Nutrition labelling across Europe
Monique Raats
Food, Consumer Behaviour & Health Research Centre
University of Surrey, UK
Nutrition labels in Europe
2
Methods
• 27 EU countries plus Turkey
• Auditing period: September 2008 – April 2009
• 3 retailers per country, 84 retail stores
• Top 5, consumer cooperative/national, discounter
• Physical audit of all products in 5 product categories defined by
consortium, more than 37,000 products
• sweet biscuits (249-788 products)
• breakfast cereals (97-416 products)
• pre-packed fresh ready meals (0-293 products)
• carbonated soft drinks (124-348 products)
• yoghurts (161-667 products)
3
% of products audited
Ire
100%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
la
n d
N
et
he U
rla K
nd
C Sp s
ze B ain
ch elg
R ium
ep
u
R bli
om c
Po ani
rt a
u
Fi gal
n
D lan
en d
m
Sw ark
ed
e
Lu Pol n
xe an
m d
b
Sl urg
ov
a
Es kia
t
H oni
un a
G gar
er
m y
a
Fr ny
an
ce
Ita
La ly
tv
i
M a
Li al
th ta
Results – Nutrition information
ua
B ni
ul a
ga
G ria
re
e
Tu ce
rk
A ey
us
t
C ria
yp
Sl ru
ov s
85% average penetration of Back of Pack nutrition information of any kind
Nutrition information across 5 categories “Back of Pack”
en
ia
BOP
5
% of products audited
100%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
U
Ire K
la
Sw nd
ed
Fi en
nl
Po an
rt d
G ug
er al
m
a
G ny
re
ec
e
M
D al
en ta
m
ar
N Sp k
et
he ai
rla n
B nds
el
g
R ium
om
Li an
th ia
ua
n
A ia
us
t
Fr ria
an
c
La e
H tvi
Lu ung a
xe ar
m y
bu
C rg
yp
C ru
ze
ch Po s
R lan
ep d
Results – Nutrition information
u
Sl bli
ov c
a
Es kia
to
ni
a
Sl Ita
ov ly
e
B nia
ul
ga
Tu ria
Nutrition information across 5 categories “Front of Pack”
rk
ey
48% average penetration of Front of Pack nutrition information of any kind
FOP
6
% of products audited
Ire
100%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
la
n d
N
et
he U
rla K
4, big 8)
nd
Sp s
B ain
el
g
R ium
om
Po ani
rt a
D uga
en
m l
a
Fi r k
C nl
ze S an
ch we d
R de
ep n
ub
E li
Lu st c
xe on
m ia
b
G ur
er g
m
a
Po ny
la
Fr nd
a
Sl nc
ov e
ak
A ia
us
tr
ia
H Ital
un y
ga
r
La y
tv
ia
Big 8
M
Li al
th ta
ua
B nia
ul
ga
Tu ria
Big 4
rk
G ey
re
e
C ce
Tabular/linear nutrition information across 5 categories “Back of Pack”
Results – Nutrition info tabular/linear
yp
84% average penetration of Back of Pack tabular/linear nutrition info (big
Sl ru
ov s
en
ia
Other
7
Results – Guideline Daily Amounts (GDA)
GDA across 5 categories “Back & Front of Pack”
% of products audited
BOP FOP
23% average penetration of Back of Pack GDA labelling (range: 3-48%)
25% average penetration of Front of Pack GDA labelling (range: 2-63%)
8
Results – Nutrition claims
Nutrition claims across 5 categories “Back & Front of Pack”
% of products audited
BOP FOP
20% average penetration of Back of Pack nutrition claims (range: 6-31%)
25% average penetration of Front of Pack nutrition claims (range: 12-37%)
9
Results – Health claims
Health claims across 5 categories “Back & Front of Pack”
% of products audited
BOP FOP
4% average penetration of Back of Pack health claims (range: 1-8%)
2% average penetration of Front of Pack health claims (range: 0-6%)
10
% of products audited
N Sw
100%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
et ed
he e
rla n
nd
s
Fi UK
n
Sl lan
ov d
en
Ire ia
B lan
el d
gi
um
Health logos
Sp
Li a
th in
ua
A nia
u
H stri
un a
B gar
ul y
D gar
en ia
m
ar
k
Ita
Lu Tu ly
xe rke
m y
bu
rg
M
al
La ta
Po tvi
rt a
ug
Po a l
C la
ze
ch Cy nd
R pru
ep s
ub
Es lic
to
Fr nia
G anc
er e
m
a
1% penetration of Back of Pack health logos (range: 0-9%)
G ny
BOP
re
2 % penetration of Front of Pack health logos (range: 0-12%)
Health logos across 5 categories “Back & Front of Pack”
R ec
om e
Sl ani
ov a
ak
ia
FOP
11
Results – Products attractive to children
NI on products attractive to children, across 5 categories
% of products audited
CP CP + NI BOP
5-16% of audited products were products attractive to children (CP)
Practically all of them contained nutrition information (NI) of some kind
12
Conclusions
• 84 retail stores, more than 37,000 products
• Wide penetration of nutrition information in
5 product categories audited
• On average 85% (range 70-97%)
• Tabular/linear nutrition information most widespread,
commonly found back-of-pack (average 84%)
• Nutrition claims and GDA most common front-of-pack
information (up to 37% and 63%, respectively, by country)
13
Derivation of a labelling typology
To gain qualitative insight into:
– how consumers categorise different forms of nutritional labels
– an understanding of the conceptual systems consumers use to
make sense of a range of nutritional label systems
This study utilised the Multiple Sort Technique using both ‘free’ and
‘structured’ sorting, on a range of nutritional labelling content
elements presented on cards.
The study was carried out in the UK, Poland, Turkey and France with
15 participants in each country, each of whom was regularly
responsible for household food shopping.
The cards were explicitly designed to include the widest possible
diversity of labelling elements that exist in Europe today.
14
Labelling stimuli
15
Results
The overall configuration of points within the Multiple
Sort Analysis (MSA) appeared to be best explained by the
constructs ‘levels of information’ and ‘healthfulness’
Compact visual health logos displaying no detailed
nutritional information tended to be clustered within a
‘healthy’ region.
The ‘level of information’ included in the label also
appeared to explain why particular labels were clustered
together on the plots.
As the degree of label ‘directiveness’ decreases the level
of detailed information has to increase.
16
Proposed Labelling Typology
Directive
e.g. Simple and graduated Health logos
Semi-directive
e.g. Traffic light labels, hybrid labels
and nutrition tables overlaid with traffic
lights
Non-directive
e.g. % GDA systems and nutrition tables
with and without % GDA information.
17
Consortium
• EUFIC, Belgium (Coordinator)
• Aarhus University, Denmark
• Agricultural University of Athens, Greece
• Dokuz Eylul University, Turkey
• Saarland University, Germany
• University of Surrey, United Kingdom
• University of Warsaw, Poland
• Wageningen University, The Netherlands
• Tesco Stores Ltd, United Kingdom
• EuroCoop, Belgium
• COFACE, Belgium
• UEAPME, Belgium
18