# Objective understanding of Nutri-Score
Front-Of-Package nutrition label according to individual
characteristics of subjects: Comparisons with other
format labels

Manon Egnell, Pauline Ducrot, Mathilde Touvier, Benjamin Allès, Serge

Hercberg, Emmanuelle Kesse-Guyot, Chantal Julia

► To cite this version:

Manon Egnell, Pauline Ducrot, Mathilde Touvier, Benjamin Allès, Serge Hercberg, et al. Objective understanding of Nutri-Score Front-Of-Package nutrition label according to individual characteristics of subjects: Comparisons with other format labels. PLoS ONE, 2018, 13 (8), pp.e0202095. 10.1371/journal.pone.0202095. [hal-02179446](https://hal.science/hal-02179446)

HAL Id: hal-02179446

https://hal.science/hal-02179446

Submitted on 16 Jul 2019

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>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
RESEARCH ARTICLE

# Objective understanding of Nutri-Score Front-Of-Package nutrition label according to individual characteristics of subjects: Comparisons with other format labels

Manon Egnell¹*, Pauline Ducrot², Mathilde Touvier¹, Benjamin Allès¹, Serge Hercberg¹,³, Emmanuelle Kesse-Guyot¹, Chantal Julia¹,³

1 Sorbonne Paris Cité Epidemiology and Statistics Research Center (CRESS), U1153 Inserm, U1125, Inra, Cnam, Paris 13 University, Nutritional Epidemiology Research Team (EREN), Bobigny, France, 2 Santé publique France, the national public health agency, Saint-Maurice, France, 3 Public health department, Avicenne Hospital, Bobigny, France

* m.egnell@eren.smbh.univ-paris13.fr

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

## Abstract

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

### OPEN ACCESS

**Citation:** Egnell M, Ducrot P, Touvier M, Allès B, Hercberg S, Kesse-Guyot E, et al. (2018) Objective understanding of Nutri-Score Front-Of-Package nutrition label according to individual characteristics of subjects: Comparisons with other format labels. PLoS ONE 13(8): e0202095. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0202095

**Editor:** David A Lightfoot, College of Agricultural Sciences, UNITED STATES

**Received:** September 29, 2017

**Accepted:** July 27, 2018

**Published:** August 23, 2018

**Copyright:** © 2018 Egnell et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

**Data Availability Statement:** Data of the study are protected under the protection of health data regulation set by the 'Commission Nationale de l'Informatique et des Libertés (CNIL). The data are available upon request to Nathalie Pecollo (n.pecollo@eren.smbh.univ-paris13.fr) for review by the steering committee of the NutriNet-Santé study.

**Funding:** The NutriNet-Santé study was supported by the following public institutions: Ministère de la

### Background

To improve nutritional status and prevent chronic nutrition-related diseases, international organizations have recommended the use of multiple strategies, including front-of-package nutrition labelling (FOPL). In France, the Nutri-Score has been selected by health authorities in March 2017. However, to be effective in purchasing situations, the label needs to be well understood, which may be influenced by label format and sociodemographic characteristics. This study aimed at investigating the objective understanding of the Nutri-Score compared to other label formats, and more particularly among specific at-risk populations.

### Methods

The objective understanding of four FOPLs—namely Nutri-Score, Multiple Traffic Lights (MTL), the simplified nutrition labelling system (SENS), and modified Reference Intakes (mRIs)—was investigated in a sample from the NutriNet-Santé French cohort (n = 3,751). Logistic regression mixed models were computed to assess the association of the four FOPLs, compared to a “no label” situation, on the consumers’ ability to rank products according to their overall nutritional quality. Objective understanding was also investigated according to sociodemographic and lifestyle characteristics.

### Results

Compared to a “no label” situation, all FOPLs were significantly associated to an increase in consumers’ ability to classify the products correctly, with wide disparities in results according to formats. The best performance was observed for the Nutri-Score (OR = 20.33(17.68–23.37)), followed by SENS (OR = 9.57(8.50–10.77)), MTL (OR = 3.55(3.20–3.93)) and mRIs (OR = 1.53(1.39–1.69)). This ranking was similar among all sub-populations and the
Santé, Santé Publique France, Région Ile-de-France (CORSIM), Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers (CNAM) and Université Paris 13. The funders had no role in the design, implementation, analysis, or interpretation of the data.

**Competing interests:** The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

**Abbreviations:** FOP, Front-Of-Pack; FSA, Food Standard Agency; MTL, Multiple Traffic Lights; mRIs, modified Reference Intakes; mPNNS-GS, modified "Programme National Nutrition Santé"— Guideline Score.

ORs associated to the Nutri-Score were over 10, whichever the sub-group considered. Women, younger people, non-smokers, individuals with higher educational level and those with children had a higher capacity to identify healthier products (all P≤0.05).

## Conclusion

Nutri-Score, with a summarized graded and color-coded format, using semantic colours, is associated to a higher objective understanding than monochrome and nutrient-specific labels. Furthermore, though objective understanding may differ according to individual characteristics of subjects, the magnitude of effect of the Nutri-Score largely outweighed this effect, even in the at-risk populations.

## Introduction

Considering the burden attributable to nutrition-related diseases [1], public health policies aim to improve the nutritional status of populations and more widely to prevent the onset of chronic diseases [2]. One potential strategy to improve diet quality of consumers is to encourage healthier food choices at the point of purchase and allow them to integrate nutrition in their food choices [3]. However, it has been demonstrated that current nutritional information on food packs is difficult to read and understand for consumers in many European countries, and most of them do not use this information during their purchases [4]. Indeed, while 40% of consumers report looking at nutritional information during purchases [5], only less than 10% actually do so in observational in-store studies [6]. Therefore front-of-pack (FOP) nutrition labels have been developed and applied on pre-packaged food products, to increase consumer awareness of the nutritional quality of food and improve consumer information. Indeed, this measure has been proven to help consumers identifying healthier food products [7–17]. Additionally, FOP nutrition labels are suggested to encourage the food industry to develop products of higher nutritional quality through innovation or reformulation [18,19].

In 2017, French health authorities selected the Nutri-Score as a voluntary front-of-pack labelling for pre-packaged foods. The Nutri-Score is a summary graded label, providing a single assessment of the nutritional quality of the food. The Nutri-Score was selected after a series of experimental and ‘real-life’ studies pertaining on perception [20], understanding [21] and food purchases [22–27], which showed that this format was comparatively more efficient than other formats currently available in the world, in particular in vulnerable populations.

According to the theoretical framework proposed by Grunert et al., a FOP label should retain attention and then be accepted and understood by the consumer to potentially influence his food choices [9]. It has been suggested that in addition to the label format the objective understanding of a label is influenced by sociodemographic characteristics. Some studies have shown that color-coded labels were more adapted to improve consumer awareness, especially among individuals with low socioeconomic status, educational level, knowledge in nutrition and adherence to dietary recommendations [4,6–10,14,21,28]. However, few studies have assessed comparatively the objective understanding of summary graded formats, while they may have positive effects on consumer behaviour [10,29]. Hence it appeared of importance to investigate the objective understanding of the Nutri-Score compared to other FOP label formats, especially in sub-groups with specific sociodemographic characteristics.

This study aimed at investigating the objective understanding of Nutri-Score compared to different FOP labels' formats, using the consumer's ability to rank a sample of French products
according to nutritional quality. In addition, the performance of each FOP label format among specific sub-populations was assessed, in particular according to socio-demographic and life-style characteristics.

# Materials and methods

## Study population

The NutriNet-Santé study is a French ongoing web-based cohort launched in May 2009 [30]. Briefly, the objective of the NutriNet-Santé study is to investigate the associations between nutrition and health, as well as the determinants of dietary behaviours and nutritional status. Volunteers participants aged over 18 years with access to the Internet are recruited by vast multimedia campaigns, and have to fill a set of online questionnaires, assessing dietary intakes, physical activity, anthropometric characteristics, lifestyle, socioeconomic conditions and health status. The NutriNet-Santé study is conducted according to the French Institute for Health and Medical Research (IRB Inserm n°0000388FWA00005831) and the "Commission Nationale de l'Informatique et des Libertés" (CNIL n°908450/n°909216). Electronic informed consent was obtained from each participant. The questionnaire pertaining to the objective understanding of the labels was sent to a randomly selected fraction of the study population (N = 7000). Response to the questionnaire was optional for participants, and the questionnaire was available for completion for 3 months. A version of the questionnaire is available on the following link: https://info.etude-nutrinet-sante.fr/.

