food labelling issues: quantitative research with consumers

184
FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS A Presentation to Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) Job Number C02020 May 2003

Upload: aldan

Post on 24-Feb-2016

26 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

DESCRIPTION

FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS. A Presentation to Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ). Job Number C02020 May 2003. Main Menu. LABEL ELEMENT. LABEL CONSUMERS. 1. Overview. 2. Choose Specific Element. 3. Overview. 4. Choose Consumer Segment. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERSRESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

A Presentation toFood Standards Australia New Zealand

(FSANZ)

Job Number C02020May 2003

Page 2: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

2

LABEL ELEMENT LABEL CONSUMERS

1. Overview 3. Overview2. ChooseSpecific Element

4. ChooseConsumer Segment

Click Boxes 1 to 6 for further detail

5. Background and Objectives

6. Methodology

Main MenuMain Menu

Page 3: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

3

OVERVIEW OF LABEL ELEMENTS

Click Boxes 1 to 4 for further detail

1. Needs &Attitudes

4. Label Interpretation3. Use2. Awareness

Label Element MenuLabel Element Menu

Back to Main Menu

Page 4: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

4

Ingredient List

NIP

Endorsements

Health Claim

Allergen Declaration

Nutrient Claim

Date Mark

GMO

Country of Origin

Percentage Labelling

Advisory Statement

Warning Statement

Irradiated Foods

Preparation/Storage

Novel Food

Click Label Element Box for further detail

Label Element MenuLabel Element Menu

Back to Main Menu

Page 5: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

5Background to the ResearchBackground to the ResearchIn 2002, NFO Donovan Research was commissioned to conduct a quantitative study with consumers in Australia and New Zealand. The purpose of the research was to asses the impact of the changed labelling provisions featured in the new joint Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code (the Code.) This entailed the analysis of:

consumer awareness of label elements; the level of consumer understanding of label elements; and the role of labels in making informed choices about food products.

This research is based on qualitative research conducted by NFO Donovan Research in2001 for FSANZ. It provides baseline data for the future evaluation of the new labellingprovisions in the Code, that came into full effect on 20 December 2002.

Page 6: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

6

Specifically, the research provides baseline data on the following:

What consumers currently look for in the labels of packaged food and in unpackaged food;

Whether consumers are familiar with the various major labelling elements and new labelling information.;

Whether and how consumers use labelling information, and their reasons; Concern about the clarity and trustworthiness of label elements; Whether changes to labelling have changed consumers’ purchasing

decisions, and if so in relation to which element in particular; Whether consumers are able to interpret labels correctly; Which label elements consumers find difficult to interpret.

Research ObjectivesResearch Objectives

Back to Main Menu

Page 7: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

7

Overview: The interviews were conducted door-to-door with the general public in Australia

and New Zealand during August and September 2002. All participants were aged 18 or over and a mix of main grocery shoppers and

non-grocery shoppers was obtained All participants were offered a $2 scratch lottery ticket as an incentive to take

part in the research. The total number of interviews conducted was n=1940

MethodologyMethodology

Sydney Melbourne Perth Adelaide Hobart Canberra Darwin Brisbane

Australian = 1259

New Zealandn = 681

Auckland Christchurch Whangarei Hamilton Tauranga Rotorua Gisborne Invercargill

NapierHastingsPalmerston NthDunedinWanganuiNelsonTimaru

Page 8: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

8

The Questionnaire

The questionnaire was developed in close consultation with FSANZ, to be administered face to face to consumers in the major cities of Australia and New Zealand.

Interviews were conducted door-to-door, by interviewers from IQCA accredited fieldwork companies : SurveyTalk (Australia) and NFO New Zealand.

All interviewers were fully briefed on the project in person, and all efforts were made to ensure they had a high degree of familiarity and comprehension of the questionnaire.

The final version of the questionnaire was 26 pages in length, and the average interview running time was 34 minutes in New Zealand and 30 minutes in Australia

MethodologyMethodology

Page 9: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

9

Pre-test and Pilot TestThe development and testing of the questionnaire and stimulus materials

included four stages:Stage 1: Consultation with and extensive feedback from key FSANZ staff in Australia

and New Zealand, on the questionnaire framework and flow chart, developed by NFO Donovan Research.

Stage 2: Question pre-testing using cognitive interviewing and group discussions.Stage 3: Formal pilot in Australia (Sydney) via n=30 interviews, followed by interviewer

debrief. Improvements to question wording, length and stimulus materials were made after this stage.

Stage 4: Formal pilot in New Zealand (Auckland) via n=20 interviews, followed by

interviewer debrief.

MethodologyMethodology

Page 10: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

11Sample DemographicsSample DemographicsThe table below details the age categories of survey participants, compared to National 2001 Census Data collected by the Australian Bureau of Statistics and Statistics New Zealand (2001).

Denotes a statistically significant difference within the subgroups at the 95% confidence level

Page 11: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

12Sample DemographicsSample DemographicsGender, Ethnicity and LanguageDemographics of the sample Education statistics of the sample

Denotes a statistically significant difference within the subgroups at the 95% confidence level

Aust. %

N.Z %

Total %

Primary School 5 2 4

Year 10/ Form 5 (NZ) 20 24 21

Year 11 or 12/ Form 6 (NZ) 28 20 25

Trade quals. 9 7 8Certificate/ diploma 16 18 16

Degree 17 19 18Higher quals 5 10 7

Highest Level of Education

Aust. %

NZ %

Total %

Male 29 36 33Female 71 64 67

Aboriginal / Maori 1 11 4

Torres Strait /Pacific Islander

0.1 6 2

English 89 91 89Other 11 10 11

Language

Gender

Ethnicity

Page 12: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

13Sample DemographicsSample DemographicsHousehold situation statistics of the sample

Proportion of main grocery shoppers in the sample, and reported income brackets of all participants

**Total household income proportions do notaccount for currency exchange rates between Australia and New Zealand

Denotes a statistically significant difference within the subgroups at the 95% confidence level

Back to Main Menu

Page 13: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

14Special NeedsSpecial Needs

2%

3%

3%

4%

4%

5%

6%

7%

7%

8%

8%

11%

18%

21%

41%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

None

High BP/cholesterol

General health

Asthma

Diabetes

Food allergy, excluding nuts

Heart disease

Weightloss

Vegetarian / vegan

Migraine

Digestive

Allergy to nuts

Training for sports

Religous / ethical beliefs

Pregnancy / breast feeding

Q1. Do you or any members of your family have any special needs listed on this card and are therefore more careful about choosing food products?BASE: All respondents n=1940

Page 14: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

15AttitudesAttitudes

3%

8%

34%

43%

12%

2%5%

43%

39%

13%

3%

9%

30%

45%

10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

I'm not at allconcerned about thehealth or nutritional

value of the foods thatI choose

I usually don't worryabout the health or

nutritional value

I sometimes like tochoose healthy ornutritious foods

depending on cost andconvenience

I regularly choose thehealthy alternative

I always choose thehealthy alternative

Total Australia New Zealand

Q2. Here are five statements about buying food and I’d like you to tell me which one best describes how you feel when buying food for your household.BASE: All respondents n=1940

Denotes a statistically significant difference between the subgroups at the 95% confidence level

Page 15: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

16Attitudes by Special NeedsAttitudes by Special Needs

3%

8%

34%

43%

12%

1%4%

31%

50%

14%

5%

12%

39%

33%

9%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

I'm not at allconcerned about thehealth or nutritional

value of the foods thatI choose

I usually don't worryabout the health or

nutritional value

I sometimes like tochoose healthy ornutritious foods

depending on cost andconvenience

I regularly choose thehealthy alternative

I always choose thehealthy alternative

Total Special Needs No Special Needs

Q2. Here are five statements about buying food and I’d like you to tell me which one best describes how you feel when buying food for your household.BASE: All respondents n=1940

