Nutri-Score, can be used to address this problem. Nutritional values, which are otherwise only shown in a nutritional value table, usually on the back of a package, are summarized using the Nutri-Score. This allows consumers to quickly judge how nutritious selected products are in comparison.

The EU plans to introduce a binding FOP label (European Parliament, 2022, 2023). Studies have shown that the conceptual understanding of the Nutri-Score must be improved to ensure its’ effective use (Liu et al., 2014). However, it remains unclear whether consumers know how to use the Nutri-Score accurately. This post summarizes research examining consumers’ conceptual understanding of the Nutri-Score.

Research aim:

In the present study conducted by Nicole Del, the conceptual understanding of the Nutri-Score was examined and compared with other forms of understanding, namely subjective and objective understanding. It was further investigated whether gender and the involvement in healthy nutrition have an influence on conceptual understanding.

Method:

This study examined the extent to which consumers correctly understand the Nutri-Score. In the survey, different aspects of understanding were assessed using a sample of 170 consumers (aged 18-78 years).

  • Objective understanding was assessed by letting participants choose the healthiest and unhealthiest options from three products within a product category. Each product had a different Nutri-Score. They had to make a choice for five different product categories. The number of correct choices was translated into an objective score.
  • Subjective understanding was measured through self-assessment using a rating scale from 1 (I do not understand at all) to 10 (I understand very well).
  • Conceptual understanding was measured using ten true-false statements. The score was based on correctly categorizing the statements as true or false.

Key results:

  • Consumers’ conceptual understanding of the Nutri-Score was lower than that of the other forms (conceptual 63%, objective 85%, subjective 70%).
  • Thus, consumers do not have a sufficient conceptual understanding of the Nutri-Score for the correct application. Over half of the participants mistakenly thought that foods with a Nutri-Score of D or E should not be consumed, and over 40% believed that a Nutri-Score of A or B indicates that the food is healthy (both are not correct).
  • Interestingly, subjective, objective, and conceptual understanding did not correlate, implying that they constitute different dimensions of understanding.
  • Neither gender nor involvement in healthy eating had a significant influence on conceptual understanding.

Summary:

The EU’s Farm-to-Fork Strategy plans to introduce a binding FOP label. Currently, the Nutri-Score is one of the most widely used FOP labels in the EU. If properly applied, the label can reduce the number of consumers with diet-related diseases by guiding healthy food choices (Egnell et al., 2019). However, our study shows that many consumers do not understand the label sufficiently. They have knowledge gaps in their conceptual understanding of the label, implying that they may not always correctly apply the Nutri-Score. Thus, there is a need for informational campaigns to explain the meaning of the Nutri-Score.

References

Egnell, M., Crosetto, P., d’Almeida, T., Kesse-Guyot, E., Touvier, M., Ruffieux B et al. (2019). Modelling the impact of different front-of-package nutrition labels on mortality from non-communicable chronic disease. The International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 16(1), 56. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-019-0817-2

European Parliament (2022) Taking the EU’s ‘farm to fork’ strategy forward. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ATAG/2021/690622/EPRS_ATA(2021)690622_EN.pdf

European Parliament (2023) Proposal for a harmonised mandatory front-of-pack nutrition labelling. In “A European Green Deal”.
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/legislative-train/theme-a-european-green-deal/file-mandatory-front-of-pack-nutrition-labelling

Liu, P.J., Wisdom, J., Roberto, C.A., Liu, L.J. & Ubel, P.A. (2014). Using Behavioral Economics to Design More Effective Food Policies to Address Obesity. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 36(1), 6–24. https://doi.org/10.1093/aepp/ppt027

Statista (2023) Interesse der Bevölkerung in Deutschland an gesunder Ernährung und gesunder Lebensweise von 2019 bis 2023.
https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/170913/umfrage/interesse-an-gesunder-ernaehrung-und-lebensweise/