## Design

**FOP label formats tested.** Four label formats were tested in the present study (Fig 1): Nutri-Score (official FOP label from the French Ministry of Health); SENS, a graded summary FOP label indicating information on consumption frequency and proposed in 2014 by the Trade and Retail Federation [31]; a modified version of the Reference Intakes (mRIs) proposed by industry and the MTL.

The two summary FOP label formats included in the present study were:

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Fig 1.** Front-Of-Package labels tested.</figcaption></figure>

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0202095.g001
(1). The Nutri-Score, based on the Food Standard Agency (FSA) nutrient profiling system, indicates the overall nutritional quality of a given food item [32]. This label is represented by a scale of five colours, from green indicating food products with the highest nutritional quality to red for products with lower nutritional quality, with corresponding letter (from A on green to E on red). For each food item, colour is based on its FSA score, modified by High Council for Public Health (HCSP) [33]: green (-15 to -1 points), light green (0 to 2 points), yellow (3 to 10 points), orange (11 to 18 points) and red (19 points and over). This label has been chosen by health authorities to be applied on food products in the French market in March 2017 [34].

(2). The SENS label is a four-category graded summary label and indicates the recommended consumption frequency of a given food item, based on a modified version of the SAIN, LIM algorithm [35]. Each frequency is associated with a colour: green-labelled food could be eaten "very often", blue "often", orange "regularly in small quantities" and purple "occasionally or in small quantities" [31].

The nutrient-specific formats investigated in the study were the following two:

(3). The modified Reference Intakes (mRIs) label, is a modified version of the Guideline Daily Amounts, and indicates the kilocalories and the amount of fat, saturated fatty acids, sugars and sodium in gram per portion, and their contribution (in percentage for each nutrient) to the reference intakes [36]. The mRIs represents the percentage of reference intakes for a portion in the form of histograms.

(4). Multiple Traffic Lights (MTL) label, introduced by the UK FSA, provides information on the nutrient amounts for a portion of product, regarding total fat, saturated fatty acids, sugars and sodium. Depending on the amount of the different nutrient in the product (low, moderate, high), a colour is attributed to each nutrient (green, orange, red respectively). Colour codes were assigned according to FSA criteria [37].

A situation with no FOP label on the food package was used as a reference.

**Procedure.** Objective understanding of FOP labels' formats was assessed in October 2016 using an online questionnaire, under five different conditions: four corresponding to the four tested FOP labels' formats and one alternative with no label.

Participants were shown pictures of three products from the same food category, and were asked to rank the products from the lowest to the highest nutritional quality according to the information provided (FOP label or control condition with no label). For the ranking task, subjects could choose among the following answers: "lowest nutritional quality", "intermediate nutritional quality", "highest nutritional quality" and "I don't know".

Food categories tested in the study were chosen following two main objectives: (i) the category had to be commonly consumed in the French population, and (ii) it had to include a large diversity of products in terms of nutritional quality within the categories. Thus, five different food categories, representing various eating occasion (breakfast, snacks, meals) were tested: breakfast cereals, pre-prepared dishes, sandwiches, canned fish and sweet biscuits. In each food category, the three products proposed had differing nutritional quality, thus enabling the ranking task using the FOP label. Products were selected so that the correct ranking was the same for all FOP labels. No other information on nutritional facts was given and all other labels were removed from the pictures (e.g. "organic", "fair trade", etc).

To avoid potential effects of the food category upon understanding of the FOP label (i.e. knowledge on a specific product), each label was applied on each product category. All participants were shown five combinations of label and product, where all four FOP label conditions
(and control situation) and five food categories were represented. To control for potential order effect of the labels, a rotation system based on a Latin square design was used to ensure that an equal number of participants were shown each combination. For example, a subject was shown the Nutri-Score on breakfast cereals and SENS on sandwiches, while another was shown the Nutri-Score on sweet biscuits and SENS on breakfast cereals, etc. Furthermore, rotation was also applied to the order of the presented labels (e.g. the Nutri-Score was the first FOP label presented for some participants, while others were shown SENS first).

Objective understanding was assessed using the results of the ranking task. The ranking task was considered as correct when participants ranked the three products in the right order, according to the information on the nutritional quality provided by the FOP label. The ranking was considered as incorrect when the participant made at least one mistake or answered “I don’t know”.

## Data collection

**Sociodemographic and lifestyle data.** At inclusion and annually, thereafter, participants were invited to complete a questionnaire related to sociodemographic and lifestyle data [30,38], including sex, age, educational level, income per consumption unit [39] (one consumption unit (CU) is attributed for the first adult of the household, 0.5 CU for other persons aged 14 or older and 0.3 CU for children under 14 years old), household composition, smoking status, as well as a physical activity questionnaire (computed following International Physical Activity Questionnaire recommendations [40]) and a questionnaire on anthropometrics measurements [41,42] (e.g. height, weight).

**Dietary data and adherence to dietary recommendations.** Dietary intakes were assessed at baseline and every six months using a series of three non-consecutive validated web-based self-administered 24h-dietary records, randomly distributed over a 2-week period (2 weekdays and 1 weekend day) [41,43,44]. Participants used a dedicated interface to declare all foods and beverages they consumed during the day, and the portion sizes, using validated photographs [45]. Nutrient intake was estimated using a published French food composition table [46]. Dietary underreporting was identified on the basis of the method proposed by Black, using the basal metabolic rate and Goldberg cut-off, and under-energy reporters were excluded [47].

A modified version of the PNNS guidelines score was used to assess adherence to dietary recommendations, the PNNS-GS ("Programme National Nutrition Santé"- Guideline Score) based on the French national nutritional guidelines and previously described in details [48]. Briefly, this 15-point score includes eight components on food serving recommendations and four on moderation in consumption [49]. The thirteenth component on adherence to physical activity was not included in the modified version of the PNNS-GS (mPNNS-GS). In addition, overconsumption was taking into account with a penalty when individuals had higher energy intakes compared to estimated expenditure [48]. A higher mPNNS-GS reflects better adherence to French nutritional recommendations. The mPNNS-GS was used as a proxy of the nutritional quality of the diet.

## Statistical analyses

Analysis was performed on data of participants who had filled the questionnaire on FOP labels. Participants who answered "I don't know" to more than two-thirds of the items were excluded from analyses. Chi-square tests were performed to compare included and excluded subjects.

For all covariates, there were no missing data except for physical activity (0.7%), educational level (1.0%), income (11.2%) and mPNNS-GS (13.8%), for which multiple imputation was performed [50]. Percentages of correct answers were calculated for each FOP label, across sub-
groups of population and chi-square tests were performed, except for categories of body mass index where Fisher test were performed. The association between the ability to rank correctly the three products (“yes” or “no”, dependent variable) and FOP label formats and individuals characteristics (independent variables) was evaluated using logistic regression mixed models with a random intercept. Individual characteristics were sex, age (18–29, 30–49, 50–64, ≥65 years), educational level (up to secondary, some college or university degree), income per consumption unit (<1200€/month, 1200–1800€, 1800–2700€ and >2700€/month), smoking status (current smokers/non- or former smokers), physical activity (high, moderate, low), household composition (with or without children), body mass index, and mPNNS-GS (in quartiles). Variables displaying a significance level of p<0.15 in univariate models were included in the multivariate model.

Interactions between individual characteristics of participants and FOP label format were assessed. To take account of multiple comparisons, a p-value of 10⁻³ was considered statistically significant, except in interaction analyses, where a p-value <0.15 was considered significant, given the low power of interaction tests. Analyses were carried out with SAS software (version 9.4; SAS Institute, Inc.).

## Results

A total of 4,328 participants completed the FOP label questionnaire. 577 subjects, who did not answer or responded “I don’t know” to at least two-thirds of the items were excluded from the analyses, leading to a sample of 3,751 participants (mean age: 49.4±14.4 years, 81.4% of women). Characteristics of included and excluded subjects are presented in S1 Table. Included participants were more likely to be women, middle-aged, physically active, non-overweight, never smokers, without children, and to have higher educational level and income.

