Littérature scientifique sur le sujet « Nutrinform Battery label »

In the context of the ongoing debate on front-of-pack labels (FOPL), extant research highlights a lack of clear indications on which label is most effective in increasing consumers’ knowledge of food nutritional quality, and in favoring informed food choices. In this study, we have compared the effects of two different labels, one nutrient-specific label (i.e., NutrInform Battery) and one summary label (i.e., Nutri-Score), in terms of consumers’ “subjective understanding” and “liking”. Our work advances prior research on FOPL performance by focusing on two different countries—which have different socio-political contexts and which, from previous studies, present limited evidence on the topic—Slovenia, currently utilizing the Protective Food logo, and the Netherlands, who has recently adopted the Nutri-Score. The study also confirms, in line with previous research, a higher effectiveness of the nutrient-specific label, NutrInform Battery, on all analyzed dimensions in tested countries, when compared to the summary label, Nutri-Score.

In May 2020, the European Commission announced a proposal for a mandatory front-of-pack label (FoPL) for all European Union (EU) countries. Indeed, FoPLs have been recognized by several public institutions as a cost-effective measure to guide consumers toward nutritionally favorable food products. The aim of this study was to compare the performance and consumer preference of two FoPLs currently proposed or implemented in EU countries, the interpretive format Nutri-Score and the non-interpretive format NutrInform Battery, among Italian consumers. The experimental study was conducted in 2021 on a representative sample of 1064 Italian adults (mean age = 46.5 ± 14.1 years; 48% men). Participants were randomized to either Nutri-Score or NutrInform and had to fill out an online questionnaire testing their objective understanding of the FoPL on three food categories (breakfast products, breakfast cereals and added fats) as well as purchase intention, subjective understanding and perception. Multivariable logistic regressions and t-tests were used to analyze the answers. In terms of the capacity of participants to identify the most nutritionally favorable products, Nutri-Score outperformed NutrInform in all food categories, with the highest odds ratio being observed for added fats (OR = 21.7 [15.3–31.1], p < 0.0001). Overall, with Nutri-Score, Italian participants were more likely to intend to purchase nutritionally favorable products than with NutrInform (OR = 5.29 [4.02–6.97], p < 0.0001). Focusing on olive oil, participants of the Nutri-Score group had higher purchase intention of olive oil compared to those in the NutrInform group (OR = 1.92 [1.42–2.60], p < 0.0001) after manipulating the label. The interpretive format Nutri-Score appears to be a more efficient tool than NutrInform for orienting Italian consumers towards more nutritionally favorable food choices.

PurposeThis review explores the phenomenon of front-of-pack nutrition labels (FoPNLs) in the European Union (EU). FoPNLs highlight the nutritional quality of food and non-alcoholic beverages and help consumers to make healthier choices. The review explores different types of FoPNLs and evaluates their effectiveness.Design/methodology/approachA policy analysis was conducted, relying on extant academic literature, grey literature and policy documents. The use of current FoPNLs is interpreted in light of national and economic interests.FindingsOur review identifies and describes seven government endorsed FoPNLs that are currently used in the EU. Five are positive endorsement labels (Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Lithuania, Slovenia and Sweden), which only provide a positive indication on more healthy products. The Keyhole is used in three EU countries (Denmark, Lithuania and Sweden), while the others are used in one country each. The Nutri-Score represents a summary label, which provides an overall grade of how healthy a product is. It is used in six countries (Belgium, France, Germany, Netherlands, Spain and Luxembourg). Finally, the Nutrinform battery is a nutrient-specific non-interpretive scheme, indicating the content of nutrients in a portion of a food product. All identified labels are only used on a voluntary basis, encouraging selective use.Originality/valueThis review contributes to a significant discussion about food labeling in the EU. It summarizes existing approaches and evaluates them in terms of their effectiveness. The current schemes in use reflect regional clustering. The most common scheme is the Nutri-Score. This is predominantly found in western EU states. Another major label is the Keyhole, with summary endorsement schemes being prevalent in northern EU states. The least common is Nutrinform, which has some support in southern EU states. The Nutri-score is most effective although economic interests are pushing for the Nutrinform battery in a small number of states. Finally, the review suggests that all existing FoPNLs are voluntary, these labels fail to provide consumers with adequate information about nutrition quality of food products. The EU needs to mobilize support to agree on a single one.

