Nutrition labels 'in wrong place'

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
24 October 2011 Last updated at 07:46 GMT Nutrition labels should be placed in the centre of food packaging, rather than in one corner, if shoppers are going to read them, says a US study.

Using an eye-tracking device, researchers from Minnesota also found that the average consumer only reads the top part of a food content label.

They studied 203 people while looking at 64 different grocery products on a computer screen.

The Journal of the American Dietetic Association published the results.

In the study, participants were asked to view three elements on a typical food product - the nutrition contents label, a picture and list of ingredients, and a description of the product with price and quantity information - on the left, on the right or in the centre of the packaging.

One third of the participants each saw the nutrition label in one of those positions and were asked whether they would consider buying the product.

Participants were aware that their eye movements would be tracked, but unaware that the study was investigating nutrition information.

Position test

When the nutrition contents label was presented in the centre, subjects read one or more sections of 61% of the labels compared with 37% and 34% of labels among participants randomly assigned to view labels on the left and right hand sides of the screen.

In addition, labels in the centre of the product were seen to receive more than 30% more viewing time than the same labels when positioned to one side of the product.

The researchers also observed that most consumers view the contents of the label nearest the top more than those at the bottom of the label.

The study says that many more participants said they looked at the content of the nutrition labels than actually did when their viewing of the labels was tracked and measured.

Only 9% of participants actually looked at the calorie count for almost all products in the study, compared to 33% who said they did when asked.

Researchers Dan Graham and Robert Jeffrey, from the division of epidemiology and community health at the University of Minnesota, said: "The results of this study suggest that consumers have a finite attention span for Nutrition Facts labels.

"Although most consumers did view labels, very few consumers viewed every component on any label.

"These results differed from the self-reported survey responses describing typical grocery shopping and health behaviours submitted by the participants."

They also said the location of the labels on the packaging made a difference.

"Consumers are more likely to view centrally located labels and nutrients nearer the label's top.

"Because knowing the amounts of key nutrients that foods contain can influence consumers to make healthier purchases, prominently positioning key nutrients, and labels themselves, could substantially impact on public health."

A spokesman from the Food and Drink Federation said they were aware that consumers often do not read labels.

"Any research that adds to our understanding of what would encourage consumers to use the information provided is welcomed.

"The transferability of this research to the UK shopping experience is unclear, as the study is based on computer simulation and uses information in a format that is quite different from what is found on packs in the UK."

But she said: "We support the provision of clear, simple front of pack nutrition labelling which the authors conclude would address the concerns raised by their research."

Debt Financing

Career Advisor

Read More

U.S. Panel Urges 'Energy Star' Nutrition Ratings for Food Labels

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

Taking a cue from the Energy Star ratings on the front of household appliances, a panel of experts is recommending that a similarly easy-to-read system appear on every packaged food item in American grocery stores so busy consumers can glean nutritional info at a glance.

The recommendation comes from the Institute of Medicine (IOM), which was commissioned by Congress to study the issue over the past two years. The panel found that the dizzying variety of front-of-pack labels currently out there — grocery stores, food manufacturers and even health organizations like the American Heart Association put their own stamps on various foods — was leading to more consumer confusion than healthy choices.

Part of the problem is that food manufacturers like to tout their products' pluses (high in vitamin A) on the front of the box, without acknowledging their minuses (high in fat).

The IOM reviewed front-of-package labeling systems in the U.S. and abroad (here's a good rundown of labels) and found that, in terms of clarity for the consumer, no system was better than the next. So the panel proposed a standard label for all products that would show how many calories per serving the food item contains, along with a three-point system (checkmarks or stars) that would indicate whether the product contains acceptable levels of sodium, added sugars and trans fats or saturated fats.

Items would get a point each for having low enough levels of each of the three nutrients "of concern" — which the panel chose for being most closely associated with health problems like obesity, diabetes and heart disease — for a maximum of three points. If a product has a superhigh amount of any of the nutrients, rendering it unhealthy overall, it would receive no points. So sugary soda, for example, would get zero points for having high added sugar, even though it is low in fats and sodium.

Whole wheat bread would get three points, while graham crackers would get two (low levels of fats and sodium, but high in added sugar), and soup crackers would get zero. The hope is that the point system will not only help consumers cut through the culinary clutter and make fast, smart decisions, but also inspire grocers to encourage the sales of high-point foods and encourage manufacturers to reformulate their foods in pursuit of points.

During a meeting with media on Thursday, Ellen Wartella, the chair of the IOM panel and a professor of psychology at Northwestern University, explained that the system was meant to be interpretive more than informational. So, even shoppers with no nutritional knowledge and those who are too rushed to analyze the Nutrition Facts panel on the side of the box can still identify healthy products in a split-second effort. It's the difference between "This has 100 grams of saturated fat" and "Eating this is not going to do you any favors."

