Aware Food Choices Bridging the Gap Between Consumer

Knowledge About Nutritional Requirements and Nutritional

Information

Visit the link below to download the full version of this book:

https://medidownload.com/product/aware-food-choices-bridging-the-gap-between-con
sumer-knowledge-about-nutritional-requirements-and-nutritional-information/

Click Download Now

Angela Tarabella · Barbara Burchi

Aware Food Choices:

Bridging the Gap Between
Consumer Knowledge About
Nutritional Requirements
and Nutritional Information

13
Angela Tarabella Barbara Burchi
University of Pisa University of Pisa
Pisa Pisa
Italy Italy

ISSN 2197-571X ISSN 2197-5728 (electronic)

SpringerBriefs in Food, Health, and Nutrition
ISBN 978-3-319-23855-5 ISBN 978-3-319-23856-2 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-23856-2

Library of Congress Control Number: 2015950042

Springer Cham Heidelberg New York Dordrecht London

© The Author(s) 2016
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part
of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission
or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or
dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt
from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained
herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made.

Printed on acid-free paper

Springer International Publishing AG Switzerland is part of Springer Science+Business Media

(www.springer.com)
Contents

1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2 Literature Analysis on Consumer Understanding of Nutrition

Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Background: Consumer Food Choices and Nutrition Information. . . . . . . 5
Methods of Literature Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Results on Consumer Understanding of Nutrition Information. . . . . . . . . 9
Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

3 Diet and Nutritional Requirements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

The Evolution of Food Choices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
The Meaning of the Term “Diet” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
From “Food” to “Nutrition Principles” and “Nutrient” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

4 Factors Influencing Energy Balance: Estimation Methods. . . . . . . . . . 31

Catabolic and Anabolic Reactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Energy Requirements and a Comparison Between the Main
Estimation Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
The Harris–Benedict Equation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
The Roza and Shizgal Equation: A Revision
of the Harris–Benedict Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
The Mifflin–St. Jeor Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
The Cunningham Equation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
The Schofield Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
The Santoprete Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
The Institute of Medicine Equation (2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

v
vi Contents

Definition of Optimal Body Mass. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

5 Nutrition Fundamentals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
The Macronutrients (Glucides, Protides and Lipids) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
The Micronutrients (Vitamins and Mineral Salts) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Water and Some Considerations About Ethylic Alcohol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

6 The Evolution of Nutrition Information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

An Overview on Nutrition Labelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
The Evolution of Nutrition Labelling in Europe. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Comparison Between the EU Nutrition Declaration
and the USA Facts Panel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

7 Claims and Other Front of Package Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

Front of Package Systems Indicating Nutrition Information
to Consumers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Nutrition and Health Claims. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Graphical Nutrition Labelling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Nutrition Scoring and Calorie Labelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Graphical Labelling in the Regulation (EU) 1169/2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
Chapter 1
Introduction

In recent years, evolution in many disciplines, directly or indirectly related to the

subject of nutrition, has led to unprecedented developments in research which
in turn have led to the production of new foods with a high nutritional level.
Increasingly complex and elaborate foods have appeared on our table accompa-
nied by advertising slogans extolling their healthy virtues. Consumers have been
quick to respond, ever more aware of the need to maintain a state of well-being
and health in keeping up with globalized aesthetic standards. Some researchers
have highlighted how choices based on the nutritional indications, which accom-
pany the sale of food products, do not always meet the real needs of the individual
(Pollan 2008). A sample of American students involved in a research project were
asked to identify the most important food item capable of guaranteeing survival
for a year on a desert island where the only substance offered by nature was water.
The foods they could choose from included alfalfa sprouts, hot dogs, spinach,
peaches, bananas, milk chocolate and corn. The result was surprising in that 42 %
of the interviewees put bananas in first place, 27 % chose spinach whilst essen-
tial nutritional foods—capable of providing energy, carbohydrates and proteins—
such as hot dogs (4 %), milk chocolate (3 %) ended up at the bottom (Rozin et al.
1996, p. 442). In his book In Defense of Food, Michael Pollan, quoting research
by Rozin et al. (1996), points out how the ‘outlawing’ of certain foods because of
an excessive fat content or because they are commonly considered responsible for
bad eating habits prevents the consumer from choosing objectively as he falls prey
to widespread advertising slogans he has over time gradually interiorized. For the
past five years, I have asked my students the same question at the beginning of
my Food Sciences course and surprisingly I get very similar answers with a clear
preference for bananas, and alfalfa sprouts with hot dogs and chocolate relegated
to the last places. This shows that in the collective consciousness, some foods
are considered bad for one’s health and not useful for survival. Of course, man
is the result of the long evolutionary process which has taken place in the rela-
tionship between available food, environment and genetic make-up; consequently,
studies on nutrition prove to be highly complex and multidisciplinary. In fact,
research is necessary on food availability (for example, in the fields of agronomy