Denotes a statistically significant difference between the subgroups at the 95% confidence level

Page 16: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

17Attitudes by GenderAttitudes by Gender

3%

8%

34%

43%

12%

5%

11%

38% 37%

9%

2%

6%

32%

46%

14%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

I'm not at allconcerned about thehealth or nutritional

value of the foods thatI choose

I usually don't worryabout the health or

nutritional value

I sometimes like tochoose healthy ornutritious foods

depending on cost andconvenience

I regularly choose thehealthy alternative

I always choose thehealthy alternative

Total Male Female

Q2. Here are five statements about buying food and I’d like you to tell me which one best describes how you feel when buying food for your household.BASE: All respondents n=1940

Denotes a statistically significant difference between the subgroups at the 95% confidence level

Page 17: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

18Attitudes by AgeAttitudes by Age

3%

8%

34%

43%

12%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

I'm not at allconcerned about thehealth or nutritional

value of the foods thatI choose

I usually don't worryabout the health or

nutritional value

I sometimes like tochoose healthy ornutritious foods

depending on cost andconvenience

I regularly choose thehealthy alternative

I always choose thehealthy alternative

Total 18-24 25-44 45-64 65+ years

Q2. Here are five statements about buying food and I’d like you to tell me which one best describes how you feel when buying food for your household.BASE: All respondents n=1940

Page 18: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

19Attitudes by AgeAttitudes by Age

3%

8%

34%

43%

12%

6%

15%

47%

21%

2%

42%

2%5%

51%

14%

10%7%

37%

11%

28%

5%7%

30%

46%

12%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

I'm not at allconcerned about thehealth or nutritional

value of the foods thatI choose

I usually don't worryabout the health or

nutritional value

I sometimes like tochoose healthy ornutritious foods

depending on cost andconvenience

I regularly choose thehealthy alternative

I always choose thehealthy alternative

Total 18-24 25-44 45-64 65+ years

Q2. Here are five statements about buying food and I’d like you to tell me which one best describes how you feel when buying food for your household.BASE: All respondents n=1940

Denotes a statistically significant difference to unmarked subgroups at the 95% confidence level

Page 19: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

20Specific Consumer AttitudesSpecific Consumer Attitudes

“I’ve always been able to find any information I need on a food or drink label.”

“When I read the labels on food products, I just focus on one of two things, such as the levels of fat or if there are preservatives.”

“Generally speaking, it’s easy to understand and use the information on food labels.”

“I find some information on food labels really useful or important.”

“It’s hard to tell which parts of the label are advertising and which are standard information manufacturers have to put on it.”

“I don’t have enough time to read food labels when I’m shopping even if I wanted to.”

Q3. Here are a number of things other people have said about selecting food products. How strongly do you agree or disagree with each statement?

Page 20: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

21

15%

37%

32%

7%

9%

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Attitudes continuedAttitudes continuedQ3. How strongly do you agree or disagree with each statement?BASE: All respondents n=1940

“I’ve always been able to find any information I need on a food or drink label.”

Denotes a statistically significant difference in overall agreement or disagreement (combined strongly or tend to) between the subgroups at the 95% confidence level

Strongly agree Tend to agree Neither agree or disagree Tend to disagree Strongly disagree

Page 21: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

22Attitudes continuedAttitudes continued

15% 16% 13%25% 18% 12% 13% 18%

37% 38%35%

49%43%

32% 35%41%

6%

7%

32% 30% 34%

9%24%

38% 36%26%

6%

11%

7%

6%

8%

16%

9%6%7%

10%

2%

9%9%9%

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Q3. How strongly do you agree or disagree with each statement?BASE: All respondents n=1940

Health ConsciousCountryTotal

“I’ve always been able to find any information I need on a food or drink label.”

Special Needs

38%

65%48%

Strongly agree Tend to agree Neither agree or disagree Tend to disagree Strongly disagree

Denotes a statistically significant difference in overall agreement or disagreement (combined strongly or tend to) between the subgroups at the 95% confidence level

41%

51%

Page 22: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

23

49%

15%

15%

16%

5%

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Attitudes continuedAttitudes continuedQ3. How strongly do you agree or disagree with each statement?BASE: All respondents n=1940

“When I read the labels on food products, I just focus on one of two things, such as the levels of fat or if there are preservatives.”

Strongly agree Tend to agree Neither agree or disagree Tend to disagree Strongly disagree

Denotes a statistically significant difference in overall agreement or disagreement (combined strongly or tend to) between the subgroups at the 95% confidence level

Page 23: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

24Attitudes continuedAttitudes continued

25%10% 12% 19%

49% 50% 46% 25%47%

52% 50%46%

16% 13%

16% 16% 19% 15% 16% 15%

5% 5%

15% 15% 15% 21%

16%13%

14%

18%13%15%

16% 17%4%

5%18%5%5%

5%

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Australia

New Zealand

Not at A

ll

Moderately

Highly Yes No

Q3. How strongly do you agree or disagree with each statement?BASE: All respondents n=1940

Health ConsciousCountryTotal

“When I read the labels on food products, I just focus on one of two things, such as the levels of fat or if there are preservatives.”

Special Needs

68%

Strongly agree Tend to agree Neither agree or disagree Tend to disagree Strongly disagree

Denotes a statistically significant difference in overall agreement or disagreement (combined strongly or tend to) between the subgroups at the 95% confidence level

60%

39%

Page 24: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

25

43%

17%

10%

23%

7%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Attitudes continuedAttitudes continuedQ3. How strongly do you agree or disagree with each statement?BASE: All respondents n=1940

“Generally speaking, it’s easy to understand and use the information on food labels.”

Strongly agree Tend to agree Neither agree or disagree Tend to disagree Strongly disagree

Denotes a statistically significant difference in overall agreement or disagreement (combined strongly or tend to) between the subgroups at the 95% confidence level

Page 25: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

26Attitudes continuedAttitudes continued

25%16% 15% 19%

43% 42% 45%35%

45% 42% 43%43%

9%10%

24% 21%5%

21% 26% 20%

7%7%

17% 18% 15% 18%

9%9%

19%13%8%10%

23% 25%

6% 7%

9%

5%8%7%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Australia

New Zealand

Not at a

ll

Moderately

Highly Yes No

Q3. How strongly do you agree or disagree with each statement?BASE: All respondents n=1940

Health ConsciousCountryTotal

“Generally speaking, it’s easy to understand and use the information on food labels.”

Special Needs

50%

27%

Strongly agree Tend to agree Neither agree or disagree Tend to disagree Strongly disagree

Denotes a statistically significant difference in overall agreement or disagreement (combined strongly or tend to) between the subgroups at the 95% confidence level

33%

58%

14%

Page 26: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

27Attitudes continuedAttitudes continued

15%

54%

23%

6%

1%

-35%

-15%

5%

25%

45%

65%

85%

Q3. How strongly do you agree or disagree with each statement?BASE: All respondents n=1940

“I find some information on food labels really useful or important.”

Strongly agree Tend to agree Neither agree or disagree Tend to disagree Strongly disagree

Denotes a statistically significant difference in overall agreement or disagreement (combined strongly or tend to) between the subgroups at the 95% confidence level

Page 27: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

28Attitudes continuedAttitudes continuedQ3. How strongly do you agree or disagree with each statement?BASE: All respondents n=1940

Health ConsciousCountryTotal“I find some information on food labels really useful or important.”