Statistisches Bundesamt (2023) Mehr als die Hälfte der Erwachsenen hat Übergewicht.
https://www.destatis.de/Europa/DE/Thema/Bevoelkerung-Arbeit-Soziales/Gesundheit/Uebergewicht.html

WIOD (2022) Anteil von Todesfällen aufgrund von Fettleibigkeit in ausgewählten Ländern weltweit im Jahr 2019 [Graph]. https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/1246951/umfrage/todesfaelle-aufgrund-von-fettleibigkeit-in-ausgewaehlten-laendern/

World Health Organization (2023) Obesity.
https://www.who.int/health-topics/obesity/#tab=tab_3

Sustainable seals of approval: don’t trust every seal on your chocolate!

Sustainable seals of approval: don’t trust every seal on your chocolate!

In a world where sustainability and environmental awareness are becoming increasingly important, quality seals play a crucial role. But not every seal delivers what it promises. A recent study sheds light on precisely this question and provides surprising insights into the world of certifications.

A jungle of seals

Quality seals are ubiquitous, especially in the food sector, such as chocolate. These small symbols are intended to reassure consumers that the product meets certain standards – be it environmental, health or social aspects. But the reality is much more complex. Some of these seals are untested. This means that they are not certified by independent bodies.

What does this mean for the consumer?
Can these seals be trusted at all under these circumstances?

The study: An experiment with chocolate

Pia Futterer, a student of our bachelor’s program tried to answer these questions in her Bachelor thesis. In a quantitative online survey with 101 participants who regularly consume chocolate she took a closer look at precisely this problem. The participants evaluated four chocolate bars, each bearing a different seal: a known certified one (German organic seal), an unknown certified one (Biokreis seal), an invented, untested one (see picture) and a bar with no seal at all. The results are astounding.

Main results: Trust in unverified seals

 The study shows that even unverified seals of approval increase consumers’ willingness to buy. What is even more surprising is that these unverified seals were rated as more credible than unknown verified seals. This underlines the fact that many consumers have difficulty distinguishing between reliable and questionable seals. This blind trust in unverified labels is alarming and shows how urgently regulatory measures are needed.

The role of availability heuristics

 Why do consumers trust unverified seals? One answer lies in the so-called availability heuristic. This mental shortcut leads us to perceive easily accessible or frequently seen information as particularly credible. So, if an unverified seal often appears on products, we tend to trust it – regardless of whether it is actually verified or not.

Discussion: A complex purchase decision

 The results of the study suggest that consumers often do not have the motivation or ability to critically scrutinize the credibility of quality seals.

Especially when it comes to stressful grocery shopping, we often rely on simple decision-making rules. This is exacerbated by the abundance of products and information in the supermarket, which further increases the confusion.

Recommendations: Time to act

 In view of these findings, it is important that we as a society take action:

  1. Stricter legal regulations: The planned EU directive against greenwashing must be implemented as soon as possible to ensure that only certified seals may be used. This directive would help to prevent misleading environmental claims and ensure that only verified seals appear on products.
  2. Conscious consumption: Consumers should actively inform themselves about the meaning and origin of quality labels. Knowledge is power, especially when it comes to sustainable consumption. Better consumer education about the various labels could help to avoid misjudgments.
  3. Transparency on the part of companies: Companies should disclose which criteria their seals of approval fulfill and how these are checked in order to strengthen consumer trust. A clear and transparent process for awarding seals of approval could help to win back consumer trust.

Conclusion: More than just a seal

 This study opens our eyes to the fact that not every seal of approval delivers what it promises at first glance. While we want to be environmentally conscious, we also need to be more critical and not blindly trust every label. The results underline the urgency of better regulation and education so that we can make more informed and sustainable purchasing decisions in the future.

The next chocolate bar you buy could tell more than just a story about taste – it could also be a story about trust and deception. Don’t trust every seal on your chocolate!

References

 

Trust in Food Labels – Can digital and transparent animal movement data increase trust in beef and dairy products?

