Front of package nutrition labels improved nutrition quality

 

“We wanted to know whether food companies were responding to increased public interest in healthier food,” says Rishika Rishika, co-author of the study and an associate professor of marketing in North Carolina State University’s Poole College of Management. “In other words, is the market driving change in the nutrition of food products? And the evidence suggest that this is exactly what’s happening.”

With this study, the investigators evaluated nutritional data on 44 categories from 1999 to 2011. Altogether, the investigators looked at data on 21,096 goods, representing 9,083 brands, covering everything from soup to energy bars.

Specifically, the researchers evaluated whether there was any effect when products used the “front of package” style FOP nutrition labels. Manufacturers participating in the program record the calories, saturated fat, sodium and sugar per serving size of their food products on relatively large FOP labels. The products still take the mandated supplements panels on the back of the bundles.

To ascertain whether the voluntary FOP application had affected the For food categories in which one product had embraced the FOP labeling, the investigators assessed differences in the nutritional quality of products in the category both before and after any merchandise embraced the FOP labels. These differences were also compared with food categories where no products embraced labeling and that served as control groups.

The researchers calculated a product’s nutritional material with the Nutrient Profiling version, which includes a host of nutrients, including sugar, sodium, fat, protein and fiber.

The results showed a clear association between FOP labeling and changes in the nutritional content of food items. And there were five variables which were associated with the existence of FOP labels having a greater effect on nutrition:

• Premium brands improved nutritional quality over non-premium brands in precisely the same group;
• Brands that’d thinner product lines, meaning that they produced fewer goods than their peers, enhanced nutritional quality more;
• Products in groups that are broadly unhealthy, like snack foods, showed a more pronounced reaction;
• Foods in”more aggressive” classes, meaning people where there were many competitions at different price points, demonstrated a more pronounced response; and
• Products which had adopted FOP tagging revealed more improved nutritional quality.

The researchers also found that there were pronounced changes in the content of nutrients that were singled from the”front of package” FOP program.

Across all of the food categories in which some goods there was a 12.5% reduction in calories; 12.97% reduction in saturated fat; 12.62% reduction in sugar; and 3.74% reduction in sodium.

Marked on the front of the package, that consumers would be more likely to consider it when deciding what to buy,” Rishika says. “This would, in turn, cause aggressive pressure on other brands in that category to innovate and improve the nutritional quality of their products.

“The fact that the effect of FOP labeling was most pronounced for the nutritional variables on the FOP labels supports our theory,” Rishika says. “And the fact that the effect was stronger for brands that adopted FOP labeling also supports the hypothesis.”

Nutritional labeling may be an effective tool for encouraging change in an industry level.

“However, it remains unclear which aspect of the program is more important,” Rishika says. “Is the fact that the program is voluntary more important, since it helps consumers identify brands that are choosing to share nutritional information on the front of package? Or is the fact that the FOP labeling is prominent more important, simply because the information is more clearly noticeable? Those are questions for future research.”

Related Journal Article: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0022242920942563