Special Needs

Strongly agree Tend to agree Neither agree or disagree Tend to disagree Strongly disagree

Denotes a statistically significant difference in overall agreement or disagreement (combined strongly or tend to) between the subgroups at the 95% confidence level

15% 16% 13% 18% 23%9% 12%

20%

54% 55%52% 33%

52%

56% 54%54%

28% 17%

5% 7%

23% 20%28%

12%

16%27%

7%6% 5%

25%

7% 6%

2%1%1% 1%1%

7%

1%1%

-35%

-15%

5%

25%

45%

65%

85%

84%45%

Page 28: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

29Attitudes continuedAttitudes continued

21%

35%

26%

12%

5%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Q3. How strongly do you agree or disagree with each statement?BASE: All respondents n=1940

“It’s hard to tell which parts of the label are advertising and which are standard information manufacturers have to put on it.”

Strongly agree Tend to agree Neither agree or disagree Tend to disagree Strongly disagree

Denotes a statistically significant difference in overall agreement or disagreement (combined strongly or tend to) between the subgroups at the 95% confidence level

Page 29: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

30Attitudes continuedAttitudes continued

21% 23% 19%28% 23% 20% 19% 25%

35% 35%34%

23% 36%35% 36%

33%

12% 12%

26% 24% 29% 28% 23% 28% 26% 25%

5% 5%

13%12%14%11%

13%12%

5%5%

2%5%

4%5%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Q3. How strongly do you agree or disagree with each statement?BASE: All respondents n=1940

Health ConsciousCountryTotal

“It’s hard to tell which parts of the label are advertising and which are standard information manufacturers have to put on it.”

Special Needs

28%

28%

Strongly agree Tend to agree Neither agree or disagree Tend to disagree Strongly disagree

Denotes a statistically significant difference in overall agreement or disagreement (combined strongly or tend to) between the subgroups at the 95% confidence level

34%30%

Page 30: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

31Attitudes continuedAttitudes continued

18%

24%

36%

7%

15%

-80%

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Q3. How strongly do you agree or disagree with each statement?BASE: All respondents n=1940

“I don’t have enough time to read food labels when I’m shopping even if I wanted to.”

Strongly agree Tend to agree Neither agree or disagree Tend to disagree Strongly disagree

Denotes a statistically significant difference in overall agreement or disagreement (combined strongly or tend to) between the subgroups at the 95% confidence level

Page 31: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

32Attitudes continuedAttitudes continued

18% 18% 16% 19% 23%13% 16% 20%

24% 26%20%

25%28%

20% 22%26%4%

10%

36% 35% 37%23% 28%

42% 38% 32%

20%

12%

6%

10%21%

7%7%7%

10%

18%

12%

19%13%15%

-80%

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Q3. How strongly do you agree or disagree with each statement?BASE: All respondents n=1940

Health ConsciousCountryTotal

“I don’t have enough time to read food labels when I’m shopping even if I wanted to.”

Special Needs

33%

38%

27%

62%

36%28%

Strongly agree Tend to agree Neither agree or disagree Tend to disagree Strongly disagree

Denotes a statistically significant difference in overall agreement or disagreement (combined strongly or tend to) between the subgroups at the 95% confidence level

35%

Page 32: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

33Attitudes continuedAttitudes continued

17%

37%

32%

10%

4%

-30%

-10%

10%

30%

50%

70%

90%

110%

Q3. How strongly do you agree or disagree with each statement?BASE: All respondents n=1940

“I’m very interested in food label information.”

Strongly agree Tend to agree Neither agree or disagree Tend to disagree Strongly disagree

Denotes a statistically significant difference in overall agreement or disagreement (combined strongly or tend to) between the subgroups at the 95% confidence level

Page 33: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

34

17% 17% 17% 10%28%

9% 14% 21%

37% 39% 34%

18%

34%

41%38%

36%

45%23%

4%14%1%

6%

39%17%

16%

37%30%32%

10% 10% 7%16%25%

9%

5%

2%

32%

3%4%4%

-35%

-15%

5%

25%

45%

65%

85%

105%

Australia

New Zealand

Not at a

ll

Moderately

Highly Yes No

Health ConsciousCountryTotal Special Needs

51% 86%

34%

Attitudes continuedAttitudes continuedQ3. How strongly do you agree or disagree with each statement?BASE: All respondents n=1940

“I’m very interested in food label information.”

Strongly agree Tend to agree Neither agree or disagree Tend to disagree Strongly disagree

Denotes a statistically significant difference in overall agreement or disagreement (combined strongly or tend to) between the subgroups at the 95% confidence level

Return to Overview of Label Elements Menu

Page 34: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

35AwarenessAwareness

• Unprompted awareness measures the respondent's ability to recall a food labelling element, it provides an indication of what elements are more ‘top of mind’ than others.

• However, for this study, it is not the best way to report awareness of specific label elements, particularly given the number of different elements included in the study, that some elements are much newer than others, and that some elements are similar or related to each other.

• It was known from the qualitative research that some consumers described quite incorrectly the features of particular elements, and others use one label element name and mean another (eg nutrient claim vs NIP; ingredients list vs allergen declaration).

• For these reasons prompted awareness (measured using label illustrations) is a more realistic and accurate measure of awareness. Prompted awareness measures recognition - a more appropriate mental task, and thus a more accurate measure of 'true awareness'. Therefore throughout this study, we refer to and report in more detail on prompted measures of awareness.

Page 35: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

36Awareness (unprompted)Awareness (unprompted)Q4a. Firstly, thinking about all of the different types of food products available to buy, can you tell me what kinds of information can be found on packaged food and drink products?BASE: All respondents n=1940

6%

9%9%

10%

13%

14%14%

14%

17%17%

21%25%

40%49%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Ingredient List

NIP

Date Mark

Specific Nutrients (other than fat, sugar)

Country of Origin

Fat

Additives

Weight

Percentage (%) Label

Brand

Nutrient Claim

Sugar

Price

Specific nutrient claims

Recognised

Page 36: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

37Awareness continuedAwareness continuedQ4a. Firstly, thinking about all of the different types of food products available to buy, can you tell me what kinds of information can be found on packaged food and drink products?BASE: All respondents n=1940

11%

0%

3%

3%

4%

4%

4%

6%

6%

7%

8%

8%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Specific Ingredients

Manufacturer

Preparation / storage instr

Specific Nutrient Claims

Endorsements

Warning statement

Allergen declaration

Health Claim

Advisory statement

GMO

Novel food & Irradiated food

All other mentions

Recognised

Page 37: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

38Awareness (prompted)Awareness (prompted)

Q4b. These pictures show 16 different types of information found on labels. Which of these do you recognise?

Page 38: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

39Awareness (prompted)Awareness (prompted)

Q4b. These pictures show 16 different types of information found on labels. Which of these do you recognise?

Click herefor more

information

Page 39: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

40

65%

7%

70%

10%

62%

14%

80%

17%

93%

25%

86%

40%

89%

49%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Ingredients

NIP

Date Mark

Country of Origin

Percentage (%) label

Nutrient Claim

Preparation / storage instr

Awareness (prompted)Awareness (prompted)Q4b. These pictures show 16 different types of information found on labels. Which of these do you recognise?

Unprompted awareness Prompted awareness (recognised)

Page 40: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

41

6%

0%

12%

0%

33%

3%

59%

3%

24%

4%

43%

4%

60%

4%

42%

6%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Endorsements

Warning statement

Allergen declaration

Health claim

Advisory statement

GMO

Novel food

Irradiated foods

Awareness (prompted)Awareness (prompted)Q4b. These pictures show 16 different types of information found on labels. Which of these do you recognise?

Unprompted awareness Prompted awareness (recognised)

Return to Overview of Label Elements Menu

Page 41: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

42

22%

22%

32%

37%

39%

45%

49%

66%

66%

85%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Date mark

Ingredients

NIP

Country of origin

Preparation / storage instr

Endorsements

Nutrient claim

Percentage (%) label

Warning statement

Advisory statement

Use of label elementsUse of label elementsQ4c. Which of these types of information do you use?