© The Author(s) 2016 1

A. Tarabella and B. Burchi, Aware Food Choices: Bridging the Gap Between
Consumer Knowledge About Nutritional Requirements and Nutritional Information,
SpringerBriefs in Food, Health, and Nutrition, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-23856-2_1
2 1 Introduction

and veterinary medicine), on the external environment (in the fields of economics,
ecology, statistics, social and demographic studies) and on genetic make-up (in the
fields of biology, chemistry and medicine). Consequently, the food choices a lot of
people make on impulse and condition by a myriad of factors (family, the media,
lifestyle, a desire to emulate, the quest for well-being and a certain image) are not
always aligned with the real needs of the individual who should consider a com-
plex and far more articulated system of factors than can be imagined.
In Chaps. 2, 3 and 4 of the present volume, we attempt to describe the funda-
mental notions underlying the concepts of food and nutrition in the light of the
systemic relations which link these two disciplines and to provide useful food
for thought. In fact, eating is a mathematical equation: if daily intake exceeds an
individual’s daily requirement, he will gradually increase in weight and vice versa
in the case of a gradual reduction in energy intake. Obviously the aim of a cor-
rect diet is to provide all the substances necessary for the metabolism to function,
while maintaining an ideal body weight. It is well-known that an unbalanced and
incomplete diet which is either too rich or too poor is considered responsible for
the insurgence of many pathologies (FAO, IFAD and WFP 2015). In industrial-
ized countries, for example, the most common are diabetes and cardiovascular dis-
ease linked to a gradual increase in food consumption and to the growing problem
of obesity. In Europe for example, the kilocalories available daily per capita have
increased from 3,255 in 1970 to 3,359 in 2010 representing an increase of just
over 3 %. To be more specific, the protein resources available—measured in grams
per head per day—have increased by 6 % whilst the fats available have increased
as much as 23 %. The situation in America reveals even more worrying data:
there has been an approximate increase of 20 % in available energy from 1970 to
2010, the increase in protein resources is about 13 % whereas for fats it is almost
34 % (FAO 2013). In Europe, it maybe the gradual change in the type of food
consumed, increasingly oriented towards global models compared with the past,
rather than the quantity of food which presents a greater cause for concern.
From Chaps. 5–7, we describe the role of the different types of nutrition label
in informing the consumer and assessing product quality. In particular, we are
going to examine and highlight the main characteristics, differences and informa-
tional limitations of European and North American methods of labeling. Finally, in
the light of recent developments suggested in the literature, we analyze new pro-
posals for food labeling which aims to make the understanding of product quality
simpler and more immediate.
The authors, while aware of the shortcomings of this analysis and of the need
for further study and developments in sister disciplines hope that an awareness of
the issues raised will, on the one hand, put the consumer in a position to make
more rational choices, less conditioned by innovative slogans from the food indus-
try (rem tibi quam scieri saptam dimittere noli, Catone, Distici, 2,26) and, on the
other, encourage the industry to provide better information for the consumer, who
has always been the weak link in the food chain.
References 3

References

2013 Food Balance Sheets for 42 selected countries (2013). Statistics Division of Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. http://faostat3.fao.org/download/FB/FBS/E.
Accessed June 2015.
FAO, IFAD, & WFP. (2015). The state of food insecurity in the world. Resource document.
http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4646e.pdf. Accessed June 2015.
Pollan, M. (2008). In defense of food. New York: Penguin Press.
Rozin, P., Ashmore, M., & Markwith, M. (1996). lay American conceptions of nutrition: dose
insensitivity, categorical thinking, contagion, and the monotonic mind. Health Psychology,
15(6), 438–447.
Chapter 2
Literature Analysis on Consumer
Understanding of Nutrition Information