From horse meat in lasagna to falsely declared ingredients, the food industry is increasingly losing consumer trust (Sander, Heim & Kohnle, 2016). In Germany alone, there were at least 68 food scandals in 2023 (PETA Deutschland e.V., 2023). Food labels serve as quality indicators (Splendid Research, 2023), but it is becoming increasingly difficult for consumers to understand the quality characteristics behind them (Weiß, 2008). Therefore, it’s crucial to establish trust in labels as it significantly influences which products make their way into shopping baskets (Esch, Rühl & Baumgartl, 2016). Considering the food scandals and the plummeting trust in the food industry, the question arises of how trust among consumers can be restored and enhanced in both business-to-business and business-to-customer sectors.

The start-up Million Steps (https://www.millionsteps.earth/ger) also deals with the question of whether its new concept can have a trust-building effect on beef and dairy products. Million Steps addresses this issue by implementing an innovative and transparent tracking system for animal husbandry. The company precisely monitors and documents the movements of each animal to provide clear and traceable data along the entire supply chain. In this way, the start-up provides comprehensive insight into animal husbandry. The collected data is linked to the official ear tag of each animal and can be accessed by professionals in the food industry, restaurant visitors, and customers via QR codes. Among other things, this can prove that each animal has spent at least 12 months (the time it takes a cow to take a million steps) grazing on pasture and enjoying freedom of movement. Additionally, the origin of the animals is transparently verified by making background information about the animal and the farmer accessible.

Research goal

The study, conducted by Vanessa Fleig, a student of business psychology, examines the effect of digital and transparent animal movement data from the Million Steps label on the trustworthiness of beef and dairy products.

Research overview

Qualitative individual interviews were conducted with two groups to investigate the research question. The first group consists of restaurateurs who work in various areas such as restaurants, company restaurants and catering. The second group comprises gastronomy customers of different genders and ages in order to ensure the most heterogeneous group possible. A total of five interviews were conducted per group. The interviews are based on the laddering method in order to identify further motives that can influence trustworthiness. In addition, exemplary images were shown to illustrate the label in more detail.

Main findings

  • For a label to be generally perceived as trustworthy, the following aspects are most important: positive reputation, high level of awareness, simple traceability, comprehensible presentation of information.
  • The combination of small farms with the possibility of individual visits through personal contact with the farmers, as well as regular inspections and certifications on the integrity of the label also have a trust-enhancing effect.
  • Animal movement data is largely perceived as added value by both target groups due to the continuous but especially animal-specific monitoring of farmers, which represents a new and innovative approach.
  • Animal-specific data as well as the permanent monitoring of animals counteract the motive “lack of trust in the food industry” and increase consumer trust.
  • The transparent and open presentation of information (movement data, regionality, ) also leads to increased traceability, which can also increase trust.
  • An argument against an additional trust-increasing effect is that husbandry can also be checked without active tracking through personal contact with the In addition to pasture husbandry, other factors such as antibiotic use are also relevant in order to achieve a long-term trust-increasing effect.
  • Animal movement data, especially in combination with information on place of origin and regionality, has the potential to increase trust in beef and dairy products in the long

Implications

  • The target groups differ in terms of trust-enhancing
  • While tangible evidence, such as the possibility of visiting the farm, has a

trust-enhancing effect on restaurateurs, more superficial factors, such as a clearly designed website, an appropriate amount of information or easy and transparent traceability, are sufficient for gastronomy customers.

  • Animal movement data has a confidence-increasing effect especially when labels are generally relevant to purchases.
  • If labels are not considered separately when making purchases, animal movement data may be trustworthy, but does not increase trust in beef and dairy products, as factors other than labels are perceived as value-enhancing.
  • Independent reputations increase trust, but are not yet available for Million Steps
  • As a future recommendation, the label could, for example, be registered on the online platform “Label-online”, which offers consumers an independent, uniformly evaluated overview of labels.
  • Furthermore, the selection of cooperating farmers is based on certain selection Farms should be small and regional, with the possibility of personal cooperation and adaptation to the individual wishes of the restaurants.