Abstract Background Interpretive Front-of-Pack Labels (FoPLs) are supported by WHO as a key policy tool to promote healthy diets. At present, various FoPLs formats co-exist in the European Union (EU). However, as part of the Farm to Fork strategy, the European Commission stated it would adopt a single mandatory FoPL in 2022. The aim of this study was to analyze Spanish consumers reactions to Nutri-Score and NutrInform, two FoPLs that are currently the subject of debate in EU, testing preference through subjective understanding and perception but also performance through objective understanding of the FoPLs. Methods The experimental study was conducted in 2021 on a representative sample of 1026 Spanish adults (50% women, mean age±SD = 46±14 years), through an online randomized questionnaire where participants were exposed to Nutri-Score or NutrInform. Performance of and preference for these two FoPLs were assessed in three food categories (Breakfast Products, Breakfast Cereals and Added Fats). Performance was tested using multivariate logistic regression while preference using principal component analysis and t-tests. Results In terms of objective understanding, Nutri-Score was significantly associated with an increase in consumers’ ability to identify healthier food products across all food categories compared to NutrInform (OR = 19.1 [14.2-25.7], p &lt; 0.0001). On the preference dimension, Nutri-Score was perceived as significantly easier to use and was more liked than NutrInform (standardized PCA dimension resp. 0.32±1.58 vs. -0.29±1.66, p &lt; 0.0001 and 0.080±1.18 vs. -0.072±1.17, p = 0.039) and participants found Nutri-Score more helpful to discriminate the nutritional quality of Breakfast Products and Breakfast Cereals (resp. 1.32±1.00 vs. 1.14±1.02, p &lt; 0.01 and 1.33±1.00 vs. 1.00±1.03, p &lt; 0.0001). Conclusions Results of this study provide new evidence to support Nutri-Score in comparison with the NutrInform battery, on both performance and preference aspects. Key messages • Nutri-Score better helps participants identify healthier food products than NutrInform. • European Commission should consider results of this study in its decision on a harmonized Front-of-Pack Label.

Abstract Many systems for classifying food products to adequately predict lower all-cause morbidity and mortality have been proposed as front-of-pack (FOP) nutritional labels. Although the efforts and advances that these systems represent for public health must be appreciated, as scientists involved in nutrition research and belonging to diverse Italian nutrition scientific societies, we would like to draw stakeholders’ attention to the fact that some FOP labels risk being not correctly informative to consumers’ awareness of nutritional food quality. The European Commission has explicitly called for such a nutrition information system to be part of the European “strategy on nutrition, overweight and obesity-related issues” to “facilitate consumer understanding of the contribution or importance of the food to the energy and nutrient content of a diet”. Some European countries have adopted the popular French proposal Nutri-Score. However, many critical limits and inadequacies have been identified in this system. As an alternative, we endorse a new enriched informative label—the NutrInform Battery—promoted by the Italian Ministry of Health and deeply studied by the Center for Study and Research on Obesity, Milan University. Therefore, the present position paper limits comparing these two FOP nutritional labels, focusing on the evidence suggesting that the NutrInform Battery can help consumers better than the Nutri-Score system to understand nutritional information, potentially improving dietary choices. Level of evidence II. Evidence was obtained from well-designed controlled trials without randomization.