BASE: All respondents n=1940

Use

Page 42: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

43Use of label elements continuedUse of label elements continuedQ4c. Which of these types of information do you use?

BASE: All respondents n=1940

3%

9%

13%

14%

16%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

GMO

Health claim

Allergen declaration

Novel food

Irradiated food

Use

Page 43: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

44Use of label elementsUse of label elementsQ4d. Thinking about all the different types of foods and drinks that you buy, which three types of information do you use the most?BASE: All respondents n=1940

22%

22%

32%

37%

39%

45%

49%

66%

66%

85%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Date mark

Ingredients

NIP

Country of origin

Preparation / storage instr

Endorsements

Nutrient claim

Percentage (%) label

Warning statement

Advisory statement

Use most

Page 44: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

45Use of label elements continuedUse of label elements continued

BASE: All respondents n=1940

Q4d. Thinking about all the different types of foods and drinks that you buy, which three types of information do you use the most?

3%

9%

13%

14%

16%

66%

85%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Date mark

Ingredients

GMO

Health Claim

Allergen Declaration

Novel Food

Irradiated Food

Use most

Page 45: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

46

22% 33% 17% 28%

21% 34% 29% 16%

26% 35% 20% 20%

14% 34% 32% 20%

20% 31% 19% 30%

18% 31% 20% 31%

8% 24% 67% 1%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Date Mark

Ingredients

NIP

Country of Origin

Preparation / storage instr

Endorsements

Nutrient Claim

Only occasionally Most of the time Everytime When I buy for the first time

Nature of element useNature of element useQ5b. When buying [nominated food type] ... how often do you look at [element]...?

n=1277

n=1276

n=235

n=613

n=725

n=1639

n=70

n=119

n=378

Page 46: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

47

18% 32% 40% 11%

24% 32% 18% 26%

19% 30% 30% 21%

20% 28% 29% 23%

16% 35% 28% 21%

10% 29% 45% 16%

27% 27% 21% 24%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Advisory statement

GMO

Health claims

Allergen declaration

Novel food

Percentage (%) label

Warning Statement

Only occassionally Most of the time Everytime When I buy for the first time

Nature of element useNature of element useQ5b. When buying ... how often do you look at ...?

n=80

n=324

n=71

n=43

n=338

Page 47: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

48

7% 63% 30%

3% 42% 55%

3% 60% 36%

16% 52% 32%

7% 64% 30%

8% 63% 29%

10% 46% 44%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Date Mark

Ingredients

NIP

Country of origin

Preparation / storage instr

Endorsements

Nutrient claim

Not very clear Fairly clear Very clear

Nature of element use - clarity of Nature of element use - clarity of elementelement

Q5c. Which of the following best describes how clear and easy to understand you think ... is?

n=723

n=1277

n=1277

n=235

n=615

n=1635

n=70

Page 48: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

49

7% 58% 35%

12% 57% 31%

8% 56% 35%

29% 51% 20%

4% 64% 31%

8% 56% 36%

8% 59% 33%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Percentage (%) label

Warning statement

Advisory statement

GMO

Health claims

Allergen declaration

Novel food

Not very clear Fairly clear Very clear

Nature of element use - clarity of Nature of element use - clarity of elementelement

Q5c. Which of the following best describes how clear and easy to understand you think ... is?

Base for Irradiated foods (n=7) - too small to report

n=117

n=380

n=80

n=324

n=71

n=43

n=336

Page 49: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

50Reasons why element is not as Reasons why element is not as

clear as it could be (main reasons)clear as it could be (main reasons)Ingredients (n=93): Scientific language (39%)

Elements not listed had bases too small to provide valid reporting

NIP (n=78): Vague / confusing terms (35%)Incomplete / not enough detail (32%)

Allergen declaration (n=28): Scientific language (25%)

Percentage label (n=47): Incomplete / not enough detail (40%)

Nutrient claim (n=46): Vague / confusing terms (30%)Incomplete / not enough detail (24%)

Date mark (n=157): Can’t find it / hidden (62%)

Page 50: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

51

10% 49% 41%

13% 52% 35%

14% 57% 29%

7% 40% 53%

2% 48% 50%

13% 47% 40%

15% 55% 31%

17% 54% 29%

5% 42% 53%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Date Mark

Ingredients

NIP

Country of origin

Preparation / storage instr

Endorsements

Nutrient claim

Percentage (%) label

Warning statement

I'm not sure whether to trust it or not I'm pretty sure I trust what it says I trust what it says

Nature of element use - Nature of element use - trustworthiness of elementtrustworthiness of element

Q5d. How much do you feel you can trust the information given in the ...?

n=1271

n=234

n=614

n=721

n=1630

n=70

n=118

n=377

n=1271

Page 51: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

52

16% 49% 35%

10% 53% 37%

13% 52% 35%

27% 51% 23%

13% 53% 34%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Advisory statement

GMO

Health claims

Allergen declaration

Novel food

I'm not sure whether to trust it or not I'm pretty sure I trust what it says I trust what it says

Nature of element use - Nature of element use - trustworthiness of element cont’dtrustworthiness of element cont’d

Q5d. How much do you feel you can trust the information given in the ...?

Base for Irradiated foods (n=7) - too small to report

n=79

n=321

n=71

n=43

n=336

Page 52: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

53Reasons for doubting how trustworthy an Reasons for doubting how trustworthy an element is element is (main reason, open-ended question)(main reason, open-ended question)

Ingredients (n=194): Too vague / it doesn’t tell you what you want (40%)

NIP (n=185): Companies lie on labels (26%)

Percentage label (n=47): Companies lie on labels (24%)

Nutrient claim (n=46): Companies lie on labels (27%)

Date mark (n=77): Negative previous experience (17%)Best before doesn’t tell you how fresh it is (12%)

Country of origin (n=49): Suspicious of imported products / foreign language (71%)

Page 53: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

54

Main reasons for all elements (consistently highest responses for all elements)- Not interested / can’t be bothered- Not concerned / not relevant- Not useful / no benefit- habit/positive experiences - consumers who have bought same product for years

and not had a problem with it (which may contribute to disinterest in using labels).

Reasons for non-use of label Reasons for non-use of label elementselements

Q6. You said earlier that you recognised, but don’t use [element]. Why don’t you use [element]? (Pre-coded question, with ‘other, write in’ option).

Respondents who were younger (18-24), who had no special needs and lower education were more likely to be not interested/can’t be bothered

Return to Overview of Label Elements Menu

Page 54: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

55Label InterpretationLabel InterpretationQuestions 9-20 focused on label interpretation:

– Question 9 - combination of label elements– Questions 10-14 - NIP– Questions 15 a-b - ingredient list– Questions 16 a-b - percentage label– Question 17 - allergen declaration– Question 18 - date mark– Question 19 - country of origin– Question 20 a-f - nutrient claims

For each question, respondents were shown a showcard featuring the relevant label element which was used to remind them of the element in question, or for their referral while considering their response.

Page 55: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

56Combined Label InterpretationCombined Label InterpretationQ9. Which pieces of information [show pic card tub of yogurt] would you use when considering your purchase?

Page 56: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

57Combined Label InterpretationCombined Label Interpretation

4%

10%

75%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

NIP

Ingredients

Percentage Label

Q9. Which pieces of information [show pic card tub of yogurt] would you use when considering your purchase? (Proportions of all mentions (multiple response) presented below.)

Click here for more detail

BASE: All respondents n=1940

Click here for more detail

Page 57: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

58NIPNIPQ9. Which pieces of information [show pic card tub of yogurt] would you use when considering your purchase? (Proportions of all mentions of NIP information (multiple response) presented below.)