Abstract With the continuous introduction of new products claiming nutrition

and health benefits, the development of food market reveals some issues with
regards to consumer understanding and perception of these actual messages. In
general, many questions arise regarding the effective comprehension of nutrition
information—made by consumers on food and in promotion—and about the actual
use of such information in food choices and purchasing decisions, in order to sup-
port a healthy diet concept. Indeed, it seems that many consumers have difficulty
in understanding nutritional information and prefer simpler ways in providing
such information, which is able to help them in the rapid evaluation of nutritional
characteristics of a foodstuff. In addition, specific consumer features and condi-
tions influence their preferences and perception of foods with health-related bene-
fits. In the present chapter, results are presented from a literature review on factors
influencing consumer perception, understanding and use of nutrition information
made on food. Finally, some results achieved by the selected papers are analyzed,
and implications discussed.

 ackground: Consumer Food Choices and Nutrition

B
Information

The social and economic welfare and the large availability of foods on the mar-
ket have increased consumption and daily caloric intake (FAO 2013). Nutrition
and medical science have tried to steer consumers towards food choices by meet-
ing health and well-being demands. The demand for food products that promote
health and nutrition benefits has really boosted (Leatherhead Food Research 2014)
during the last few years, thereby encouraging the food industry to innovate and
develop new products with improved nutritional properties. Food health benefits
are among the most important innovation drivers of the global food and drink
market, also due to an increasing ageing population in richer countries (Robinson
2014). Foods with health-related benefits are generally called functional foods.

© The Author(s) 2016 5

A. Tarabella and B. Burchi, Aware Food Choices: Bridging the Gap Between
Consumer Knowledge About Nutritional Requirements and Nutritional Information,
SpringerBriefs in Food, Health, and Nutrition, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-23856-2_2
6 2 Literature Analysis on Consumer …

The latter has several definitions which vary from simple “foods that may provide
health benefits beyond basic nutrition”, to complex “food similar in appearance
to conventional food, that is intended to be consumed as part of a normal diet, but
has been modified to subserve physiological roles beyond the provision of simple
nutrient requirements” (Roberfroid 2000, p. 13). In any case, healthy properties
of foods have to be communicated because they are typically credence attributes
that must be conveyed to consumers through information (Darby and Karni 1973),
and their best carriers are labels, as well as claims made on the package and in
promotion. During the last few years, several nutrition information formats and
many terms expressing health-related benefits have appeared on food packages
in order to support consumer choices (Carrillo et al. 2012). Given the increasing
amount of several differentiated formats continuously appearing on the market,
worldwide legislators have tried to rule nutrition information made on food pack-
ages in order to protect consumers and their preferences from misleading mes-
sages. However, today some concerns still exist about the actual contribution of
this information, to help consumers in a healthier food consumption. These issues
have mostly a dual origin: the existing differences between worldwide regulations
regarding information on food; and the actual impact of nutrition information on
consumer food preferences for a healthier diet, namely, if consumers use nutrition
information in their food decision-making and food choices. However, the recent
modifications in regulations and the new or subsequent introduction of mandatory
nutrition labelling in many countries, European Union included, seem to trace a
converging trend, which can help overcome the former detected obstacle (EUFIC
2015). The impact that nutrition information has on food preferences can relate
to the consumer competence regarding the understanding of nutrition information
on food. To this regard, the numerous studies and analysis that have been con-
ducted with time, reveal mixed results (Lähteenmäki et al. 2010). The first results
of a research carried out by the authors seem to highlight that consumers have a
general knowledge of correct nutrition, but they scarcely use their knowledge in
food decision-making and purchasing. Annunziata and Vecchio (2012) have also
reported that consumers do not use nutrition information made in foods packages,
and in particular, on food labels, because it is not easy to understand. Consumer
knowledge on nutrition information and its use in food choices seems to be largely
influenced by subjective features and personal conditions such as age, interest in
healthy habits and social status (Grunert et al. 2010). It should also be noted that
purchasing impulses may be originated by both internal personal convictions, and
external signals (Shepherd 1989). In fact, food preferences are influenced by sen-
sory and non-sensory factors, which concur to shape consumer perception (Ares
et al. 2010). Therefore, worldwide legislators shall take into consideration all
aspects influencing consumer perception regarding nutrition messages, in order to
define a globally harmonized nutrition information format that is really able to cre-
ate an impact on consumer food preferences. Such a label could really be used as
the preferred driver of the decision-making process in healthier food choices. This
chapter aims at contributing to provide information regarding consumer under-
standing of nutrition information, and factors affecting the related knowledge and
Background: Consumer Food Choices and Nutrition Information 7

use through an extensive literature review of the empirical analyses published.