The panel explained that a front-of-pack label that focuses on best-to-avoid nutrients, rather than those that should be encouraged like, say, fiber and potassium, is a reflection of public need. Americans are eating too much fat, sugar and sodium, and at a time when two-thirds of the population is overweight or obese and many are battling diet-related health problems like heart disease and Type 2 diabetes, the government's most important role should be in guiding people away from unhealthy foods, the panel advised. (Certainly a far cry from the World War II days, when the government recommended that the underfed population consider butter its own food group.)

The IOM's point system leads to some awkward ratings, however. A Diet Coke, for example, would get three points for having low levels of fats, added sugars and sodium. Meanwhile, 1% milk would get only two points, due to its fat content. But with that fat, of course, come good nutrients that an empty diet soda doesn't provide.

The process is still in its early stages. It's unclear whether federal regulators will adopt the new labels or whether they will be mandatory — though the project would make more sense if they were. Part of the justification for recommending a single, uniform system is that all products will be easily comparable. And allowing it to be voluntary would potentially remove many points of comparison.

For its part, the Grocery Manufacturers of America, an industry group that represents food makers, said it would go ahead with its own voluntary system of package-front labeling called Facts Up Front. That system lists calories, fat, sodium and sugar, as well as beneficial nutrients like fiber. It gives information, but doesn't rate products. "We believe the most effective programs are those that trust consumers and not ones that tell consumers what they should and should not eat," Scott Faber, a lobbyist for the Grocery Manufacturers Association, told the AP.

The next step is for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to decide whether or how to implement the panel's recommendation. The FDA is keen to overhaul front-of-package labeling, but the agency is continuing to study the matter.

Good promotion, the IOM panel noted, would also be key to any program's success. And the proposed three-point system would be an easy sell to consumers. All they need to understand is that "three is better than two, and two is better than one," said Matt Kreuter, a professor of social work and medicine at Washington University and a member of the panel. "And the more points it has, the healthier it is."

Katy Steinmetz is a reporter at TIME. Find her on Twitter at @KatySteinmetz. You can also continue the discussion on TIME's Facebook page and on Twitter at @TIME.

News

Debt Financing

Read More

HEALTH MANAGEMENT. Blood lipids suggest that online individual nutrition not effective

Lively like lifestyle and waist greater; many people contact online nutrition programs. Promoting healthy eating behaviors identified computer tailored nutrition and education as a promising education health strategy, especially in the promotion of lower fat intake. A study in the September/October 2011 issue of the magazine of healthy nutrition education and behavior shows tailored education with empirical data based on the level of cholesterol and lipids but no evidence for the effectiveness of this computer.
Investigators from the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, the University of Maastricht and the Erasmus University of Rotterdam in the Netherlands evaluated the effectiveness of a computer tailored intervention to reduce the fat intake to determine 442 healthy Dutch adults. Instead of recording, looks even dietary callbacks for the evaluation of the fat the part size errors, unrecorded and socially desirable answers distorted can be, the researchers evaluated a reliable result - blood lipids (HDL, total and LDL cholesterol and triglycerides). The computer program to reduce the intake of saturated fat had no effect on the blood values.
DRS. Willemieke Kroeze, PhD, and Johannes Brug, PhD, and Professor, and at the free University, to explain, "computer tailored intervention with a single dose to reduce the (saturated) fat consumption, for which meaningful impact based on self reports was reported, not sufficient to produce detectable changes in blood lipids in the current study." When asked how to improve the results of the consulting online beat nutrition advice websites, Dr. Kroeze research methods "to the feasibility of the lens impacts the computer tailored nutrition education measures for primary prevention in real settings to increase." "Moreover, strategies should be developed to apply tailored measures and social interaction in the intervention to improve the level and duration of the computer."
This study documents the importance of the identification of the main factors to change the influence on the ability of individual, dietary behaviors in particular by online nutrition and education. It demonstrates the importance of the critical evaluation of the nutrition education interventions often developed as online as cost savings and place, to extend the range of the program.
Articles from medical news today adapted from original press release.
Visit our nutrition / diet section for the latest news on this topic.
The article is "Biomarker assessment not efficacy of computer tailored education for healthy eating confirmed" by Willemieke Kroeze, PhD; Pieter C. Dagnelie, PhD; Martijn W. Heymans, PhD; Anke Oenema, PhD; Johannes Brug, PhD. It seems published by Elsevier, in the journal of education about healthy diet and behavior, Volume 43, issue 3 (September/October 2011).

Read More