Sugar : 42%

Total fat : 40%

Fat (unspecified) : 27%

Energy : 25%

Sodium : 21%

Protein : 17%

Carbohydrate : 11%

Saturated fat : 11%

Both Total & Saturated fat : 8%

Serving Size: 4%

Serving per package: 2%

Return to Label Interpretation

BASE: All who used NIP (n=1439)

Page 58: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

59IngredientsIngredientsQ9. Which pieces of information [show pic card tub of yogurt] would you use when considering your purchase? (Proportions of all mentions of Ingredient List information (multiple response) presented below.)

Ingredients : 63%

Strawberries / fruit content : 29%

Sugar : 23%

Additives : 18%

BASE: All who used Ingredients List (n=206)

Return to Label Interpretation

Page 59: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

60

Hard to choose

13%

Don't know5%

Both the same8%

Product A39%Product B

(correct)35%

NIP InterpretationNIP InterpretationQ10a. Which of these foods do you think would be a wiser choice for a healthy diet?

Product B is a wiser choice, as it is significantly lower in sugar. As many respondents answered correctly as incorrectly.

Product B is correct

BASE: All respondents n=1940

Page 60: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

61NIP InterpretationNIP Interpretation

Product B is correct Either column could have been used, as serve sizes are the same for both products. Over half chose to use the per serving column.

Q10b. Which column of information did you mostly use to make your decision?Per serving : 54%Per 100g : 30%Both : 15%

BASE: n=1837 (excludes ‘don’t know’ at Q10a)

Page 61: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

62NIP InterpretationNIP Interpretation

Product B is correct

Q10c. Which nutrients did you mostly use to make your decision (multiple response allowed):Total fat : 64% - of which 48% chose Product A

- of which 27% chose Product BSugars : 48% - of which 24% chose Product A

- of which 56% chose Product B Saturated fat : 29%Energy : 28%

Respondents should have based their decision on sugar content, both products have similar levels of all other nutrients. Almost half the respondents used sugar in their decision making, and over half of those (56%) correctly selected Product B (). However one quarter (24%) selected Product A, and therefore were not able to correctly identify the healthier choice even when looking at the correct nutrient. Two thirds of respondents used total fat in their decision making.

BASE: n=1837 (excludes ‘don’t know’ at Q10b)

Page 62: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

63NIP InterpretationNIP InterpretationQ11a. Which of these foods do you think would be a wiser choice for a healthy diet?

Hard to choose

6%

Don't know3%

Both the same4%

Product A (correct)

73%

Product B14%

BASE: n=1015

Product A is a wiser choice, as it is significantly lower in sodium. The majority of respondents made the right product selection, for a healthier choice.

Product A is correct

Page 63: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

64NIP InterpretationNIP InterpretationQ11b. Which column of information did you mostly use to

make your decision?Per serving : 55% - of which 78% chose Product A

- of which 14% chose Product B Per 100g : 31% - of which 74% chose Product A

- of which 15% chose Product BBoth : 13%

Product A is correct

The per 100g column should have been used as serve sizes differ between product A and B.

Only one third of respondents used the per 100g column in their decision making. Of those, three quarters made the correct product selection. This equates to one fifth (22%) of those asked this question.

BASE: n=983 (excludes ‘don’t know’ at Q11a)

Page 64: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

65NIP InterpretationNIP InterpretationQ11c. Which nutrients did you mostly use to make your

decision (multiple response allowed):

Total fat : 65% - of which 79% chose Product A

- of which 11% chose Product BSugars : 38% - of which 76% chose Product A

- of which 11% chose Product BSodium : 35% - of which 82% chose Product A

- of which 8% chose Product BSaturated fat : 29%Energy : 28%

Product A is correct

Respondents should have based their decision on sodium content, both products have similar levels of all other nutrients. However, only one third of respondents used sodium in their decision making, and two thirds used total fat. The majority of respondents who looked at sodium made the correct product selection. Of those 82% correctly selected Product A ().

BASE: n=975 (excludes ‘don’t know’ at Q11b)

Page 65: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

66NIP InterpretationNIP InterpretationQ12a. Which of these foods do you think would be a wiser choice for a healthy diet?

Product B (correct)

66%

Hard to choose

1%

Don't know4%

One better in one way

7%

Both the same2%

Product A20%

BASE: n=934

Product B is correct

Product B is a wiser choice, as it is significantly lower in energy and fat. The majority of respondents made the right product selection, for a healthier choice.

Page 66: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

67NIP InterpretationNIP Interpretation

Q12b. Which column of information did you mostly use to make your decision?Per serving : 54% - of which 22% chose Product A

- of which 71% chose Product BPer 100g : 53% - of which 21% chose Product A

- of which 67% chose Product B Both : 13%

Product B is correct Either column could have been used, as serve sizes are the same for both products. Preference for using each column was evenly divided.

BASE: n=895 (excludes ‘don’t know’ at Q12a)

Page 67: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

68NIP InterpretationNIP InterpretationQ12c. Which nutrients did you mostly use to make your

decision:Total fat : 68% - of which 11% chose Product A

- of which 79% chose Product B

Sugars : 34% - of which 10% chose Product A

- of which 76% chose Product BEnergy : 33% - of which 30% chose Product A

- of which 59% chose Product B Saturated fat : 31%Sodium : 22%

Product B is correct Respondents should have based their decision on fat and/or energy content, both products have similar levels of all other nutrients. The majority of respondents referred to total fat. Use of energy values was higher than in other questions where energy content has been the same for both products. The majority of respondents who looked at total fat and/or energy made the correct product selection (). However, one third of those who used energy in their decision making still incorrectly selected Product A.

BASE: n=885 (excludes ‘don’t know’ at Q12b)

Page 68: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

69NIP InterpretationNIP Interpretation

Q13. How much saturated fat do you think there is in the whole packet?

11.3g : 65%

23.6g : 8%

3.7g : 3%

7.3g : 1%

Other : 22%

BASE: All respondents n=1940

Two thirds correctly interpreted the label information (). Three quarters looked at fat values, 11% referred to the wrong type of fat, or wrong column.

Page 69: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

70NIP InterpretationNIP Interpretation

Q14. Which dinner would give you the most [nutrient]?

Product A Product B Not sure

Energy 90% 6% 4%Sodium 4% 92% 4%Total fat 89% 7% 4%Saturated fat 88% 7% 4%

BASE: All respondents n=1940

Three quarters (77%) answered all four correctly ().

Return to Main Menu

Page 70: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

71Ingredients List InterpretationIngredients List InterpretationQ15a. Do you think the ingredients are presented in any particular order?

Don't know16% No

37%

Yes47%

BASE: n=1023

Q15b. What order?

Ascending : 6%Descending : 66% Other : 19%Don’t know : 9%

Page 71: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

72% Label Interpretation% Label Interpretation

Q16a. What does the 9% mean after the ingredient ‘strawberry’?

9% of this product contains strawberries : 71%

The ingredient (strawberries) is (only) 9% strawberries : 18%

Other / don’t know : 11%

BASE: n=478 (This question was rotated to 1/4 of the sample)

STRAWBERRY YOGHURT

FRUIT JUICE DRINK Q16b. What percentage of this product would you say comes from fruit?

35% of product : 84%

30% of product : 8%

5% of product : 2%

Other / don’t know : 6%

Page 72: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

73

BASE: n=478 (This question was rotated to 1/4 of the sample)

Allergen Label InterpretationAllergen Label Interpretation

Q17. Imagine if you suffered from an allergy when eating nuts, how useful would you find a statement on a snack bar that said ‘may contain traces of nuts’?