Table 1 displays the percentages of correct answers for each label format, across sub-groups of populations. The presence of any of the FOP labels was characterized by an increase of the number of correct answers compared to the “no label” situation. In the Nutri-Score situation, almost 90% of participants reached the correct answer. Irrespective of the sub-group of population, the rate of correct answers was significantly higher for the Nutri-Score, with a rate over 83%, followed by SENS, MTL, and mRIs. The differences observed between the “no label” situation and a FOPL situation (in particular for Nutri-Score) were much higher than the differences observed across population subgroups in any given FOPL situation.

The association between product ranking ability and individual characteristics of participants and label formats is shown in Table 2. Regarding sociodemographic characteristics, and consistent with results of the cross-tabulations (Table 1), the odds of correct product ranking in multivariate model were greater among women, young participants and those with higher educational level. However, the odds of correctly ranking products did not vary according to household income or nutritional quality of the diet (mPNNS-GS). In both univariate and multivariate models, the odds of correct product ranking were increased in FOP label conditions compared to “no label” situation. Among the four formats, the Nutri-Score performed best (OR = 20.33 (17.68–23.37)), followed by SENS (OR = 9.57 (8.50–10.77)), MTL (OR = 3.55 (3.20–3.93)) and mRIs (OR = 1.53 (1.39–1.69)). Furthermore, the odds ratios corresponding to the FOP label effects were much higher than the odds corresponding to the sociodemographic characteristics effects.

Statistically significant interactions between FOP label formats and age (p<0.0001), educational level (p<0.0001), household composition (p = 0.15) and smoking status (p = 0.002) were observed. Stratified analyses showed that the effect of the FOP labels varied across sociodemographic sub-groups. However, if the magnitude of effect varied in the different sub-
<table><caption>Table 1. Percentage of correct answers of each FOP label, across sub-groups of population (N = 3,751).</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>N (%)</th><th>Nutri-Score</th><th>SENS</th><th>MTL</th><th>mRIs</th><th>No label</th><th>P*</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Total of correct answer</td><td></td><td>90.32</td><td>82.03</td><td>65.48</td><td>47.80</td><td>38.87</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td>Category of product</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Breakfast cereals</td><td>3740 (99.71)</td><td>93.04<sup>a</sup></td><td>87.43<sup>b</sup></td><td>74.26<sup>c</sup></td><td>56.14<sup>d</sup></td><td>57.40<sup>d</sup></td><td>&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td>Pre-prepared dishes</td><td>3736 (99.60)</td><td>91.40<sup>a</sup></td><td>85.27<sup>b</sup></td><td>82.32<sup>b</sup></td><td>77.72<sup>c</sup></td><td>33.71<sup>d</sup></td><td>&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td>Sandwiches</td><td>3738 (99.65)</td><td>88.86<sup>a</sup></td><td>75.98<sup>b</sup></td><td>62.38<sup>c</sup></td><td>43.37<sup>d</sup></td><td>34.31<sup>c</sup></td><td>&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td>Canned fish</td><td>3738 (99.65)</td><td>87.71<sup>a</sup></td><td>80.39<sup>b</sup></td><td>64.85<sup>c</sup></td><td>31.59<sup>d</sup></td><td>32.46<sup>d</sup></td><td>&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td>Sweet biscuits</td><td>3739 (99.68)</td><td>90.61<sup>a</sup></td><td>81.56<sup>b</sup></td><td>42.60<sup>c</sup></td><td>30.21<sup>c</sup></td><td>35.07<sup>d</sup></td><td>&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td>Sex</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Men</td><td>698 (18.61)</td><td>88.70<sup>a</sup></td><td>78.11<sup>b</sup></td><td>61.80<sup>c</sup></td><td>46.49<sup>d</sup></td><td>33.33<sup>c</sup></td><td>&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td>Women</td><td>3053 (81.39)</td><td>90.70<sup>a</sup></td><td>82.93<sup>b</sup></td><td>66.33<sup>c</sup></td><td>48.12<sup>d</sup></td><td>40.12<sup>c</sup></td><td>&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td>Age (years)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>18–29</td><td>265 (7.06)</td><td>94.34<sup>a</sup></td><td>87.92<sup>b</sup></td><td>77.36<sup>c</sup></td><td>56.60<sup>d</sup></td><td>45.66<sup>c</sup></td><td>&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td>30–49</td><td>1595 (42.52)</td><td>93.17<sup>a</sup></td><td>87.08<sup>b</sup></td><td>71.47<sup>c</sup></td><td>50.16<sup>d</sup></td><td>40.63<sup>c</sup></td><td>&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td>50–64</td><td>1128 (30.07)</td><td>90.17<sup>a</sup></td><td>79.63<sup>b</sup></td><td>61.03<sup>c</sup></td><td>47.12<sup>d</sup></td><td>37.38<sup>c</sup></td><td>&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td>≥65</td><td>763 (20.35)</td><td>83.22<sup>a</sup></td><td>73.00<sup>b</sup></td><td>55.44<sup>c</sup></td><td>40.89<sup>d</sup></td><td>34.99<sup>c</sup></td><td>&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td>Educational level</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Up to secondary</td><td>505 (13.46)</td><td>84.16<sup>a</sup></td><td>73.47<sup>b</sup></td><td>56.44<sup>c</sup></td><td>40.99<sup>d</sup></td><td>35.84<sup>d</sup></td><td>&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td>Some college</td><td>477 (12.72)</td><td>88.89<sup>a</sup></td><td>79.66<sup>b</sup></td><td>60.17<sup>c</sup></td><td>44.44<sup>d</sup></td><td>39.83<sup>d</sup></td><td>&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td>University degree</td><td>2730 (72.78)</td><td>91.94<sup>a</sup></td><td>84.21<sup>b</sup></td><td>68.28<sup>c</sup></td><td>49.63<sup>d</sup></td><td>39.45<sup>c</sup></td><td>&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td>Missing data</td><td>39 (1.04)</td><td>75.00<sup>a</sup></td><td>70.00<sup>ab</sup></td><td>52.50<sup>b</sup></td><td>50.00<sup>b</sup></td><td>25.00<sup>c</sup></td><td>&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td>Monthly income per consumption unit (€/CU)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>&lt;1200</td><td>240 (6.40)</td><td>89.04<sup>a</sup></td><td>79.76<sup>b</sup></td><td>63.41<sup>c</sup></td><td>48.90<sup>d</sup></td><td>43.17<sup>d</sup></td><td>&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td>1200–1800</td><td>554 (14.77)</td><td>89.59<sup>a</sup></td><td>82.27<sup>b</sup></td><td>67.51<sup>c</sup></td><td>46.91<sup>d</sup></td><td>39.47<sup>c</sup></td><td>&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td>1800–2700</td><td>497 (13.25)</td><td>90.68<sup>a</sup></td><td>82.69<sup>b</sup></td><td>64.15<sup>c</sup></td><td>48.39<sup>d</sup></td><td>38.73<sup>c</sup></td><td>&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td>&gt;2700</td><td>2041 (54.41)</td><td>91.29<sup>a</sup></td><td>82.78<sup>b</sup></td><td>67.01<sup>c</sup></td><td>46.47<sup>d</sup></td><td>37.03<sup>c</sup></td><td>&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td>Missing data</td><td>419 (11.17)</td><td>90.69<sup>a</sup></td><td>81.62<sup>b</sup></td><td>63.48<sup>c</sup></td><td>49.88<sup>d</sup></td><td>36.04<sup>c</sup></td><td>&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td>Household composition</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Adults only</td><td>2521 (67.21)</td><td>89.61<sup>a</sup></td><td>81.36<sup>b</sup></td><td>64.30<sup>c</sup></td><td>47.04<sup>d</sup></td><td>38.87<sup>c</sup></td><td>&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td>Adults and children</td><td>1230 (32.79)</td><td>91.79<sup>a</sup></td><td>83.41<sup>b</sup></td><td>67.89<sup>c</sup></td><td>49.35<sup>d</sup></td><td>38.86<sup>c</sup></td><td>&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td>Smoking status</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Current smoker</td><td>561 (14.96)</td><td>89.84<sup>a</sup></td><td>85.03<sup>b</sup></td><td>68.09<sup>c</sup></td><td>47.06<sup>d</sup></td><td>40.82<sup>c</sup></td><td>&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td>Former smoker</td><td>1246 (33.22)</td><td>87.64<sup>a</sup></td><td>77.93<sup>b</sup></td><td>61.08<sup>c</sup></td><td>47.03<sup>d</sup></td><td>38.92<sup>c</sup></td><td>&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td>Never smoker</td><td>1944 (51.82)</td><td>92.18<sup>a</sup></td><td>83.80<sup>b</sup></td><td>67.54<sup>c</sup></td><td>48.51<sup>d</sup></td><td>38.27<sup>c</sup></td><td>&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td>Physical activity level</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>High</td><td>1137 (30.31)</td><td>89.53<sup>a</sup></td><td>80.83<sup>b</sup></td><td>60.42<sup>c</sup></td><td>45.29<sup>d</sup></td><td>39.05<sup>c</sup></td><td>&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td>Moderate</td><td>1658 (44.20)</td><td>90.35<sup>a</sup></td><td>82.93<sup>b</sup></td><td>68.58<sup>c</sup></td><td>49.76<sup>d</sup></td><td>38.60<sup>c</sup></td><td>&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td>Low</td><td>929 (24.77)</td><td>91.28<sup>a</sup></td><td>82.02<sup>b</sup></td><td>66.20<sup>c</sup></td><td>47.15<sup>d</sup></td><td>38.86<sup>c</sup></td><td>&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td>Missing data</td><td>27 (0.72)</td><td>89.29<sup>a</sup></td><td>78.57<sup>ab</sup></td><td>64.29<sup>bc</sup></td><td>57.14<sup>c</sup></td><td>46.43<sup>c</sup></td><td>0.006</td></tr><tr><td>Body Mass Index (kg/m<sup>2</sup>)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>&lt;18.5</td><td>209 (5.57)</td><td>91.39<sup>a</sup></td><td>85.17<sup>b</sup></td><td>66.51<sup>c</sup></td><td>47.85<sup>d</sup></td><td>44.02<sup>d</sup></td><td>&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td>18.5–24.9</td><td>2370 (63.18)</td><td>91.14<sup>a</sup></td><td>83.08<sup>b</sup></td><td>67.59<sup>c</sup></td><td>47.05<sup>d</sup></td><td>39.20<sup>c</sup></td><td>&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td>25–29.9</td><td>810 (21.59)</td><td>89.38<sup>a</sup></td><td>78.40<sup>b</sup></td><td>61.17<sup>c</sup></td><td>49.63<sup>d</sup></td><td>36.67<sup>c</sup></td><td>&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td>30–34.9</td><td>266 (7.09)</td><td>87.22<sup>a</sup></td><td>80.83<sup>b</sup></td><td>59.40<sup>c</sup></td><td>49.25<sup>d</sup></td><td>37.22<sup>c</sup></td><td>&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td>35–39.9</td><td>68 (1.82)</td><td>83.82<sup>a</sup></td><td>83.82<sup>a</sup></td><td>58.82<sup>b</sup></td><td>42.65<sup>b</sup></td><td>42.65<sup>b</sup></td><td>&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td>≥40</td><td>28 (0.75)</td><td>85.71<sup>a</sup></td><td>82.14<sup>ab</sup></td><td>60.71<sup>bc</sup></td><td>57.14<sup>c</sup></td><td>42.86<sup>c</sup></td><td>0.003</td></tr><tr><td>mPNNS-GS quartiles</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Quartile 1</td><td>811 (21.62)</td><td>90.84<sup>a</sup></td><td>82.92<sup>b</sup></td><td>66.58<sup>c</sup></td><td>42.70<sup>d</sup></td><td>37.87<sup>c</sup></td><td>&lt;0.0001</td></tr></tbody></table>

