# Could a front of pack labeling of sensory quality guide consumers towards better nutritional choices?

Michel Visalli, Anne-Laure Loiseau, Sylvie Cordelle, Pascal Schlich

► To cite this version:

Michel Visalli, Anne-Laure Loiseau, Sylvie Cordelle, Pascal Schlich. Could a front of pack labeling of sensory quality guide consumers towards better nutritional choices?. 11. European Conference on Sensory and Consumer Research: A Sense of Global Culture (EuroSense 2024), Sep 2024, Dublin, Ireland. hal-04700619

HAL Id: hal-04700619

https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-04700619v1

Submitted on 17 Sep 2024

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

# Could a front-of-pack labeling of sensory quality guide consumers towards better nutritional choices?

Michel Visalli, Anne-Laure Loiseau, Sylvie Cordelle, Pascal Schlich*

INRAE, CSGA. Dijon, France

pascal.schlich@inrae.fr

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>
# Context & Objectives

## CONTEXT

* Nutritional front-of-pack (FOP) labelling has become very usual in many countries

* Several environmental FOP labelling were proposed and currently discussed

* Too many FOP labels may confused consumers, discussions about a single integrated score are ongoing...

* Still, sensory quality remains the primary criterion for consumer choices

## OBJECTIVES

* A **first experiment** was conducted to assess the impact of a multiple display of nutritional, environmental and liking scores on **consumer choices**?

* Based on the results of the first experiment, a second experiment was conducted to assess whether a **FOP sensory label** could **nudge** the consumers towards better nutritional choices
# Design of the first study about trade-off between nutritional, environmental and sensory qualities

* Computer screen presenting **8 hams** each with a **Nutrition**, an **Environment** and a **PrefScore** (Goût) scores on a 5 point-scale

* Prices proportional to the **sum of the 3 quality scores** (the better, the more expensive)

* Consumers **choose** at home **2 hams**, then **2 pizzas** out of 8 following the same design as hams

* After their choices, consumers had to choose in a list **the reasons for their choices**

* Consumers came to the lab to collect **their 4 products** and receive **20 € minus the total cost of those 4 products**

Choisissez 2 produits (vous pouvez prendre 2 fois le même)

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

Total (Jambons) : 0.00€, Crédit : 20.00€

Suivant (nécessite 2 produits sélectionnés)

* **74 consumers** were enrolled

* A control group (n=71) with **no PrefScore** did the same task

* 2 or 3 levels for each of the 3 qualities:
  Fraction of 3x3x2 design for hams
  Complete 2x2x2 design for pizzas

* Since average cost of consumer choices of 4 products was about 10 €, they got as compensation the 4 chosen products plus about 10 €
# Results of the first study

## Basket qualities by group

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Product Type</th><th rowspan="2">Quality score</th><th colspan="2">Group means</th><th colspan="2">Mean comparisons</th></tr><tr><th>NoPrefScore</th><th>PrefScore</th><th>T</th><th>Prob-T</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="3">Ham</td><td>Environment</td><td>4.12</td><td>4.51</td><td>-1.93</td><td>0.0558</td></tr><tr><td>Nutrition</td><td>6.68</td><td>6.41</td><td>1.80</td><td>0.0737</td></tr><tr><td>Taste</td><td>5.67</td><td>6.54</td><td>-3.65</td><td>0.0004</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Pizza</td><td>Environment</td><td>6.85</td><td>6.74</td><td>0.88</td><td>0.3777</td></tr><tr><td>Nutrition</td><td>7.27</td><td>7.03</td><td>2.13</td><td>0.0349</td></tr><tr><td>Taste</td><td>5.62</td><td>6.74</td><td>-5.30</td><td>0.0000</td></tr></tbody></table>

Taste quality of baskets increases dramatically when PrefScore is displayed to the detriment of nutritional quality.