Not very useful, because it doesn’t say whether nuts are definitely in the product : 26%

Quite useful, because it reminds me I may be eating a product containing nuts : 20%

Very useful, because I am told when there is even a chance that nuts are present : 53%

SNACK FOOD

Page 73: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

74

BASE: n=478 (This question was rotated to 1/4 of the sample)

Allergen Label InterpretationAllergen Label Interpretation

Q17. Imagine if you suffered from an allergy when eating nuts, how useful would you find a statement on a snack bar that said ‘may contain traces of nuts’?

Not very useful, because it doesn’t say whether nuts are definitely in the product : 26%

Quite useful, because it reminds me I may be eating a product containing nuts : 20%

Very useful, because I am told when there is even a chance that nuts are present : 53%

SNACK FOOD

Responses lower for those with special health needs: Total special needs - 52% Allergy to nuts - 42% Other allergy - 44% No special needs - 55%

Responses higher for those with special health needs: Total special needs - 29% Allergy to nuts - 36% Other allergy - 28% No special needs - 21%

Page 74: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

75Date Mark InterpretationDate Mark InterpretationDATE MARK

Q18. Which of these two statements do you think applies to a ‘use-by’ date??

The use-by date is only a guide - it is quite safe to eat some food products after the use-by date has expired : 44%

It is illegal to sell a food product past its use-by date as the food can be potentially harmful : 56%

BASE: n=478 (This question was rotated to 1/4 of the sample)

Page 75: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

76Country of Origin Label Country of Origin Label InterpretationInterpretation

Q19. Which product has the most Australian ( New Zealand )ingredients?

Total % Australia % New Zealand %

Made in ... : 31 27 37*

Product of ... : 60 61 57

Made from ……. and imported \ ingredients : 3 4 3

Don’t know / not sure : 6 8 3** Denotes a statistically significant difference in overall agreement ordisagreement between the countries at the 95% confidence level

BASE: n=934 (This question asked of half the sample)

Page 76: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

77

Q20b. Would you say this term is?

Very confusing : 29%

A bit confusing : 45%

Not at all confusing : 25%

Nutrient Claim InterpretationNutrient Claim Interpretation

Q20a. Which of the following does “Lite” refer to? (multiple response question)

Fat : 77%

Sugar : 19%

Other : 19% (energy, colour, fruit content, any of the given choices)

BASE: n=934 (This question asked of half the sample)

Q20c. And how misleading, if at all, would you say the term ‘Lite’ is?

Very misleading : 33%

A bit misleading : 46%

Not at all misleading : 20%

Page 77: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

78Nutrient Claim InterpretationNutrient Claim Interpretation

Q20d. Would you say this term (‘no added sugar’) means this food...?

Contains no sugar : 28%

Contains small amounts of sugar : 30%

Could be either a low, medium or high sugar food : 38%

Don’t know / not sure : 4% (small base)

Are you not sure because the term is..?

confusing: 65%

misleading: 28%

BASE: n=934 (This question asked of half the sample)

Page 78: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

79Nutrient Claim InterpretationNutrient Claim Interpretation

Q20e. Would you say this term (‘reduced in salt’) means this food...?

Contains less salt compared to similar food labelled ‘low salt’ : 46%

Contains the same amount of salt compared to similar food labelled ‘low salt’ : 26%

Contains more salt compared to similar food labelled ‘low salt’ : 11%

Don’t know / not sure : 17%

Are you not sure because the term is..?

confusing: 55%

misleading: 35%

BASE: n=934 (This question asked of half the sample)

Page 79: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

80Nutrient Claim InterpretationNutrient Claim Interpretation

Q20f. Would you say this term (‘94% fat free’) means this food is...?

A low fat food : 75%

A medium fat food : 16%

A high fat food : 3%

Don’t know / not sure : 7%

Are you not sure because the term is..?

confusing: 49%

misleading: 48%

BASE: n=926 (This question asked of half the sample)

Click here to return to Overview of Label Elements

Page 80: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

81Ingredient ListIngredient List

Page 81: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

82Ingredient ListIngredient List

49%

66%

89%

49%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Unpromptedawareness

Prompted awareness

Use

Use most often

Products used for:

Breakfast cereals : 62%

Oils, butter, spreads : 54%

Canned foods : 52%

Dairy products : 48%

Soft drinks, cordial, fruit juices : 35%

Breads : 35%

BASE: n=1940

Page 82: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

83Prompted awareness: Prompted awareness: ingredients listingredients list

- - (presenting subgroups with statistically significant differences)(presenting subgroups with statistically significant differences)

89% 87%

93%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Australia New Zealand

BASE: All respondents n=1940Total Country

Denotes a statistically significant difference within the subgroups at the 95% confidence level

Page 83: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

84

66%

55%

66%70%71%71%

61% 60%

70%

53%

62%

70%73%

64%65%

73%70%

64%

71%

60%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

18-24

25-34

35-44

45-54

55-64 65

+Male

Female

Primary

Secondary

Trade

Tertiary

or higher

>$40,0

00

$40,0

00-$7

4,999

7500

0 and ove

rYes No

Allerg

ens

No allergens

Use of Use of ingredients listingredients list - - (presenting subgroups with statistically significant differences)(presenting subgroups with statistically significant differences)

BASE: All respondents n=1940

Total GenderAge Special Needs

Education Income Children

(years)

Denotes a statistically significant difference within the subgroups at the 95% confidence level

Page 84: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

85

Reasons for non-use: Not interested / can’t be bothered (33%)Bought same product for years (58%) Not concerned / relevant (19%)Not enough time while shopping (10%)

Ingredient ListIngredient List

Q5b. When buying (product) how often do you look at (element)?Frequency: Every time I buy product (20%)

Most of the time (31%)Only occasionally (18%)Buying for the first time (31%)

Q5c Which of these best describes how clear and easy to understand you think (element) is?Clarity: Very clear (29%)

Fairly clear (63%)Not very clear (8%)

Q5d. And how much do you feel you can trust the information given in (element)?Trust: I trust what it says (29%)

I’m pretty sure I can trust what it says (54%)I’m not sure whether to trust it (17%). Why don’t’ you trust?Too vague (40%)Companies lie on labels (18%)

(Base: n=455)

Return to Label Element Menu

(Base: n=1277)

(Base: n=1277)

(Base: n=1271)

Q6a. Why don’t you use the ingredients lists?

Page 85: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

86Nutrition Information PanelNutrition Information Panel

Page 86: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

87NIPNIP

52%

66%

86%

40%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Unpromptedawareness

Prompted awareness

Use

Use most often

Products used for:

Breakfast cereals : 65%

Dairy products : 56%

Oils, butter, spreads : 56%

Canned foods : 42%

Breads : 39%

Frozen foods : 31%

BASE: n=1940

Page 87: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

88Prompted awareness of Prompted awareness of NIPNIP - -

(presenting subgroups with statistically significant differences)(presenting subgroups with statistically significant differences)

86%82%

92%89%

81%

88%

81%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Australia NewZealand

Yes No Male Female

BASE: All respondents n=1940

Total Country Special needs Gender

Denotes a statistically significant difference within the subgroups at the 95% confidence level

Page 88: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

89Use of Use of NIPNIP - -

(presenting subgroups with statistically significant differences)(presenting subgroups with statistically significant differences)

66%

57%

67%73%

68% 68%

58% 56%

71% 70%64% 62%

73%70%

56%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

18-24

25-34

35-44

45-54

55-64 65

+Male

Female Yes No

Australia

New Zealand

Medica

l condit

ion

No med

ical co

ndition

BASE: All respondents n=1940

Total GenderAge Children Country Special Needs

(years)

Denotes a statistically significant difference within the subgroups at the 95% confidence level

Page 89: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

90

Reasons for non-use: Not interested / can’t be bothered (28%)Not concerned (24%)Bought same product for years (20%)Don’t understand how to read it (10%)

NIPNIP

Q5b. When buying (product) how often do you look at (element)?Frequency: Every time I buy product (19%)

Most of the time (31%)Only occasionally (20%)Buying for the first time (30%)

Q5c Which of these best describes how clear and easy to understand you think (element) is?Clarity: Very clear (30%)

Fairly clear (64%)Not very clear (7%)

Q5d. And how much do you feel you can trust the information given in (element)?Trust: I trust what it says (31%)

I’m pretty sure I can trust what it says (55%)I’m not sure whether to trust it (15%). Why don’t’ you trust?:Too vague (26%)

Companies lie on labels (18%)

Base: n=398

Return to Label Element MenuNIP Interpretation

Q6b. Why don’t you use the NIP?