(Continued)
<table><caption>**Table 1.** (Continued)</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>N (%)</th><th>Nutri-Score</th><th>SENS</th><th>MTL</th><th>mRIs</th><th>No label</th><th>P*</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Quartile 2</td><td>812 (21.65)</td><td>90.76<sup>a</sup></td><td>83.87<sup>b</sup></td><td>69.21<sup>c</sup></td><td>48.15<sup>d</sup></td><td>37.56<sup>e</sup></td><td>&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td>Quartile 3</td><td>819 (21.83)</td><td>89.15<sup>a</sup></td><td>80.85<sup>b</sup></td><td>63.90<sup>c</sup></td><td>46.10<sup>d</sup></td><td>43.17<sup>d</sup></td><td>&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td>Quartile 4</td><td>792 (21.12)</td><td>90.05<sup>a</sup></td><td>80.98<sup>b</sup></td><td>62.22<sup>c</sup></td><td>52.14<sup>d</sup></td><td>36.90<sup>e</sup></td><td>&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td>Missing data</td><td>517 (13.78)</td><td>91.32<sup>a</sup></td><td>81.95<sup>b</sup></td><td>65.65<sup>c</sup></td><td>48.65<sup>d</sup></td><td>38.45<sup>e</sup></td><td>&lt;0.0001</td></tr></tbody></table>

MTL, Mutliple Traffic Lights; mRIs, modified Reference Intakes; mPNNS-GS, modified “Programme National Nutrition Santé”–Guideline Score; CU, Consumption Unit. One CU is attributed for the first adult of the household, 0.5 CU for other persons aged 14 or older and 0.3 CU for children under 14 years old. Percentages of correct answers with the same letter were not significantly different.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0202095.t001

groups for each FOP label, the relative ranking across labels was similar in all sub-groups (Table 3). Compared to the “no label” situation, all FOP labels increased the ability of participants to rank the products according to their nutritional quality. However, the Nutri-Score was the format which showed better results, whatever the sub-group (lowest OR = 12.40 (9.48–16.21) among older people and highest OR = 26.99 (21.92–33.22) among never smokers), followed by SENS (lowest OR = 6.40 (4.71–8.69) among participants with low educational level and highest OR = 12.69 (10.44–15.42) among middle-aged people), MTL (lowest OR = 2.58 (2.06–3.23) among older people and highest OR = 4.58 (3.07–6.83) among younger participants) and mRIs (lowest OR = 1.28 (0.97–1.68) among participants with intermediate and low educational level and highest OR = 1.66 (1.40–1.97) among participants living in a household with children).

## Discussion

In this study, we observed that all FOP labels increased the ability of consumers to rank the products according to their nutritional quality, compared to a control situation without any FOP label. Furthermore, nutrition labels had a stronger influence on the ability of identifying healthier food products than individual characteristics of participants. However, results differed between the label formats. Indeed, the Nutri-Score showed much better results, with odds ratios over 20 (and more than 80% of correct answers, whichever the population group), followed by SENS, MTL and mRIs, for which odds ratios were lower than 10. Similar trends were observed in sub-groups using stratified analyses on sociodemographic characteristics. The objective understanding of each FOP label format was however higher among young, non-smokers, participants with higher educational level and for households with children.

Our results are consistent with a similar study conducted in the NutriNet-Santé cohort [21], which used a different set of label formats, and in particular, a previous graphical version of the Nutri-Score, the 5-Colour Nutrition Label (5-CNL). In both studies, the 5-CNL/Nutri-Score outperformed all other graphical formats, including MTL and Guidelines Dietary Amounts. Our study expands these results, showing that the Nutri-Score also outperforms other summary graded formats such as the SENS. Moreover, odds ratios associated with the Nutri-Score appear higher than those observed with the 5-CNL, showing that the updated graphical format may have a higher objective understanding.