## Basket price by group

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Product Type</th><th colspan="2">Group means</th><th colspan="2">Mean comparisons</th></tr><tr><th>NoPrefScore</th><th>PrefScore</th><th>T</th><th>Prob-T</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Ham</td><td>4.74 €</td><td>5.02 €</td><td>-2.01</td><td>0.0458</td></tr><tr><td>Pizza</td><td>5.35 €</td><td>5.51 €</td><td>-0.86</td><td>0.3916</td></tr></tbody></table>

Consumers in the PrefScore group spent more money, significantly on ham only.

## Elicited reasons for choices by group

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Product Type</th><th rowspan="2">Reason of choice</th><th colspan="2">Group percentages</th><th colspan="2">Mean comparisons</th></tr><tr><th>NoPrefScore</th><th>PrefScore</th><th>T</th><th>Prob-T</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="5">Ham</td><td>PrefScore</td><td>0.00%</td><td>56.41%</td><td>NA</td><td>NA</td></tr><tr><td>Nutriscore</td><td>51.37%</td><td>41.03%</td><td>1.44</td><td>0.1510</td></tr><tr><td>Environnement</td><td>34.25%</td><td>28.21%</td><td>0.87</td><td>0.3869</td></tr><tr><td>Price</td><td>30.14%</td><td>35.26%</td><td>-0.78</td><td>0.4340</td></tr><tr><td>Already tasted</td><td>45.21%</td><td>40.38%</td><td>0.72</td><td>0.4720</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Pizza</td><td>Brand</td><td>33.56%</td><td>35.26%</td><td>-0.25</td><td>0.8020</td></tr><tr><td>PrefScore</td><td>0.00%</td><td>55.77%</td><td>NA</td><td>NA</td></tr><tr><td>Nutriscore</td><td>52.74%</td><td>42.31%</td><td>1.49</td><td>0.1379</td></tr><tr><td>Already tasted</td><td>37.67%</td><td>28.85%</td><td>1.42</td><td>0.1572</td></tr><tr><td>Environnement</td><td>28.77%</td><td>23.08%</td><td>0.90</td><td>0.3679</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2"></td><td>Price</td><td>34.93%</td><td>39.10%</td><td>-0.62</td><td>0.5341</td></tr><tr><td>Brand</td><td>33.56%</td><td>34.62%</td><td>-0.16</td><td>0.8726</td></tr></tbody></table>

When displayed, PrefScore is the main reason of choice, instead of NutriScore which became less cited, as well as the environmental reason. Although, these effects are not statistically significant.
# Logistic regression modeling the probability of choosing a <u>ham</u> by the levels of the nutritional, environmental and sensory qualities

No PrefScore Group

Odds Ratios with 95% Wald Confidence Limits

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

PrefScore Group

Odds Ratios with 95% Wald Confidence Limits

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

Without the PrefScore, the Nutritional score matters but not the environmental one.
When displayed the PrefScore impacts the choice even more than the Nutritional score
# Logistic regression modeling the probability of choosing a <u>pizza</u> by the levels of the nutritional, environmental and sensory qualities

No PrefScore Group

Odds Ratios with 95% Wald Confidence Limits

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>

PrefScore Group

Odds Ratios with 95% Wald Confidence Limits

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>

Without the PrefScore, the Nutritional score matters but not the environmental one.
When displayed the PrefScore impacts the choice and the Nutritional score has no more effect.
Design of the second study:

Effect of a sensory nudge on the nutritional quality of consumer choices

* Same type of experiment on the same types of products a year after with different consumers

* In control (n=99) and test (n=100) groups, each product presented with its Nutriscore and its market price

Choisissez 2 produits (vous pouvez prendre 2 fois le même)

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /></figure>

In the test group, 2 of the 4 products **with a good NutriScore** were presented with a label « Good taste guaranteed », whereas they are not in the control group.

