2.2 This report was preceded by a qualitative of research, of which the detailed objectives included an understanding of: Consumers’ knowledge, attitudes, intentions and behaviour regarding food labelling and purchase choices Consumers’ ability to accurately use and understand proposed design elements (interpretive and nutrient) The likely impact of the proposed FoPL system on consumer choices Guidance for further design development. Of relevance to this report were the key preliminary findings related to optimal design of a FoPL system. On the basis of the qualitative findings as to consumer preference and the extent to which the overall design will facilitate healthier food choices, the optimal FoPL design (which was subject to confirmation by the quantitative phase of the study) is likely to have the following design features: A box to enclose all elements of design The grey backed design option tested (Tank design) Be presented as a stacked display with star rating element sitting nutrient elements Use of the ‘Health Star Rating’ name Incorporate the slider / number in star design element Express all values as per 100 grams Include the three ‘negative nutrients’ of saturated fat, sodium and total sugar (nb: use of term sugar/s in interpreted to mean total sugar) Include the term “kilojoules” rather than “energy” With regard to the inclusion of positive nutrients – further consideration and testing was needed (also to be delivered through the quantitative study) as to: What are the ‘positive nutrients’ of relevance to include (and by food group) Whether relevant ‘positive nutrients’ should be included alongside the ‘negative’ nutrients Whether ‘positive nutrients’ should be included but separated from ‘negative’ nutrients, or Whether nutrient information should be restricted to the three ‘negative’ variables only These, and additional, questions were explored in this study (see next section for research objectives). 2.3 Broadly speaking, were three key aims of the quantitative study: FINDINGS
is a growth of 33% in the number of consumers who would be strongly influenced by the new FoPL label. Respondents were then asked to rate their level of understanding of the Overall FoPL label. The results are shown in Table 3, below. Understanding and Influence of overall proposed FoPL design (by demographic) Characteristic Understanding (Mean rating) Influence (Mean rating) Total Sample 6.9 6.8 Gender Male Female 6.5* 7.1 6.5** 7.1** Age 18-24 years 25-29 years 30-34 35-44 years 45-54 years 55-64 65-75 years 75+ years 7.0 6.9 6.7 7.0 6.9 6.7 6.7 7.0 7.0 6.9 6.5 6.8 7.0 6.9 6.8 6.6 State/Territory of residence NSW Victoria Queensland Western Australia South Australia Tasmania ACT Northern Territory 6.6** 6.8 7.2 7.2 7.1 6.3 7.4 7.4 6.5** 7.0 7.0 7.2 6.9 5.9** 6.3** 8.1 Area of residence Capital city Regional centre Country town Rural or remote locality 6.9 7.0 6.6 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.6 6.8 Highest level educational attainment Year 9 or below Year 10 or 11 Year 12 or high school equivalent TAFE certificate or diploma Bachelors degree Postgraduate qualification Don’t know/prefer not to say 6.4 6.8 6.9 6.9 6.9 7.0 5.2** 6.6 6.7 7.0 6.8 6.9 7.1 4.8** Current situation Working full-time Working part-time Home duties 6.7 7.1 7.0 6.8 7.2** 7.1
O4. Is there anything that you would change in the label to make it more useful in helping you make food purchase choices? Sample size n = 360 The most frequent suggestion for improving the FoPL was to replace the “Low/Medium/High” component with DI (or to have both), with around 27% of those who provided a suggested improvement (representing around 9% of the total sample) making this suggestion. Note from earlier findings presented in the report that there was “large minority” of respondents who preferred DI over “Low/Medium/High”, and given that at this point in the survey, the FoPL contained only “Low/Medium/High”, it should not be surprising that a number of respondents noted their preference for DI. Apart from this, there was a “long tail” of suggestions, with some of the more noteworthy suggestions including: Colour coding Low/Medium/High Include accreditation (who devised/regulates the label) Just have the star rating Respondents were then shown four different versions of the complete FoPL label and asked to rate how useful each variant would be to them, with the four variants emphasising different components of the label. Participant Preference for Overall Design O5. Below you can see four different versions of the label. Which version would you find most useful? Although all variants were chosen to some extent, the “Enlarged kilojoules” variant had significantly more responses than the next highest. Although respondents were not asked explicitly in the survey to explain their choices, it is likely that this variant was chosen given the overall importance of kilojoules relative to other nutrients (and the fact that the star ratings element is already quite prominent).