The mRIs was the FOP label with the lower objective understanding, which could be explained by various elements. First, it may be due to its monochrome format with nutrient amounts expressed only as percentage and grams, and secondly to the evaluation system per portion. Studies have demonstrated that nutrient-specific labels that only emphasize numeric information can be confusing to consumers, especially for individuals with low educational

<footnote>* P-values are based on chi square or Fisher tests.</footnote>
<table><caption>Table 2. Association between FOP label formats and objective understanding using logistic regression mixed models in univariate and multivariate analyses (N = 3,751)ª.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Univariate<br>OR (95% CI)</th><th>P</th><th>Multivariate<sup>b</sup><br>OR (95% CI)</th><th>P</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="5"><strong>FOP labels</strong></td></tr><tr><td>No label</td><td>1</td><td></td><td>1</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Nutri-Score</td><td>17.94 (15.67-20.53)</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td><td>20.33 (17.68-23.37)</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td>SENS</td><td>8.51 (7.59-9.54)</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td><td>9.57 (8.50-10.77)</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td>MTL</td><td>3.32 (3.00-3.67)</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td><td>3.55 (3.20-3.93)</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td>mRIs</td><td>1.49 (1.36-1.64)</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td><td>1.53 (1.39-1.69)</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5"><strong>Sex</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Men</td><td>1</td><td></td><td>1</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Women</td><td>1.19 (1.10-1.29)</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td><td>1.15 (1.03-1.27)</td><td>0.01</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5"><strong>Age (years)</strong></td></tr><tr><td>18-29</td><td>1</td><td></td><td>1</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>30-49</td><td>0.83 (0.73-0.95)</td><td>0.005</td><td>0.81 (0.69-0.97)</td><td>0.02</td></tr><tr><td>50-64</td><td>0.65 (0.57-0.74)</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td><td>0.63 (0.53-0.75)</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td>≥65</td><td>0.51 (0.45-0.59)</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td><td>0.47 (0.39-0.57)</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5"><strong>Educational level</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Up to secondary</td><td>1</td><td></td><td>1</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Some college</td><td>1.19 (1.06-1.34)</td><td>0.004</td><td>1.11 (0.95-1.29)</td><td>0.2</td></tr><tr><td>University degree</td><td>1.45 (1.32-1.58)</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td><td>1.33 (1.18-1.51)</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5"><strong>Monthly income per consumption unit (€/CU)</strong></td></tr><tr><td>&gt;1800</td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1200-1800</td><td>1.00 (0.90-1.12)</td><td>0.9</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1800-2700</td><td>0.98 (0.88-1.10)</td><td>0.7</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>&gt;2700</td><td>0.98 (0.89-1.08)</td><td>0.7</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="5"><strong>Household composition</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Adults only</td><td>1</td><td></td><td>1</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Adults and children</td><td>1.09 (1.02-1.17)</td><td>0.008</td><td>0.97 (0.88-1.06)</td><td>0.5</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5"><strong>Smoking status</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Current smoker</td><td>1</td><td></td><td>1</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Former smoker</td><td>0.85 (0.77-0.94)</td><td>0.001</td><td>0.96 (0.85-1.10)</td><td>0.6</td></tr><tr><td>Never smoker</td><td>1.00 (0.91-1.09)</td><td>0.9</td><td>1.02 (0.90-1.15)</td><td>0.8</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5"><strong>Physical activity level</strong></td></tr><tr><td>High</td><td>1</td><td></td><td>1</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Moderate</td><td>1.14 (1.06-1.23)</td><td>0.0004</td><td>1.04 (0.94-1.14)</td><td>0.5</td></tr><tr><td>Low</td><td>1.10 (1.01-1.19)</td><td>0.03</td><td>1.00 (0.89-1.11)</td><td>0.9</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5"><strong>Category of product</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Breakfast cereals</td><td>1</td><td></td><td>1</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Pre-prepared dishes</td><td>1.06 (0.95-1.18)</td><td>0.3</td><td>1.03 (0.92-1.16)</td><td>0.6</td></tr><tr><td>Sandwiches</td><td>0.55 (0.50-0.61)</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td><td>0.45 (0.40-0.51)</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td>Canned fish</td><td>0.52 (0.47-0.58)</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td><td>0.42 (0.38-0.47)</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td>Sweet biscuits</td><td>0.45 (0.40-0.49)</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td><td>0.35 (0.31-0.39)</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5"><strong>Body Mass Index (kg/m<sup>2</sup>)</strong></td></tr><tr><td>&lt;18.5</td><td>1</td><td></td><td>1</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>18.5-24.9</td><td>0.94 (0.82-1.08)</td><td>0.4</td><td>1.05 (0.88-1.26)</td><td>0.6</td></tr><tr><td>25-29.9</td><td>0.84 (0.73-0.98)</td><td>0.03</td><td>1.03 (0.84-1.25)</td><td>0.8</td></tr><tr><td>30-34.9</td><td>0.83 (0.69-0.99)</td><td>0.04</td><td>1.01 (0.80-1.28)</td><td>0.9</td></tr></tbody></table>

(Continued)
<table><caption>**Table 2.** (Continued)</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th>Univariate</th><th rowspan="2">P</th><th>Multivariate<sup>b</sup></th><th rowspan="2">P</th></tr><tr><th>OR (95% CI)</th><th>OR (95% CI)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>35-39.9</td><td>0.81 (0.62-1.06)</td><td>0.1</td><td>0.95 (0.67-1.34)</td><td>0.8</td></tr><tr><td>≥40</td><td>0.94 (0.64-1.39)</td><td>0.8</td><td>1.07 (0.65-1.76)</td><td>0.8</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5" style="text-align: center;">mPNNS-GS</td></tr><tr><td>Quartile 1</td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Quartile 2</td><td>1.06 (0.97-1.15)</td><td>0.2</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Quartile 3</td><td>1.00 (0.92-1.09)</td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Quartile 4</td><td>0.99 (0.82-1.07)</td><td>0.8</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

OR, Odds Ratio; CI, Confidence Interval; MTL, Mutliple Traffic Lights; mRIs, modified Reference Intakes; mPNNS-GS, modified “Programme National Nutrition Santé”-Guideline Score; CU, Consumption Unit. One CU is attributed for the first adult of the household, 0.5 CU for other persons aged 14 or older and 0.3 CU for children under 14 years old.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0202095.t002

level or social classes [4,6,10,14,21,51]. In comparison, nutrient-specific formats incorporating text and symbolic colours, such as MTL, seem to be better understood and increase consumer ability to identify healthier food products [10,14,16,20,21,52-55]. In the present study, we observed that MTL was better understood than mRIs label, but the magnitude of effect was lower compared to summary formats, as it was outperformed by both Nutri-Score and SENS. Indeed, we noted that nutrition labels with summary formats, such as the Nutri-Score and

<table><caption>**Table 3.** Multivariable<sup>a</sup> logistic regression mixed model of the association between objective understanding and FOP label formats, across sub-groups at risk (N = 3,751).</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th rowspan="2">No label</th><th>Nutri-Score</th><th>SENS</th><th>MTL</th><th>mRIs</th><th rowspan="2">P-value</th><th rowspan="2">P interaction</th></tr><tr><th>OR (95% CI)</th><th>OR (95% CI)</th><th>OR (95% CI)</th><th>OR (95% CI)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="8" style="text-align: center;">Age (years)</td></tr><tr><td>18-29</td><td>1</td><td>23.19 (12.75-42.18)</td><td>10.14 (6.34-16.23)</td><td>4.58 (3.07-6.83)</td><td>1.58 (1.11-2.25)</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td>30-49</td><td>1</td><td>25.61 (20.25-32.39)</td><td>12.69 (10.44-15.42)</td><td>4.41 (3.75-5.19)</td><td>1.57 (1.35-1.82)</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>50-64</td><td>1</td><td>22.22 (17.21-28.69)</td><td>8.77 (7.10-10.84)</td><td>3.04 (2.53-3.67)</td><td>1.60 (1.34-1.92)</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>≥65</td><td>1</td><td>12.40 (9.48-16.21)</td><td>6.45 (5.06-8.22)</td><td>2.58 (2.06-3.23)</td><td>1.32 (1.06-1.65)</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="8" style="text-align: center;">Educational level</td></tr><tr><td>Up to secondary</td><td>1</td><td>12.98 (9.25-18.23)</td><td>6.40 (4.71-8.69)</td><td>2.62 (1.98-3.46)</td><td>1.28 (0.97-1.69)</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td>Some college</td><td>1</td><td>15.51 (10.76-22.35)</td><td>7.67 (5.60-10.50)</td><td>2.59 (1.96-3.42)</td><td>1.28 (0.97-1.68)</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>University degree</td><td>1</td><td>23.79 (20.04-28.23)</td><td>10.84 (9.40-12.50)</td><td>3.96 (3.50-4.48)</td><td>1.63 (1.45-1.83)</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="8" style="text-align: center;">Household composition</td></tr><tr><td>Adults only</td><td>1</td><td>19.17 (16.21-22.66)</td><td>9.26 (8.02-10.69)</td><td>3.35 (2.95-3.80)</td><td>1.47 (1.30-1.66)</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td><td>0.15</td></tr><tr><td>Adults and children</td><td>1</td><td>23.06 (17.91-29.67)</td><td>10.21 (8.29-12.58)</td><td>3.97 (3.31-4.76)</td><td>1.66 (1.40-1.97)</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="8" style="text-align: center;">Smoking status</td></tr><tr><td>Current smoker</td><td>1</td><td>18.28 (12.76-26.19)</td><td>11.28 (8.16-15.58)</td><td>3.71 (2.82-4.88)</td><td>1.38 (1.07-1.78)</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td><td>0.002</td></tr><tr><td>Former smoker</td><td>1</td><td>14.66 (11.73-18.31)</td><td>6.97 (5.74-8.46)</td><td>2.80 (2.35-3.34)</td><td>1.46 (1.23-1.73)</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Never smoker</td><td>1</td><td>26.99 (21.92-33.22)</td><td>11.47 (9.68-13.59)</td><td>4.00 (3.54-4.75)</td><td>1.63 (1.42-1.87)</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