Base: n=1276

Base: n=1273

Base: n=1271

Page 90: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

91Allergen DeclarationAllergen Declaration

Page 91: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

92Allergen Declaration Allergen Declaration

5%

13%

43%

4%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Unpromptedawareness

Prompted awareness

Use

Use most often

Products used for:

Sweet biscuits / confectionery : 46%

Savoury biscuits and snacks : 40%

Dairy products : 39%

Breakfast cereals : 37%

BASE: n=1940

Page 92: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

93Prompted awareness of Prompted awareness of allergen allergen

declarationdeclaration - - (presenting subgroups with statistically significant differences)(presenting subgroups with statistically significant differences)

43%

56%52%

41% 39% 41%

32%

47%

37% 37%

46%

23%

39%43%

56%

46%41%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

18-24

25-34

35-44

45-54

55-64 65

+

Any specia

l nee

d

No spec

ial nee

dsMale

Female

Primary

(n=74

)

Secondary

Trade

Tertiar

y or H

igher Yes No

BASE: All respondents n=1940

Total Special needsAge Gender Education Children

(years)

Denotes a statistically significant difference within the subgroups at the 95% confidence level

Page 93: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

94Use of Use of allergen declarationallergen declaration - -

(presenting subgroups with statistically significant differences)(presenting subgroups with statistically significant differences)

13%9%

15%19% 18%

13%

25%

7%11%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Male Female Under 3 3-11 yrs 12-17 yrs 18 + Allergen NoAllergen

BASE: All respondents n=1940Total Gender Age of

Child(ren) Special Needs

(years)

Page 94: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

95

Reasons for non-use: Not concerned / not relevant (71%)Not useful (10%)

Allergen DeclarationAllergen Declaration

Q5b. When buying (product) how often do you look at (element)?Frequency: Every time I buy product (29%)

Most of the time (28%)Only occasionally (20%)Buying for the first time (23%)

Q5c Which of these best describes how clear and easy to understand you think (element) is?Clarity: Very clear (31%)

Fairly clear (57%)Not very clear (12%)

Q5d. And how much do you feel you can trust the information given in (element)?Trust: I trust what it says (37%)

I’m pretty sure I can trust what it says (53%)I’m not sure whether to trust it (10%)

Base: n=591

Return to Label Element Menu

Q6c. Why don’t you use the Allergen Declaration?

Base: n=235

Base: n=235

Base: n=234

Page 95: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

96Percentage (%) LabelPercentage (%) Label

Page 96: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

97Percentage (%) LabelPercentage (%) Label

13%

32%

62%

14%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Unpromptedawareness

Prompted awareness

Use

Use most often

Products used for:

Oils, butter, spreads : 56%

Dairy products : 56%

Breakfast cereals : 38%

Soft drink, cordials, fruit juices : 32%

BASE: n=1940

Page 97: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

98Prompted awareness of Prompted awareness of % label% label - -

(presenting subgroups with statistically significant differences)(presenting subgroups with statistically significant differences)

62% 60%64%

58%

65%69%

57%

66%

57%

66%

58%

47%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

18-24

25-34

35-44

45-54

55-64 65

+Yes No

Highly

Moderatel

y

Not at a

ll

BASE: All respondents n=1940

Total Age Special needs Health conscious

(years)

Denotes a statistically significant difference within the subgroups at the 95% confidence level

Page 98: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

99Use of Use of % label% label - -

(presenting subgroups with statistically significant differences)(presenting subgroups with statistically significant differences)

32%

25%

31% 32%37% 38%

30%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+

BASE: All respondents n=1940

Total Age

(years)

Denotes a statistically significant difference within the subgroups at the 95% confidence level

Page 99: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

100

Reasons for non-use: Not interested / can’t be bothered (24%)Not concerned (23%)Bought same product for years (17%)

Percentage (%) LabelPercentage (%) Label

Q5b. When buying (product) how often do you look at (element)?Frequency: Every time I buy product (18%)

Most of the time (32%)Only occasionally (24%)Buying for the first time (26%)

Q5c Which of these best describes how clear and easy to understand you think (element) is?Clarity: Very clear (33%)

Fairly clear (59%)Not very clear (8%)

Q5d. And how much do you feel you can trust the information given in (element)?Trust: I trust what it says (35%)

I’m pretty sure I can trust what it says (52%)I’m not sure whether to trust it (13%)

Base: n=587

Return to Label Element Menu

Q6d. Why don’t you use the Percentage (%) Labels?

Base: n=613

Base: n=615

Base: n=614

Page 100: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

101Nutrient ClaimNutrient Claim

Page 101: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

102Nutrient ClaimNutrient Claim

14%

37%

70%

10%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Unpromptedawareness

Prompted awareness

Use

Use most often

Products used for:

Breakfast cereals : 58%

Dairy products : 47%

Oils, butter, spreads : 45%

Canned foods : 44%

Breads : 32%

BASE: n=1940

Page 102: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

103

Prompted awareness of Prompted awareness of nutrient nutrient claimclaim

(presenting subgroups with statistically significant differences)(presenting subgroups with statistically significant differences)

70%

78%

66%71% 70% 72%

64%

73%

65% 64%

72% 74%

67%

74%

65%

47%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

18-24

25-34

35-44

45-54

55-64 65

+Yes No

Male

Female

Australia

New Zealand

Highly

Moderatel

y

Not at a

ll

BASE: All respondents n=1940

Total Special needsAge Gender Country Health conscious

(years)

Denotes a statistically significant difference within the subgroups at the 95% confidence level

Page 103: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

104Use of Use of nutrient claimnutrient claim - -

(presenting subgroups with statistically significant differences)(presenting subgroups with statistically significant differences)

37%

30%34%

43%40%

43%

33%29%

41%

34%

43%

66%

30%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

18-24

25-34

35-44

45-54

55-64 65

+Male

Female

Australia

New Zealand

Weight loss No

BASE: All respondents n=1940Total GenderAge Country Special

Needs

(years)

Denotes a statistically significant difference within the subgroups at the 95% confidence level

Page 104: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

105

Reasons for non-use: Not concerned/ not relevant to me (26%)Not interested / can’t be bothered (22%)Bought same product for years (19%)

Nutrient ClaimNutrient Claim

Q5b. When buying (product) how often do you look at (element)?Frequency: Every time I buy product (17%)

Most of the time (33%)Only occasionally (22%)Buying for the first time (28%)

Q5c Which of these best describes how clear and easy to understand you think (element) is?Clarity: Very clear (30%)

Fairly clear (63%)Not very clear (7%)

Q5d. And how much do you feel you can trust the information given in (element)?Trust: I trust what it says (29%)

I’m pretty sure I can trust what it says (57%)I’m not sure whether to trust it (14%)

Base: n=632

Return to Label Element Menu

Q6e. Why don’t you use the Nutrient Claim?