Purpose This study aims to reveal the implications that trust, as a key driver of consumer behaviour, might have on consumer acceptance of front-of-pack labels (FOPLs) and policy effectiveness. By conducting three studies on 1956 European consumers with different levels of exposure to FOPLs, this study offers additional theoretical and experimental support through a deep investigation of the central role of trust in consumers’ decision-making towards healthier and more informed food choices. Design/methodology/approach Study 1 used structural equation modelling to assess whether trust is a relevant mediator of the relationship between attitude and behavioural intention (BI), thus upgrading the front-of-pack acceptance model (FOPAM); Study 2 tested the model by comparing two labels at the extremes of the current European scheme (NutrInform Battery [NiB], Nutri-Score [NS]); Study 3 assessed the effect in cases where the connection between trust and algorithms is made transparent and evaluated trust dimensions, focusing on the perception of an algorithm presence behind FOPLs information. Findings Study 1 strengthens the FOPAM model with the mediating role of trust in FOPLs, demonstrating a positive effect of attitude on trust and, in turn, on BI, and resulting in a higher model fit with all the significant relationships; Study 2 revealed that the relative performance of the different labels on the FOPAM can be explained by the trust dimension; Study 3, investigating the dynamics of trust in the FOPAM, revealed that the NS is less effective than the NiB on attitude, BI and trust. Research limitations/implications The sample was limited to Italian, French and English respondents, and two labels at the extreme of the spectrum were examined. Furthermore, the research has relevance to the issue of trust. Other moderators used in previous studies on technology acceptance model, such as actual use versus perceptual use, user experience level or type of users and type of use might be investigated. Practical implications The investigation of trust, with the upgrade of FOPAM, enhances understanding of consumers’ decision-making processes when aided by food labels and makes a new contribution to the European Union “Inception Impact Assessment” in preparation for the finalization of the “From-Farm-to-Fork Strategy”, providing new insights into the role of trust by assessing the relative performance of FOPLs in consumers’ acceptance of food-related information. Furthermore, this study revealed that consumers’ perception of FOPLs worsens when they realize that they are the result of an algorithmic calculation. Finally, the new FOPAM represents a reliable theoretical model for future research on FOPL. Originality/value This study increases the knowledge about the performance of different FOPLs on several dimensions of food decision-making, positions the upgraded FOPAM as a valid alternative to existing theoretical models to assess the relative performance of labels, also extending the literature in the context of algorithm-based FOPL, and could be used as a valid support to policymakers and industry experts in their decision towards a unified label at European level.

Qualsiasi prodotto alimentare che si trova sul mercato contiene diverse etichette che aiutano i consumatori nel loro processo decisionale quando fanno acquisti. Questo aiuto può essere garantito solo se i consumatori comprendono il significato di queste etichette, le differenze tra loro e le informazioni che certificano. La tesi ha esplorato il ruolo delle etichette nel settore del marketing alimentare usando studi condotti sull'approccio del consumatore. Utilizzando diversi metodi (statistici ed econometrici), abbiamo analizzato le percezioni, la consapevolezza e la conoscenza dei consumatori verso alcune etichette alimentari e le loro preferenze e comportamenti verso i prodotti alimentari che portano queste etichette (etichette nutrizionali sul fronte della confezione e marchi di qualità europei). I prodotti alimentari certificati di qualità sono stati scelti perché sono drammaticamente rilevanti per il settore agroalimentare europeo, e ancora di più per quello italiano dove costituisce la DOP Economy, data la sua densità. Sulla base dei risultati abbiamo formulato alcune raccomandazioni di marketing, policy, e di comunicazione che potrebbero essere utilizzate dai consorzi per migliorare l'impegno dei consumatori per i prodotti con marchi di qualità. Le raccomandazioni sono state rivolte anche ai policy maker e ai produttori dei prodotti DOP/IGP/STG/Organici ma anche ai policy maker dell'Etichettatura Nutrizionale.
Any food product found on the market contains several labels that help consumers in their decision making when shopping. This help can be guaranteed only if the consumers understand the significance of those labels, the differences between them and the information that they certify. The thesis explored labels’ role in the food marketing sector and studies were carried out according to consumer approach. Using different methods (statistics and econometrics), we analyzed consumers perceptions, awareness, knowledge towards some food labels and their preferences and behavior toward food products bearing these labels (Front of Packaging Nutritional Labels and Quality labels). Quality certified food products were chosen because are dramatically relevant for the European agri-food sector, even more of the Italian one where it forms the DOP Economy, due to its density. Assessments of several food labels from a consumer behavior perspective was carried out. Based on the findings we formulated some policy, marketing recommendations and communication suggestions that could be used by the consortia to enhance consumers’ engagement for products with quality certifications (PDO/PG/TSG or organic). The recommendations were also addressed to policy makers and producers of the PDO/PGI/TSG/Organic products but also to the policy makers of the Nutritional Labelling.