OR, Odds Ratio; CI, Confidence Interval; MTL, Mutliple Traffic Lights; mRIs, modified Reference Intakes; mPNNS-GS, modified “Programme National Nutrition Santé”-Guideline Score.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0202095.t003

<footnote><sup>a</sup> The modelled probability was correct ranking of the three products according to their nutritional quality.</footnote>

<footnote><sup>b</sup> Multivariable model was adjusted on sex, age, educational level, household composition, smoking status, physical activity level, category of product and body mass index (variables which displayed a significance level of p<0.15 in univariate models).</footnote>

<footnote><sup>a</sup> Multivariable models were adjusted on sex, age, household composition, smoking status, physical activity and food category.</footnote>
SENS, were much better understood by consumers, in all sub-groups of population, with the highest performance for the Nutri-Score. The elevated objective understanding of the Nutri-Score could be explained by two main elements. First, this format provides graded summarized information about the overall nutritional quality of the food, through a single indicator limiting potential confusion on nutrition terms [56]. Secondly, it combines colours and text, which has been demonstrated to be easier to read and understand [10,14,20,21]. Thus, despite the use also of semantic colours in the MTL label, the gradual and summarized format of the Nutri-Score was far better understood. The SENS label, which displays similar characteristics to the Nutri-Score, was less effective to help consumers discriminating product healthiness. This result may be partly explained by the use of non-semantic colours (i.e. blue and purple), while semantic colours as green and red may influence consumer's perception and behaviour. Indeed, it has been demonstrated that green may be associated to healthfulness and healthy eating [57] and red might influence conscious awareness [58]. Moreover, the SENS label incorporates a consumption frequency, which may require further processing by the consumer. Indeed, though there is a relationship between consumption frequency, portion size and the nutritional quality of food products, the two dimensions may not be directly linked in consumers, which may have impacted results. Furthermore, in a study assessing perception [59], the SENS format was less appreciated than the Nutri-Score, and more likely to be perceived as guilt-laden. Conversely, the Nutri-Score was considered as quick to process and easy to understand by a majority of participants [59]. As a favourable perception is one of the pre-requirements for label use, our results suggest that it may also be associated with a higher objective understanding.

In our study, similar trends were observed for the understanding of FOP label formats across population sub-groups. However, some disparities in the performance of each format were detected across sub-groups of populations. For each nutrition label, the ability to rank products according to the information provided was lower among older participants and those with lower educational level. These results are in line with other studies, which have observed that older people and individuals with lower educational level had more difficulties to understand FOP labels [6,7,16,51,53,60]. We observed that the objective understanding of FOP labels was higher among never smokers. This may be explained by the greater interest in nutritional information and labels of these individuals compared to smokers or former smokers [61]. This finding is in line with other studies, which have noted that former or never smokers are more likely to read nutrition labels [61–65]. We also found that households with children were more likely to correctly rank the food products. Our findings may be due to the fact that the presence of children in the household might increase concerns of parents and motivate nutrition information search behaviours. Indeed, reviews suggested that larger household and those with children were more likely to search for nutrition information and use nutritional labels in general [4,66], even if studies observed that household size may be inversely associated to label use [67,68].

In the present study, we found that individual characteristics of participants, including notably age and educational level, were associated to the ability of products' ranking. Women were also more able to rank the product according to the nutritional quality, that may be explained by their greater interest in nutrition [9] and the fact they are more likely to use nutrition labels [4,7,9,66]. However, the associated odds ratios for sociodemographic variables were much lower than those for FOP labels, showing that FOPLs outweigh individual characteristics of subjects in objective understanding.

The strengths of this study pertained to the heterogeneity of the population in terms of socio-demographic characteristics, enabling us to carry out analyses across sub-groups. In addition, to prevent the potential bias of label's order, a rotation system was used, and to
control for potential bias of food product, all combination of food category and FOP label
were tested. Furthermore, a set of three products was used to fit more realistic conditions and
to limit the risk of ‘positive’ rankings due to random answers.

Some limitations should be acknowledged. First, caution is needed regarding the extrapolation of these results to the entire French population. Indeed, this study involved participants from NutriNet-Santé, a volunteer cohort with overall more health-conscious behaviour and higher socio-professional and educational level. Moreover, the questionnaire was optional for participants and available during a short period of time (3 months), yielding a response rate of 62%, which may have increased selection bias. Compared with excluded participants, included subjects were more often women and had a higher educational level. Moreover, results may be influenced by the subjective choice of the food products and categories. Indeed, the familiarity with some food categories may have led to a higher number of correct answers in the given food category. However, the design of the questionnaire ascertained that an equal number of participants were shown each food category/label combination, and the analyses were carried out comparatively with a “no label” situation, therefore limiting the extent of this bias. Finally, participants did not have access to the nutrition facts normally available on the back of package during the ranking procedure, making the task harder especially in “no label” situation.

In conclusion, the results of the present study show that FOP nutrition labels had a stronger
influence on the ability of consumers to identify healthier products than individual character-
istics of participants. The Nutri-Score, with a summarized graded and colour-coded format
using semantic colours, was associated to a higher objective understanding than other formats,
including the nutrient-specific Multiple Traffic Lights label. Moreover, the effect of the Nutri-
Score clearly outweighed the differences observed across socio-demographic sub-groups,
showing its applicability to vulnerable populations. Given these results, the Nutri-Score should
be considered as a valid alternative for FOP nutrition labelling.

**Supporting information**

S1 Table. Individual characteristics of included (N = 3,751) and excluded (N = 577) partici-
pants.
(PDF)

Acknowledgments

We especially thank Nathalie Pecollo, operational coordinator of the NutriNet-Santé cohort; Younes Esseddik, Paul Flanzy and Thi Hong Van Duong, computer scientists; Julien Allègre, Veronique Gourlet, Fabien Szabo, Nathalie Arnault, Laurent Bourhis and Stephen Besseau, statisticians; and Cédric Agaësse, Claudia Chahine, dieticians.

We warmly thank all of the dedicated and conscientious volunteers involved in the Nutri-
net-Santé cohort.

Author Contributions

**Conceptualization:** Serge Hercberg, Chantal Julia.

**Formal analysis:** Manon Egnell, Pauline Ducrot, Mathilde Touvier, Benjamin Allès, Serge Hercberg, Emmanuelle Kesse-Guyot, Chantal Julia.

**Funding acquisition:** Serge Hercberg.

**Methodology:** Manon Egnell, Serge Hercberg, Chantal Julia.
**Supervision:** Serge Hercberg, Chantal Julia.

**Validation:** Manon Egnell, Pauline Ducrot, Mathilde Touvier, Benjamin Allès, Serge Hercberg, Emmanuelle Kesse-Guyot, Chantal Julia.

**Writing – original draft:** Manon Egnell.

**Writing – review & editing:** Pauline Ducrot, Mathilde Touvier, Benjamin Allès, Serge Hercberg, Emmanuelle Kesse-Guyot, Chantal Julia.