Conclusion

The study made it clear that digital and transparent animal movement data are predominantly perceived as added value and trustworthy. This assumption applies in particular to people who generally pay attention to labels, as animal movement data results in an additional increase in trust compared to other labels. The basis for this is the permanent control as well as the animal-specific proof. Transparent proof with simple and detailed traceability contributes to an increase in trust right from the start. However, a long-term trust-promoting effect only manifests itself through positive reputations and personal experience. Not only the animal movement data, but in particular the combination of transparent communication and regional production are perceived as trust-promoting attributes. In conclusion, it can be emphasized that Million Steps as a whole and not specifically the animal movement data have the potential for a long-term trust-enhancing effect in beef and dairy products.

References

Esch, F.‑R., Rühl, V. & Baumgartl, C. (2016). Messung des Markenvertrauens. In F.-R. Esch (Hrsg.), Handbuch Markenführung (S. 1–16). Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-13361-0_66-1

PETA Deutschland e.V. (Harald Ullmann, Hrsg.). (2023). Die schlimmsten Lebensmittelskandale in Deutschland. Verfügbar unter: https://www.peta.de/themen/skandalchronik/

Sander, M., Heim, N. & Kohnle, Y. (2016). Label-Awareness: Wie genau schaut der Konsument hin? – Eine Analyse des Label-Bewusstseins von Verbrauchern unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Lebensmittelbereichs. Berichte über Landwirtschaft – Zeitschrift für Agrarpolitik und Landwirtschaft, Band 94, Heft 2, August 2016. https://doi.org/10.12767/BUEL.V94I2.120

Splendid Research. (2023). Studie: Gütesiegel Monitor 2023. Verfügbar unter: https://www.splendid-research.com/de/studie/guetesiegel-monitor2023/

Weiß, C. (2008). Zeichenvielfalt auf Lebensmitteln: ein Wegweiser. Ernährungs Umschau, (55), 83–93.

Sustainable consumption series part 3: Does it have to be quality seals? – Alternative packaging design elements

Blog series part 1

Blog series part 2

As we have mentioned, quality seals and clean labels require specific conditions to be met whereby companies need to consider their individual trade-off between the potential positive effects on consumer perceptions and the resources needed to fulfil their requirements. From a company’s perspective, meeting these requirements potentially leads to higher costs, for instance. Thus, as not all companies utilize quality seals on their packaging, we would like to answer the question of how relevant quality seals and labels are in comparison to other design elements in terms of sustainability or naturalness. How effective are quality seals compared to alternatives?

Continue reading “Sustainable consumption series part 3: Does it have to be quality seals? – Alternative packaging design elements”

Sustainable consumption series part 2: Do all quality seals achieve the same effect? – Implications for companies

In our first post of the sustainable consumption blog series, we concluded that quality seals communicate sustainability, but consumers have limited knowledge of their meaning and an overly positive image of them. To draw more specific implications, we attempt to answer the question which quality seals and labels consumers accept the most when buying products. Do all quality seals serve the same positive effect? Finding answers to this question is especially relevant for companies as various quality seals require different levels of conditions to be met.

Continue reading “Sustainable consumption series part 2: Do all quality seals achieve the same effect? – Implications for companies”

Sustainable consumption series part 1: Do quality seals communicate sustainability? – The consumers‘ perspective

According to the United Nations (Hoballah & Averous, 2015), sustainable consumption is an integral part in ensuring that human actions stay within our planet’s capacity and therefore in considering the living conditions of future generations as well. As consumers, our individual buying-decisions can help fasten sustainable development in various industries making it an interesting research topic for us. Our first blog post series will summarize our research regarding quality seals, clean labels and product packaging design in the field of sustainability as well as the consumers‘ perceptions of such. Ultimately, we want to know, whether consumers accept and use quality seals in the purchase decisions. Further, we will outline implications for companies. While doing so, we will recap studies and their results in relation to each topic.

Gütesiegel

Continue reading “Sustainable consumption series part 1: Do quality seals communicate sustainability? – The consumers‘ perspective”