Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

Interventions and public health nutrition

Reference amounts utilised in front of package nutrition labelling; impact on product healthfulness evaluations

European Journal of Clinical Nutrition volume 69, pages 619–625 (2015)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Background/Objectives:

The research question addressed in this paper is how different reference amounts utilised in front of package nutrition labelling influence evaluation of product healthfulness.

Subjects/Methods:

A total of 13 117 participants from six European countries (Germany, UK, Spain, France, Poland and Sweden) were recruited via online panels. A mixed between/within-subject factorial design was employed with food (biscuits, sandwiches, yogurts), healthfulness and presence of Guideline Daily Amounts as within-subjects factors and reference amount (‘per 100 g’, ‘typical portion’, ‘half portion’) and country as between-subjects factors.

Results:

Overall, people correctly ranked foods according to their objective healthfulness as defined by risk nutrients alone, and could distinguish between more and less healthful variants of foods. General healthfulness associations with the three product categories do not appear to have had a strong influence on product ratings. This study shows that where the reference amount of ‘per 100 g’ is very different from the ‘typical’ portion size, as was the case for biscuits, products with a ‘per 100 g’ label are rated significantly less healthful than the ‘typical’ or ‘half typical’ portions.

Conclusion:

The results indicate that across the three food categories, consumers do factor the reference amount, that is, the quantity of food for which the nutritional information is being presented, into their judgements of healthfulness. Therefore, appropriate reference amounts are also of importance for the effective presentation of nutritional information.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Grunert KG, Fernández-Celemín L, Wills JM, Storcksdieck S, Nureeva L . Use and understanding of nutrition information on food labels in six European countries. J Public Health 2010; 18: 261–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Kelly B, Hughes C, Chapman K, Chun-Yu Louie J, Dixon H, Crawford J et al. Consumer testing of the acceptability and effectiveness of front-of-pack food labelling systems for the Australian grocery market. Health Promot Int 2009; 24: 120–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Borgmeier I, Westenhoefer J . Impact of different food label formats on healthiness evaluation and food choice of consumers: a randomized-controlled study. BMC Public Health 2009; 9: 184–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Feunekes GIJ, Gortemaker IA, Willems AA, Lion R, Van den Kommer M . Front-of-pack nutrition labelling: testing effectiveness of different nutrition labelling formats front-of-pack in four European countries. Appetite 2008; 50: 57–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Van Kleef E, Van Trijp H, Paeps F, Fernández-Celemín L . Consumer preferences for front-of-pack calories labelling. Public Health Nutr 2008; 11: 203–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Antonuk B, Block LG . The effect of single serving versus entire package nutrition information on consumption norms and actual consumption of a snack food. J Nutr Educ Behav 2006; 38: 365–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Sanders T, Breakfast Cereals Up Front – Debating the Issue of Food Labelling. Presentation to the Breakfast Cereal Information Service, London, 7 March 2006. Available at: http://www.powershow.com/view/128a54-ZmI2Z/Breakfast_Cereals_Up_Front_Debating_the_Issue_of_Food_Labelling_powerpoint_ppt_presentation. Accessed 11 September 2013.

  8. Lobstein T, Davies S . Defining and labelling ‘healthy’ and ‘unhealthy’ food. Public Health Nutri 2008; 12: 331–340.

    Google Scholar 

  9. EU Regulation No 1169/2011 on the provision of food information to consumers. Europa, Brussels. Available at: http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:304:0018:0063:EN:PDF. Accessed 11 September 2013.

  10. Cowburn G, Stockley L . Consumer understanding and use of nutrition labelling: a systematic review. Public Health Nutr 2005; 8: 21–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Temple N, Fraser J . Food labels: a critical assessment. Nutrition 2014; 30: 257–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Faulkner GP, Pourshahidi LK, Wallace JMW, Kerr MA, McCrorie TA, Livingstone MB . Serving size guidance for consumers: is it effective? Proc Nutr Soc 2012; 71: 610–621.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Scarborough P, Rayner M, Stockley L . Developing nutrient profile models: a systematic approach. Public Health Nutr 2006; 10: 330–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Drewnowski A, Fulgoni V . Nutrient profiling of foods: creating a nutrient-rich food index. Nutr Rev 2008; 66: 23–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Visschers VHM, Siegrist M . Applying the evaluability principle to nutrition table information. How reference information changes people's perception of food products. Appetite 2009; 52: 505–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Provencher V, Polivy J, Herman CP . Perceived healthiness of food. If it’s healthy, you can eat more!. Appetite 2009; 52: 340–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Viswanathan M . The influence of summary information on the usage of nutrition information. J Public Policy Marketing 1994; 13: 48–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Viswanathan M, Hastak M . The role of summary information in facilitating consumers’ comprehension of nutrition information. J Public Policy Marketing 2002; 21: 305–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Carels RA, Konrad K, Harper J . Individual differences in food perceptions and calorie estimation. An examination of dieting status, weight, and gender. Appetite 2007; 49: 450–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Wiseman M . The COMA Report: dietary reference values for food energy and nutrients for the United Kingdom. British Food Journal 1992; 94: 7–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Storcksdieck S, Fernández-Celemín L, Larrañaga A, Egger S, Wills JM, Hodgkins C et al. Penetration of nutrition information on food labels across the EU-27 plus Turkey. Eur J Clin Nutr 2010; 64: 1379–1385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. National Readership Survey (2007) Lifestyle data. Available at: http://www.nrs.co.uk/lifestyle-data/. Accessed 17 December 2013.