## References

1. 2017) Global, regional, and national comparative risk assessment of 84 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet 390: 1345–1422. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17) 32366-8 PMID: 28919119

2. World Health Organization (2003) Diet, Nutrition and the Prevention of Chronic Diseases. In WHO Technical Report Series; 916; WHO: Geneva, Switzerland. PMID: 12768890

3. World Health Organization (2004) Global Strategy on Diet, Physical Activity and Health; WHO: Geneva, Switzerland.

4. Campos S, Doxey J, Hammond D (2011) Nutrition labels on pre-packaged foods: a systematic review. Public Health Nutr 14: 1496–1506. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980010003290 PMID: 21241532

5. Delamaire C, Bossard C, Julia C (2009) Perceptions, connaissances et attitudes en matière d'alimenta- tion. In: Escalon E, Bossard C, Beck F, eds. Baromètre Santé Nutrition 2008 Saint Denis: Institut National de Prévention et d'Éducation pour la Santé (INPES).

6. Grunert KG, Fernandez-Celemin L, Wills JM, Storcksdieck Genannt BS, Nureeva L (2010) Use and understanding of nutrition information on food labels in six European countries. Z Gesundh Wiss 18: 261–277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10389-009-0307-0 PMID: 21124644

7. Cowburn G, Stockley L (2005) Consumer understanding and use of nutrition labelling: a systematic review. Public Health Nutr 8: 21–28. PMID: 15705241

8. Feunekes GI, Gortemaker IA, Willems AA, Lion R, van den Kommer M (2008) Front-of-pack nutrition labelling: testing effectiveness of different nutrition labelling formats front-of-pack in four European countries. Appetite 50: 57–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2007.05.009 PMID: 17629351

9. Grunert Klaus G, Wills Josephine M (2007) A review of European research on consumer response to nutrition information on food labels. Journal of Public Health 15: 385–399.

10. Hersey JC, Wohlgenant KC, Arsenault JE, Kosa KM, Muth MK (2013) Effects of front-of-package and shelf nutrition labeling systems on consumers. Nutr Rev 71: 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/nure.12000 PMID: 23282247

11. Ruffieux B, Muller L (2011) Etude sur l'influence de divers systèmes d'étiquetage nutritionnel sur la composition du panier d'achat alimentaire.

12. Sutherland LA, Kaley LA, Fischer L (2010) Guiding stars: the effect of a nutrition navigation program on consumer purchases at the supermarket. Am J Clin Nutr 91: 1090S–1094S. https://doi.org/10.3945/ ajcn.2010.28450C PMID: 20147468

13. Vyth EL, Steenhuis IH, Vlot JA, Wulp A, Hogenes MG, Looije DH, Brug J, Seidell JC (2010) Actual use of a front-of-pack nutrition logo in the supermarket: consumers' motives in food choice. Public Health Nutr 13: 1882–1889. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980010000637 PMID: 20359378

14. Hawley KL, Roberto CA, Bragg MA, Liu PJ, Schwartz MB, Brownell KD (2013) The science on front-of-package food labels. Public Health Nutr 16: 430–439. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980012000754 PMID: 22440538

15. Hodgkins CE, Raats MM, Fife-Schaw C, Peacock M, Groppel-Klein A, Koenigstorfer J, Wasowicz G, Stysko-Kunkowska M, Gulcan Y, Kustepeli Y, Gibbs M, Shepherd R, Grunert KG (2015) Guiding health- ier food choice: systematic comparison of four front-of-pack labelling systems and their effect on judge- ments of product healthiness. Br J Nutr 113: 1652–1663. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007114515000264 PMID: 25893314

16. Kelly B, Hughes C, Chapman K, Louie JC, Dixon H, Crawford J, King L, Daube M, Slevin T (2009) Con- sumer testing of the acceptability and effectiveness of front-of-pack food labelling systems for the Aus- tralian grocery market. Health Promot Int 24: 120–129. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/dap012 PMID: 19336501
17. Watson WL, Kelly B, Hector D, Hughes C, King L, Crawford J, Sergeant J, Chapman K (2014) Can front-of-pack labelling schemes guide healthier food choices? Australian shoppers' responses to seven labelling formats. Appetite 72: 90-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2013.09.027 PMID: 24126243

18. Young L, Swinburn B (2002) Impact of the Pick the Tick food information programme on the salt content of food in New Zealand. Health Promot Int 17: 13-19. PMID: 11847134

19. Vyth EL, Steenhuis IH, Roodenburg AJ, Brug J, Seidell JC (2010) Front-of-pack nutrition label stimulates healthier product development: a quantitative analysis. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 7: 65. https://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-7-65 PMID: 20825645

20. Ducrot P, Mejean C, Julia C, Kesse-Guyot E, Touvier M, Fezeu L, Hercberg S, Peneau S (2015) Effectiveness of Front-Of-Pack Nutrition Labels in French Adults: Results from the NutriNet-Sante Cohort Study. PLoS One 10: e0140898. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0140898 PMID: 26509679

21. Ducrot P, Mejean C, Julia C, Kesse-Guyot E, Touvier M, Fezeu LK, Hercberg S, Peneau S (2015) Objective Understanding of Front-of-Package Nutrition Labels among Nutritionally At-Risk Individuals. Nutrients 7: 7106-7125. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu7085325 PMID: 26305255

22. [Anonymous] (2017) Comité Scientifique de l'étude d'expérimentation. Evaluation ex ante de systèmes d'étiquetage nutritionnel graphique simplifié. Rapport final du comité scientifique. Paris, Ministère des Affaires sociales et de la Santé.

23. CREDOC (2017) Les enquêtes complémentaires. Etude Quantitative. Paris, Ministère des Affaires sociales et de la Santé.

24. Crosetto P, Muller L, Ruffieux B (2016) Réponses des consommateurs à trois systèmes d'étiquetage nutritionnels en face avant. Cahier de Nutrition et de Diététique.

25. Crosetto P, Lacroix A, Muller L, Ruffieux B (2017) Modification des achats alimentaires en réponse à cinq logos nutritionnels.

26. Ducrot P, Julia C, Mejean C, Kesse-Guyot E, Touvier M, Fezeu LK, Hercberg S, Peneau S (2016) Impact of Different Front-of-Pack Nutrition Labels on Consumer Purchasing Intentions: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Am J Prev Med 50: 627-636. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2015.10.020 PMID: 26699246

27. Julia C, Blanchet O, Mejean C, Peneau S, Ducrot P, Alles B, Fezeu LK, Touvier M, Kesse-Guyot E, Sin-gler E, Hercberg S (2016) Impact of the front-of-pack 5-colour nutrition label (5-CNL) on the nutritional quality of purchases: an experimental study. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 13: 101. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-016-0416-4 PMID: 27645372

28. Mejean C, Macouillard P, Peneau S, Hercberg S, Castetbon K (2013) Perception of front-of-pack labels according to social characteristics, nutritional knowledge and food purchasing habits. Public Health Nutr 16: 392-402. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980012003515 PMID: 23174385

29. Institute of Medicine (2012) Front-of-Package Nutrition Rating Systems and Symbols: Promoting Healthier Choices. The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA.

30. Hercberg S, Castetbon K, Czernichow S, Malon A, Mejean C, Kesse E, Touvier M, Galan P (2010) The Nutrinet-Sante Study: a web-based prospective study on the relationship between nutrition and health and determinants of dietary patterns and nutritional status. BMC Public Health 10: 242. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-10-242 PMID: 20459807

31. Fédération du Commerce et de la Distribution (2016) Les enseignes du commerce et de la distribution dévoilent leur système d'étiquetage nutritionnel simplifié, baptisé le "SENS".

32. Rayner M, Scarborough P, Lobstein T (2009) The UK Ofcom Nutrient Profiling Model—Defining "Healthy" and "Unhealthy" Food and Drinks for TV Advertising to Children. https://www.ndph.ox.ac.uk/cpnp/files/about/uk-ofcom-nutrient-profile-model.pdf (accessed on 10 August 2017).

33. Haut Conseil de la santé publique (2015) Avis relatif à l'information sur la qualité nutritionnelle des produits alimentaires.

34. Hercberg S (2013) Propositions pour un nouvel élan de politique nutritionnelle française de santé publique dans le cadre de la stratégie nationale de santé. 1ère partie: mesures concernant la prévention nutritionnelle. Paris.

