Several recent research papers shed light on how consumers respond to front-of-pack labels in real-life settings, finding some counter-intuitive outcomes. Confusion, misinterpretation, and deliberate ‘bad choices’ pose challenges for the application of Nutri-Score and other labels.
These labels aim to ‘nudge’ shoppers towards healthier and more sustainable food and beverage choices. But in certain cases, the opposite effect occurs – some consumers will deliberately opt for the nutritionally inferior product every time.
The first study, published in the journal Appetite last year, found that consumers can be segmented into three different groups based on their reaction to Nutri-Score labels on food products in supermarkets. The Nutri-Score, which assigns one of five coloured letter grades as a measurement of relative health to food and drink products, has been accepted or promoted by several European countries.
Researchers found that the first group, accounting for 39% of subjects, behaved roughly as the developers of the scoring system hope every shopper would – with consumers picking the healthiest option when provided with a choice of two similar products: a house brand with a better Nutri-Score, and a different brand with higher prestige but a lower Nutri-Score. Among people in this group, trust in nutrition labelling outweighs brand loyalty. The second group of shoppers (making up 29% of subjects) when faced with the same two products, remained loyal to their personal brand preference, even if its poor score is indicated on the label on the pack.
So far, the study results are in line with expectations, and policymakers or brands looking to nudge consumers to the higher Nutri-Score product would likely accept that not every shopper can be won over. However, the researchers also uncovered a sizeable third segment of shoppers, making up the remaining 30% of subjects. Unfortunately, this category seems to deliberately pick the nutritionally inferior product every time.
Writing about these findings in The Conversation last month, Elke Godden – one of the paper’s authors – notes “[t]he third group’s decisions might seem strange, but their reasoning is based on the intuition that “healthy things can’t be tasty”.
She explains that this is a significant finding, because “[i]f a significant proportion of shoppers believe that healthy products taste bad, [then] putting a healthiness-grade on the package will likely lead to them choosing unhealthier options.”
Another study published in the October 2024 issue of Food Policy investigates consumers’ ability to interpret the Nutri-Score correctly. The researchers looked at media coverage of the Nutri-Score and interviewed 15 mothers about the way they interpret the score. The study concluded that the barrage of dietary recommendations is leading to information overload among consumers.
Researchers showed that the Nutri-Score performs well on many metrics (including food choices and nutritional evaluation) compared to other labelling systems in field studies. However, the authors note that experimental evidence shows that conflicting information has harmed consumers’ ability to properly understand and interpret the information provided on the labels. The media analysis also shows that the coverage of the Nutri-Score has contributed to confusion and shifting attitudes towards the system, undermining the delivery of useful information.
Another study in the journal Appetite compares the influence of information displayed through a food scanner app versus front-of-pack labelling on purchase intentions and actual food choices, resulting in a more positive finding for the Nutri-Score system. Four studies tested whether the app influenced purchase intentions for food products (Studies 1–3) or led consumers to make healthier food choices (Study 4). The results indicate that while the app enhanced hypothetical choice and purchase intentions of healthy products compared to no information, it did not influence real behaviour in an experimental supermarket setting.
The study found that while the food scanner app can positively affect healthiness perceptions and purchase intentions towards healthy products, it is outperformed by the Nutri-Score label. For the healthiest product in the set, healthiness perceptions and purchase intentions were higher when participants saw nutritional information in a food scanner app than no nutritional information, with no difference in comparison to the label. However, for the unhealthiest product, although the app information reduced healthiness perceptions, it did not reduce purchase intentions compared to no information.
A final literature review study published in PharmaNutrition in 2024 finds that there is more research needed to validate the effectiveness of the Nutri-Score as the standard for nutrition labels. The literature review separated academic studies that were carried out by Nutri-Score developers from studies by independent authors and found that the former research had much more positive outcomes.
Studies about the Nutri-Score carried out by researchers with no connection to the system were overall unfavourable. 52 out of 56 studies done by those who are connected with the developers or employed by them were positive, whereas 61% of the 49 studies carried out by non-connected authors were negative. This leads the authors to conclude that “There is insufficient scientific evidence to support the use of NutriScore as an effective public health tool. Moreover, the available evidence is limited and biased, and more research is needed to assess the effectiveness of Nutri-Score.”
The authors recommend “golden bullet studies to determine the efficacy of Nutri-Score … based on the effect of real-life supermarket purchases based on receipts and the effect on the algorithm,” which have not been conducted to date.