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /></figure>

Total (Jambons) : 0.00€, Crédit : 20.00€

Suivant (nécessite 2 produits sélectionnés)
# Results of the second study (1/2)
## All products

Consumer choices of products with Nutri-scores B versus C

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Product Type</th><th rowspan="2">Product</th><th colspan="3">Group percentages</th><th colspan="2">Percentage comparisons</th></tr><tr><th>No Good Taste Label</th><th>Good Taste Label</th><th>Gain with Good Taste Label</th><th>Chi2</th><th>Prob-Chi2</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="3">Ham</td><td>Nutri-score B</td><td>63.64%</td><td>69.50%</td><td>5.86%</td><td>0.46</td><td>0.4959</td></tr><tr><td>Nutri-score C</td><td>36.36%</td><td>30.50%</td><td>-5.86%</td><td>1.29</td><td>0.2552</td></tr><tr><td>Nutri-score B minus Nutri-score C</td><td>27.28%</td><td>39.00%</td><td>11.72%</td><td>1.73</td><td>0.1883</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Pizza</td><td>Nutri-score B</td><td>69.19%</td><td>72.00%</td><td>2.81%</td><td>0.11</td><td>0.7360</td></tr><tr><td>Nutri-score C</td><td>30.81%</td><td>28.00%</td><td>-2.81%</td><td>0.35</td><td>0.5569</td></tr><tr><td>Nutri-score B minus Nutri-score C</td><td>38.38%</td><td>44.00%</td><td>5.62%</td><td>0.45</td><td>0.5011</td></tr></tbody></table>

* More choices of products with Nutri-score B than C

* This effect increased thanks to the sensory label

* Although the size of this effect is satisfactory (6-12%), it did not reach statistical significance!
# Results of the second study (2/2)

## Products with Nutri-scores B only

Consumer choices of products having both a good Nutri-scores B, but proposed with or without « Good Taste Label »

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Product Type</th><th rowspan="2">Product</th><th colspan="3">Group percentages</th><th colspan="2">Percentage comparisons</th></tr><tr><th>No Good Taste Label</th><th>Good Taste Label</th><th>Gain with Good Taste Label</th><th>Chi2</th><th>Prob-Chi2</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="3">Ham</td><td>Nutri-score B with no Good Taste Label</td><td>34.85%</td><td>33.00%</td><td>-1.85%</td><td>0.21</td><td>0.6492</td></tr><tr><td>Nutri-score B with Good Taste Label</td><td>28.79%</td><td>36.50%</td><td>7.71%</td><td>2.05</td><td>0.1525</td></tr><tr><td>B Good Taste label minus B no Good taste label</td><td>-6.06%</td><td>3.50%</td><td>9.56%</td><td>1.79</td><td>0.1813</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Pizza</td><td>Nutri-score B with no Good Taste Label</td><td>39.90%</td><td>36.00%</td><td>-3.90%</td><td>0.52</td><td>0.4709</td></tr><tr><td>Nutri-score B with Good Taste Label</td><td>29.29%</td><td>36.00%</td><td>6.71%</td><td>1.57</td><td>0.2105</td></tr><tr><td>B Good Taste label minus B no Good taste label</td><td>-10.61%</td><td>0.00%</td><td>10.61%</td><td>1.96</td><td>0.1611</td></tr></tbody></table>

* For an unknown reason, the products with the Good Taste Label in the test group were less often chosen in the control group.

* Interestingly, this tendency was reversed with the Good Taste Label displayed in the test group.

* Therefore, the sensory label had helped the less attractive B products to be chosen about 10% more often, but this effect did not reach statistical significance (p=0.1813 and p= 0.1611)
# Conclusion & Implication

## FIRST EXPERIMENT

* Sensory quality was clearly more important than nutritional and environmental qualities for consumer choices

* However, the display of a sensory quality score resulted in lowering the nutritional quality of consumer choices

* Thus, the idea of a label « Good Taste Guaranteed » added only for some products with a good Nutri-score

## SECOND EXPERIMENT

* Products with Nutri-score B were more often chosen than those with Nutri-score C and this effect increased when displaying the Good Taste label

* Interestingly, this effect is reinforced for the less chosen products among the B Nutri-score products

*Note that all of these results were valid for both hams and pizzas...*

## IMPLICATION FOR FRONT-OF-PACK LABELING OF SENSORY QUALITY

* Should be reserved to products with both good sensory and nutritional qualities

* Could result in small improvements of nutritional quality of consumer choices

* Would be difficult to implement in practice...