The art of ‘good-for-you’ labeling claims and its effects on consumers: Study

By Gill Hyslop contact

- Last updated on GMT

Consumers are more inclined to purchase a product with a positive front-of-pack claim than a negative perception. Pic: ©GettyImages/gilaxia
Consumers are more inclined to purchase a product with a positive front-of-pack claim than a negative perception. Pic: ©GettyImages/gilaxia

Related tags: Breakfast cereals, Labelling, Health claims

A new collective of research has found consumers are drawn more to claims based on the presence of something good like ‘high in protein,’ than the absence of something bad like ‘low in sugar.’

In other words, consumers perceive a product to be more healthful when sporting positive components than those whose claims remove perceived negatives.

The study – published in the Journal of Public Policy & Marketing – also found consumers expect a claim type to be a strong predictor of the healthiness, taste and dieting properties of the product, even if not explicitly stated or nutritionally corroborated.

Disturbingly though, the study found a number of breakfast cereal brands examined make claims that have ‘almost non-existent or zero correlation to their actual nutritional content.’

FOP claims: facts and fiction

A group of researchers from France, The Netherlands and the US conducted four studies to compile a single comprehensive report that assessed the association of front-of-package (FOP) claims with perceived health properties.

They also looked at the difference between FOP claims and the actual nutritional content, as well as the influence a FOP claim had on consumer purchasing behavior.

The report did not focus on the FOP nutrition information contained in the mandated Nutrition Facts Panels – such as calories, fat, and sugar – but focused specifically on the claims about a product’s health-related properties.

One study tested 633 different breakfast cereals, of which 460 had this type of health or nutrition claim on the front of the package.

In another study, the researchers collaborated with PRS In Vivo, a market research company specializing in point-of-purchase insights, to conduct an online survey among US residents, using a scenario in which the participants were the purchaser but not the primary user of the product.

‘Although the goal of these claims is to create the perception that food is good for health, they do so in very different ways,’ wrote the authors.

Claims can be divided into four focus types:

  1. On elements that are absent, such as ‘no preservatives’ or ‘gluten-free’;
  2. On elements that are present, like ‘made with whole grains’ or ‘high in fiber’;
  3. Implying it has been enhanced, for example ‘high calcium’ or ‘high in vitamins’;
  4. Implying it has been left untouched, including ‘organic’ or ‘fresh’.

The results

Firstly, the researchers found the positive – versus the negative – frame plays a central role in motivation, emotions and decision-making.

‘Consumers have a more positive attitude toward claims that are based on the presence of something good, compared to claims that are about the absence of something bad,’ they wrote.

A number of breakfast cereal brands, however, make claims that have ‘almost non-existent or zero correlation to their actual nutritional content,’ they added.

However, the study found consumers believe the type of claim could help predict the product’s healthfulness despite the lack of association between claim type and nutritional quality.

‘Claims based on the presence of positive attributes – e.g. ‘high antioxidants,’ ‘wholesome,’ ‘organic’ – were rated as both healthier and tastier than those based on the absence of a negative attribute,’ they wrote.

They concluded nutrition labels were more accurate in giving consumers an idea of how a particular food can help or harm them.

Study:

Healthy Through Presence or Absence, Nature or Science?: A Framework for Understanding Front-of-Package Food Claims

Quentin André, Pierre Chandon and Kelly Haws

Journal of Public Policy & Marketing

Volume: 38 issue: 2, page(s): 172-191

Article first published online February 1, 2019; Issue published: April 1, 2019

https://doi.org/10.1177/0743915618824332

Related news

Related products

show more

Donut Frying Insights

Donut Frying Insights

Cargill | 11-Sep-2019 | Technical / White Paper

What to know when selecting a donut frying shortening and
best practice tips for optimal frying performance

Related suppliers

Follow us

Featured Events

View more

Products

View more

Webinars