35. Darmon N, Maillot M, Braesco V, Tafournel E (2015) L'Algorithmme du Système d'Etiquetage Nutritionnel Simplifié (SENS). Développement, description et validation. http://www.nutrition-quantitative.com/Rapport_SENS.pdf (accessed on 10 August 2017).

36. Food and Drink Federation (2017) Reference Intakes (previously Guideline Daily Amounts).

37. Food Standard Agency (2007) Front-of-pack Traffic light signpost labelling Technical Guidance; Food Standard Agency: Kingsway, UK.

38. Vergnaud AC, Touvier M, Mejean C, Kesse-Guyot E, Pollet C, Malon A, Castetbon K, Hercberg S (2011) Agreement between web-based and paper versions of a socio-demographic questionnaire in the
NutriNet-Sante study. Int J Public Health 56: 407-417. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00038-011-0257-5
PMID: 21538094

39. INSEE (Institut National de la Statistique et des Etudes Economiques) (2014) Méthodes.

40. [Anonymous] (2005) IPAQ Group. Guidelines for Data Processing and Analyses of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ).

41. Lassale C, Peneau S, Touvier M, Julia C, Galan P, Hercberg S, Kesse-Guyot E (2013) Validity of web-based self-reported weight and height: results of the Nutrinet-Sante study. J Med Internet Res 15: e152. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2575 PMID: 23928492

42. Touvier M, Mejean C, Kesse-Guyot E, Pollet C, Malon A, Castetbon K, Hercberg S (2010) Comparison between web-based and paper versions of a self-administered anthropometric questionnaire. Eur J Epidemiol 25: 287-296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-010-9433-9 PMID: 20191377

43. Lassale C, Castetbon K, Laporte F, Deschamps V, Vernay M, Camilleri GM, Faure P, Hercberg S, Galan P, Kesse-Guyot E (2016) Correlations between Fruit, Vegetables, Fish, Vitamins, and Fatty Acids Estimated by Web-Based Nonconsecutive Dietary Records and Respective Biomarkers of Nutritional Status. J Acad Nutr Diet 116: 427-438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jand.2015.09.017 PMID: 26522988

44. Touvier M, Kesse-Guyot E, Mejean C, Pollet C, Malon A, Castetbon K, Hercberg S (2011) Comparison between an interactive web-based self-administered 24 h dietary record and an interview by a dietitian for large-scale epidemiological studies. Br J Nutr 105: 1055-1064. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007114510004617 PMID: 21080983

45. Le Moullec N, Deheeger M, Preziosi P, Montero P, Valeix P, Rolland-Cachera M (1996) Validation du manuel photo utilisé pour l'enquête alimentaire de l'étude SU.VI.MAX. [Validation of the food portion size booklet used in the SU.VI.MAX study] (in French). Cah Nutr Diet.

46. Arnault N, Caillot L, Castetbon K, Coronel S, Deschamps V, Fezeu L (2013) Table de composition des aliments, étude NutriNet-Santé. [Food composition table, NutriNet-Santé study] (in French). Paris: Les éditions INSERM/Economica.

47. Black AE (2000) Critical evaluation of energy intake using the Goldberg cut-off for energy intake: basal metabolic rate. A practical guide to its calculation, use and limitations. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 24: 1119-1130. PMID: 11033980

48. Estaquio C, Kesse-Guyot E, Deschamps V, Bertrais S, Dauchet L, Galan P, Hercberg S, Castetbon K (2009) Adherence to the French Programme National Nutrition Sante Guideline Score is associated with better nutrient intake and nutritional status. J Am Diet Assoc 109: 1031-1041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jada.2009.03.012 PMID: 19465185

49. Assmann KE, Lassale C, Galan P, Hercberg S, Kesse-Guyot E (2014) Dietary quality and 6-year anthropometric changes in a sample of French middle-aged overweight and obese adults. PLoS One 9: e87083. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0087083 PMID: 24516542

50. Sterne JA, White IR, Carlin JB, Spratt M, Royston P, Kenward MG, Wood AM, Carpenter JR (2009) Multiple imputation for missing data in epidemiological and clinical research: potential and pitfalls. BMJ 338: b2393. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2393 PMID: 19564179

51. Grunert KG, Wills JM, Fernandez-Celemin L (2010) Nutrition knowledge, and use and understanding of nutrition information on food labels among consumers in the UK. Appetite 55: 177-189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2010.05.045 PMID: 20546813

52. Borgmeier I, Westenhoefer J (2009) Impact of different food label formats on healthiness evaluation and food choice of consumers: a randomized-controlled study. BMC Public Health 9: 184. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-9-184 PMID: 19523212

53. Food Standard Agency (2005) Quantitative Evaluation of Alternative Food Signposting Concepts: Report of Findings.

54. Malam S, Clegg S, Kirwan S, McGinigal S (2009) Comprehension and Use of UK Nutrition Signpost Labelling Schemes.

55. Mejean C, Macouillard P, Peneau S, Hercberg S, Castetbon K (2013) Consumer acceptability and understanding of front-of-pack nutrition labels. J Hum Nutr Diet 26: 494-503. https://doi.org/10.1111/jhn.12039 PMID: 23534897

56. Helfer P, Shultz TR (2014) The effects of nutrition labeling on consumer food choice: a psychological experiment and computational model. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1331: 174-185. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.12461 PMID: 24913496

57. Schuldt JP (2013) Does green mean healthy? Nutrition label color affects perceptions of healthfulness. Health Commun 28: 814-821. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2012.725270 PMID: 23444895

58. Genschow O, Reutner L, Wanke M (2012) The color red reduces snack food and soft drink intake. Appetite 58: 699-702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2011.12.023 PMID: 22245725
59. Julia C, Peneau S, Buscail C, Gonzalez R, Touvier M, Hercberg S, Kesse-Guyot E (2017) Perception of different formats of front-of-pack nutrition labels according to sociodemographic, lifestyle and dietary factors in a French population: cross-sectional study among the NutriNet-Sante cohort participants. *BMJ Open* 7: e016108. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016108 PMID: 28619781

60. Scott V, Worsley AF (1994) Ticks, claims, tables and food groups: A comparison for nutrition labelling. *Health Promot Int.*

61. Satia JA, Galanko JA, Neuhouser ML (2005) Food nutrition label use is associated with demographic, behavioral, and psychosocial factors and dietary intake among African Americans in North Carolina. *J Am Diet Assoc* 105: 392–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jada.2004.12.006 PMID: 15746826

62. Lubman N, Doak C, Jasti S (2012) Food label use and food label skills among immigrants from the former Soviet Union. *J Nutr Educ Behav* 44: 398–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2011.08.009 PMID: 22377240

63. Hong SW, Oh SW, Lee C, Kwon H, Hyeon JH, Gwak JS (2014) Association between nutrition label use and chronic disease in Korean adults: the Fourth Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2008–2009. *J Korean Med Sci* 29: 1457–1463. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2014.29.11.1457 PMID: 25408575

64. Kim MG, Oh SW, Han NR, Song DJ, Um JY, Bae SH, Kwon H, Lee CM, Joh HK, Hong SW (2014) Association between Nutrition Label Reading and Nutrient Intake in Korean Adults: Korea National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey, 2007–2009 (KNHANES IV). *Korean J Fam Med* 35: 190–198. https://doi.org/10.4082/kjfm.2014.35.4.190 PMID: 25120890

65. Su D, Zhou J, Jackson HL, Soliman GA, Huang TT, Yaroch AL (2015) A Sex-Specific Analysis of Nutrition Label Use and Health, Douglas County, Nebraska, 2013. *Prev Chronic Dis* 12: E158. https://doi.org/10.5888/pcd12.150167 PMID: 26402048

66. Drichoutis A, Lazaridis P, Nagya RM (2006) Consumer's use of nutritional labels: a review of research studies and issues. *Acad Mark Sci Rev.*

67. Drichoutis A, Lazaridis P, Nagya RM (2005) Nutrition knowledge and consumer use of nutritional food labels. *European Review of Agricultural Economics.*

68. Govindasamy R, Italia J (1999) The influence of consumer demographic characteristics on nutritional label usage. *Journal of Food Products Marketing.*