Findings may help the food industry enhance nutrition labelling, and governments
to create a coherent and unique framework for the mandatory use of nutrition
information, so as to help consumers.

Methods of Literature Review

The literature review has been developed using a rigorous protocol selection for
papers, which has consisted in searching for keywords from the databases. In
particular, computer research has taken the Web of Science (hereinafter WoS)
into consideration, Scopus and European Business Source Complete (hereinafter
EBSCO). Keywords have been chosen in order to obtain a large panel of papers.
Only one set of primary strings has been applied to databases, without refining the
first stage of computer research with secondary keywords. In particular, the exact
phrase “consumer* understanding” has been searched for in abstracts by using
the Boolean operator OR with the exact phrase “consumer* comprehension” and
the operators AND and OR, respectively, with the words “food” and “nutrition”.
Relevance of papers returned from EBSCO has been assured by limiting results to
papers published in Academic Journals. No filter regarding the date of publication
has been applied. The selection protocol has returned 377 abstracts: 105 have been
deleted because they are replications, and 272 have been manually sorted by rel-
evance to the paper objectives. In this way, more than 130 papers (132) have been
detected in order to be analyzed. The discarded 142 papers did not meet the objec-
tives of the research, i.e. they do not deal with consumer comprehension of labels
made on foods packages, or in food promotion. The remaining papers were first
sorted according to the type of label treated, and the results of these classifications
are shown in Fig. 2.1. Given that some papers (5 %) have investigated the level
of consumer understanding of nutrition information suggested by nutrition guides,
the latter have been considered as nutritional information labels, in order to make
classification easier.
The cluster called nutritional information includes all papers dealing with
research, and studies on all existing formats of nutritional information made on
food packages, such as nutrition labelling—namely the US facts panel or the EU
nutrition declaration—and daily energy requirements, nutrition and health claims,
traffic lights and other different forms of FoPs. In addition, sustainable food refers
to all products labelled with ethical, environmental or quality certification, as
well as with traceability of country of origin indications, or produced with more
sustainable practices. For both clusters, a detailed list of the considered labels is
reported close to the relative graphic sector.
As shown in Fig. 2.2, computer search has returned papers published starting
from 1978. With time, there has been an increasing attention to consumer under-
standing or perception of food labels by scientific literature, and in the last few
years, this attention has been specifically focused on labels containing nutrition
8 2 Literature Analysis on Consumer …

Alternative agri-food networks certification

Carbon footprinting labeling
Country of Origin label
Fair Trade labelling and Organic Fair Trade labelling
Organic labelling
Quality certification label
Farmers market foods
Local food
Sustainable food

Daily Energy Requirements

Sustainable food Displayed Nutrition information at PoS
21% Food Safety Messages
FoPs
Frequency Consumption Terms
Functional Food claims
Glycaemic index
Health claims
Health information
Menu Nutrition / Calorie Labeling
Genetically
Nutrient profiling
Modified Food Nutrition claims
9% Nutrition labelling
Satiety claims
Trans Fat Information
Nutritional
Nutrition
information
Guide
65%
5%

Fig. 2.1  Food labels treated in the analyzed papers

Fig. 2.2  The time distribution of the analyzed papers

Methods of Literature Review 9

information, or suggesting product sustainability. However, within the scope of the

present work, only papers showing the assessment of consumer comprehension
of nutrition information and nutrition guides have been analyzed in depth in the
content. Specifically, the text analysis of the resulting 93 papers took objectives,
results and the country of investigation into consideration. Objectives of these
articles are mostly classified in Understanding and use of nutritional information,
including factors influencing them, and in Nutritional information policy /regula-
tion effectiveness. In particular, the first cluster also includes papers analyzing the
general attitude of consumers towards foodstuffs showing nutritional information
labels or representations, and how these formats affect consumer preferences and
purchasing behavior. The level of consumer understanding on nutrition informa-
tion and the relation with the use of such information to promote awareness in
food choices were extracted from results of the selected papers, as well as fea-
tures—personal, objective, or contextual—influencing such a level, and consumer
perception.