  23. Rayner M, Scarborough P, Stockley L, Nutrient profiles. Options for definitions for use in relation to food promotion and children’s diet. British Heart Foundation Health Promotion Research Group, Department of Public Health, University of Oxford; 2004. Available at: http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/nutrientprofilingfullreport.pdf. Accessed 17 December 2013.

  24. Malam S, Clegg S, Kirwan S, McGinigal S, Raats MM, Shepherd R et al. Comprehension and use of UK nutrition signpost labelling schemes. London, Food Standard Agency; 2009. Available at: http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/pmpreport.pdf. Accessed 17 December 2013.

  25. Grunert KG, Wills JM, Fernández-Celemin L . Nutrition knowledge, and use and understanding of nutrition information on food labels among consumers in the UK. Appetite 2010; 55: 177–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Aschemann-Witzel J, Grunert KG, van Trijp H, Bialkova S, Raats MM, Hodgkins C et al. Effects of nutrition label format and product assortment on the healthfulness of food choice. Appetite 2013; 71: 63–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Van Herpen E, Seiss E, Van Trijp HCM . The role of familiarity in front-of-pack label evaluation and use: A comparison between the United Kingdom and The Netherlands. Food Quality and Preference 2012; 26: 22–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Drewnowski A, Maillot M, Darmon N . Should nutrient profiles be based on 100 g, 100 kcal or serving size? Eur J Clin Nutr 2009; 63: 898–904.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Scarborough P, Arambepola C, Kaur A, Bhatnagar P, Rayner M . Should nutrient profile models be ‘category specific’ or ‘across-the-board’? A comparison of the two systems using diets of British adults. Eur J Clin Nutr 2010; 64: 553–560.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. EFSA. The setting of nutrient profiles for foods bearing nutrition and health claims pursuant to Article 4 of the Regulation (EC) N1 1924/2006- Scientific opinion of the panel on dietetic products, nutrition and allergies. EFSA J 2008; 644: 1–44.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Azais-Braesco V, Goffi C, Labouze E . Nutrient profiling: comparison and critical analysis of existing systems. Public Health Nutr 2006; 9: 613–622.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Wansink B, Chandon P . Can “low-fat” nutrition labels lead to obesity? J Marketing Res 2006; 43: 605–617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Faulkner GP, Pourshahidi LK, Wallace JMW, Kerr MA, McCaffrey TA, Livingstone MBE . Perceived ‘healthiness’ of foods can influence consumers’ estimations of energy density and appropriate portion size. Int J Obes 2014; 38: 106–112.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Steenhuis I, Vermeer WM . Portion size: review and framework for interventions. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2009; 6: 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Dilberti N, Bordi PL, Conklin MT, Roe LS, Rolls BJ. Increased portion size leads to increased energy intake in a restaurant meal. Obes Res 2004; 12: 562–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Rolls BJ, Roe JS, Meengs JS . Larger portion sizes lead to sustained increases in energy intake over 2 days. J Am Diet Assoc 2006; 106: 543–549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Flood JE, Roe LS, Rolls BJ . The effect of increased beverage portion size on energy intake at a meal. J Am Diet Assoc 2006; 106: 1984–1990.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Rozin P, Kabnick K, Pete E, Fischler C, Shields C . The ecology of eating: Smaller portion sizes in France than in the United States help explain the French paradox. Psychol Sci 2003; 14: 450–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Food, Consumer Behaviour and Health Research Centre, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK

    M M Raats & C Hodgkins

  2. European Food Information Council, Brussels, Belgium

    S Hieke, J Kennedy & J Wills

  3. School of Social and Health Sciences-Psychology, Abertay University, Dundee, UK

    C Jola

  4. Alltech, Dunboyne, Ireland

    J Kennedy

  5. UCD School of Public Health, Physiotherapy and Population Science, University College, Dublin, Ireland

    J Kennedy

Authors
  1. M M Raats
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S Hieke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. C Jola
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. C Hodgkins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. J Kennedy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. J Wills
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M M Raats.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

MMR and CH’s research centre has provided consultancy to and received travel funds to present research results from organisations supported by food and drinks companies.

Additional information

Author Contributions

All authors played an important role in interpreting the results and drafting the manuscript. The study was conceived by MMR, CH, JK and JW. MMR, CJ and CH analysed the data, SH and MMR conceived the design of the paper, SH drafted the manuscript and all authors commented on and approved the final version.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Raats, M., Hieke, S., Jola, C. et al. Reference amounts utilised in front of package nutrition labelling; impact on product healthfulness evaluations. Eur J Clin Nutr 69, 619–625 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/ejcn.2014.190

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ejcn.2014.190

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links