 esults on Consumer Understanding of Nutrition

R
Information

About 18 % of the resulting 93 papers focus on evaluating the effective-ness of

current policies or systems in providing nutritional information to consumers. In
particular, these papers specifically deal with health claims (Nocella and Kennedy
2012; O’Connor 2011; Richardson 2012, 2014; Jun and Yeo 2008), general nutri-
tion labelling (Best and McCullough 1978; Hurt 2002; Moss 2006), nutrient profil-
ing (Bryans 2009; Nafziger 2008; Scarborough et al. 2007), functional food claims
(Hirahara 2005; Taylor 2004), food and nutrition guide (Pijls et al. 2009; Shaw
et al. 2000), Glycemic index (Slabber 2005), and both nutrition and health claims
(Aschemann-Witzel 2011). In addition, two of them also propose new formats for
nutrient profiling and food guide respectively, in order to facilitate consumers in a
healthier consumption of food (Scarborough et al. 2007; Shaw et al. 2000). These
17 papers show interesting and more effective cues for the policy and regulation
review, in order to define nutritional information systems in protecting consumers,
while promoting market differentiation and innovation in food industry. However,
they do not provide useful insight on the level of consumer understanding of nutri-
tion information made on food, and relative use for food choices. Such evidence is
shown by most papers included in the specific cluster called Understanding and use
of nutritional information. As reported in Fig. 2.3, more than 90 % of these papers
have investigated the level of consumer understanding on nutritional information
made on food package, while only 6 % have carried out a similar research by tak-
ing nutrition indications suggested by food or nutrition guides into consideration.
With regard to the latter, they prove that there is a general understanding of nutri-
tion key concepts provided by the food pyramid, but specific knowledge of correct
food group placement and appropriate serving size is very poor (Britten et al. 2006;
10 2 Literature Analysis on Consumer …

Nutritional information
94%

Nutrition claims
ims
Trans Fat Information

5% beling /
La ion
7%
cl a
4%

orie trit
d

lth
Cal nu Nu
Foo
ctio 8%

5% ms hea
na l

i d
Me

cla nn a
tio
Fun

tri
Daily Energy Requirements

Nu
Health claims 4%
16%

FoPs
Others 3%
20%

Health information
3%

Satiety claims
3%
Nutrition labelling and FoPs
33%
Displayed Nutrition information at PoS
1%
Nutrition Guide Food Safety Messages
6% 1%
Frequency Consumption Terms
1%

Fig. 2.3  Food labels treated by papers classified under the cluster Understanding and use of
nutritional information

Tuttle 2001). In addition, Keenan et al. (2002) found that consumers have difficulty
interpreting Dietary Guidelines, and in particular, fat. Figure 2.3 shows that most
papers focusing on the analysis of consumer understanding of nutrition information
made on food have investigated the comprehension of different formats in nutrition
labelling and FoPs, as well as several nutrition and health claims. The analysis of
these papers revealed that consumer ability in correctly extracting and using nutri-
tion information from nutrition labelling is quite scarce (Fatimah et al. 2010; Jones
and Richardson 2007; Liu et al. 2015b).
Though consumers tend to perceive nutrition labelling and FoPs as a reliable
source of nutrition information, and the self-reported used of these labels is high
(Campos et al. 2011; Cowburn and Stockley 2005; Guthrie and Saltos 1995), more
objective analyses show that consumers rarely use nutrition labels in their food
choices (Cowburn and Stockley 2005; Guthrie and Saltos 1995; Liu et al. 2015b;
Mhurchu and Gorton 2007; Tessier et al. 2000). Indeed, the most important barri-
ers to using nutrition labels are firstly, the general lack of understanding, knowl-
edge and confidence with nutrition information terms, symbols, and values (Besler
et al. 2012; Jacobs et al. 2011; Liu et al. 2015b) and secondly, the format of pres-
entation (Baltas 2001; Besler et al. 2012) because consumers complain about the
font size being too small (Jacobs et al. 2011; Tessier et al. 2000). Indeed, con-
sumers demand a simplified standard with clearer and more comprehensible indi-
cations (Besler et al. 2012). Consumer understanding of labels was also affected
by the presence of FoPs (Ares et al. 2012), which is evaluated positively if in
graphical format (Geiger et al. 1991), such as the traffic light for instance (Roberto
et al. 2012). Smith Edge et al. (2014) have shown that FoP labels with complete