Base: n=725

Base: n=723

Base: n=721

Page 105: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

106Date MarkDate Mark

Page 106: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

107Date MarkDate Mark

68%

85%

93%

25%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Unpromptedawareness

Prompted awareness

Use

Use most often

Products used for:

Dairy products : 85%

Oils, butter, spreads : 54%

Breads : 51%

Fresh produce : 50%

BASE: n=1940

Page 107: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

108

Reasons for non-use: Not interested / can’t be bothered (31%)Not concerned / not relevant (21%)

Date MarkDate Mark

Q5b. When buying (product) how often do you look at (element)?Frequency: Every time I buy product (67%)

Most of the time (24%)Only occasionally (8%)Buying for the first time (1%)

Q5c Which of these best describes how clear and easy to understand you think (element) is?Clarity: Very clear (44%)

Fairly clear (46%)Not very clear (10%)

Q5d. And how much do you feel you can trust the information given in (element)?Trust: I trust what it says (53%)

I’m pretty sure I can trust what it says (42%)I’m not sure whether to trust it (5%)

Base: n=173

Return to Label Element Menu

Q6f. Why don’t you use the Date Mark?

Base: n=1639

Base: n=1635

Base: n=1630

Page 108: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

109Advisory StatementAdvisory Statement

Page 109: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

110Advisory StatementAdvisory Statement

3%

22%

59%

3%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Unpromptedawareness

Prompted awareness

Use

Use most often

Products used for:

Soft drinks, cordials, fruit juices : 62%

Dairy products : 36%

Canned foods : 27%

Oils, butter, spreads : 22%

BASE: n=1940

Page 110: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

111

Prompted awareness of Prompted awareness of advisory statementadvisory statement - -

(presenting subgroups with statistically significant differences)(presenting subgroups with statistically significant differences)

59%

70%

58%58%56%

47%

40%

55%60%

68%

57%61%

67%62%

55% 55%

66%62%

55%

40%

65%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

18-24

25-34

35-44

45-54

55-64 65

+

Primary

Secondary

Trade

Tertiar

y or h

igher

<$40,0

00

$40,0

00-$74

,999

$75,0

00 an

d over Yes No

Australia

New Zealand

Highly

Moderatel

y

Not at a

ll

BASE: All respondents n=1940

Total EducationAge Health conscious

Income Children Country

(years)

Denotes a statistically significant difference within the subgroups at the 95% confidence level

Page 111: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

112Use of Use of advisory statementadvisory statement - -

(presenting subgroups with statistically significant differences)(presenting subgroups with statistically significant differences)

22%27%

17% 19%

27%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Yes No Australia New Zealand

BASE: All respondents n=1940

Total Children Country

Denotes a statistically significant difference within the subgroups at the 95% confidence level

Page 112: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

113Advisory StatementAdvisory Statement

Q5b. When buying (product) how often do you look at (element)?Frequency: Every time I buy product (21%)

Most of the time (27%)Only occasionally (27%)Buying for the first time (24%)

Q5c Which of these best describes how clear and easy to understand you think (element) is?Clarity: Very clear (31%)

Fairly clear (64%)Not very clear (4%)

Q5d. And how much do you feel you can trust the information given in (element)?Trust: I trust what it says (34%)

I’m pretty sure I can trust what it says (53%)I’m not sure whether to trust it (13%)

Base: n=70

Return to Label Element Menu

Base: n=70

Base: n=70

Page 113: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

114Warning StatementWarning Statement

Page 114: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

115Warning StatementWarning Statement

6%

22%

57%

4%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Unpromptedawareness

Prompted awareness

Use

Use most often

Products used for:

Dairy products : 48%

Oils, butter, spreads : 46%

Soft drinks, cordials, fruit juices : 44%

Canned foods : 31%

BASE: n=1940

Page 115: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

116

Prompted awareness of Prompted awareness of warning statementwarning statement - -

(presenting subgroups with statistically significant differences)(presenting subgroups with statistically significant differences)

60%

50%

58% 58% 59%

66%

50%

61%

51% 51%

60% 61%

54%51%

67%62%

52%

32%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

18-24

25-34

35-44

45-54

55-64 65

+Yes No

Male

Female Yes No

Australia

New Zealand

Highly

Moderatel

y

Not at a

ll

BASE: All respondents n=1940

Total Special NeedsAge Health conscious

Gender Children Country

(years)Denotes a statistically significant difference within the subgroups at the 95% confidence level

Page 116: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

117Use of Use of warning statementwarning statement - -

(presenting subgroups with statistically significant differences)(presenting subgroups with statistically significant differences)

22%

15%

25% 27%

18%

29%

18%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Male Female Yes No Australia NewZealand

BASE: All respondents n=1940Total Gender Children Country

Denotes a statistically significant difference within the subgroups at the 95% confidence level

Page 117: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

118Warning StatementWarning Statement

Q5b. When buying (product) how often do you look at (element)?Frequency: Every time I buy product (40%)

Most of the time (32%)Only occasionally (18%)Buying for the first time (11%)

Q5c Which of these best describes how clear and easy to understand you think (element) is?Clarity: Very clear (36%)

Fairly clear (56%)Not very clear (8%)

Q5d. And how much do you feel you can trust the information given in (element)?Trust: I trust what it says (41%)

I’m pretty sure I can trust what it says (49%)I’m not sure whether to trust it (10%)

Base: n=119

Return to Label Element Menu

Base: n=118

Base: n=117

Page 118: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

119Country of OriginCountry of Origin

Page 119: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

120Country of OriginCountry of Origin

19%

49%

80%

17%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Unpromptedawareness

Prompted awareness

Use

Use most often

Products used for:

Canned foods : 72%

Oils, butter, spreads : 41%

Pasta, rice, noodles : 38%

Dairy products : 38%

BASE: n=1940

Page 120: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

121Prompted awareness of Prompted awareness of country of origincountry of origin - - (presenting subgroups with statistically significant differences)(presenting subgroups with statistically significant differences)

80% 80%75%

82%87%

78%

87%

78%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Primary Secondary Trade Tertiary orhigher

<$40,000 $40,000-$74,999

$75,000and over

BASE: All respondents n=1940

Total Education Income

Denotes a statistically significant difference within the subgroups at the 95% confidence level

Page 121: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

122Use of Use of country of origincountry of origin - -

(presenting subgroups with statistically significant differences)(presenting subgroups with statistically significant differences)

49%

30%

45%49%

56% 54% 56%52%

44%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ Australia NewZealand

BASE: All respondents n=1940

Total Age Country

(years)

Denotes a statistically significant difference within the subgroups at the 95% confidence level

Page 122: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

123Country of OriginCountry of Origin

Q5b. When buying (product) how often do you look at (element)?Frequency: Every time I buy product (32%)

Most of the time (34%)Only occasionally (14%)Buying for the first time (20%)

Q5c Which of these best describes how clear and easy to understand you think (element) is?Clarity: Very clear (32%)

Fairly clear (52%)Not very clear (16%)

Q5d. And how much do you feel you can trust the information given in (element)?Trust: I trust what it says (40%)

I’m pretty sure I can trust what it says (47%)I’m not sure whether to trust it (13%)

Base: n=380

Return to Label Element Menu

Base: n=378

Base: n=377

Page 123: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

124Genetically Modified DeclarationGenetically Modified Declaration

Page 124: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

125Genetically Modified DeclarationGenetically Modified Declaration

4%

16%

33%

3%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Unpromptedawareness

Prompted awareness

Use

Use most often

Products used for:

Oils, butter, spreads : 58%

Canned food : 46%

Fresh produce : 45%

Pasta, rice, noodles : 43%

BASE: n=1940

Page 125: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

126Prompted awareness of Prompted awareness of GMGM Declaration- Declaration-

(presenting subgroups with statistically significant differences)(presenting subgroups with statistically significant differences)

33% 35%

22%

36%

29% 31% 30%

38%36%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Under64

65+ Yes No Yes No Australia NewZealand

BASE: All respondents n=1940Total Age Special Needs Children Country

Denotes a statistically significant difference within the subgroups at the 95% confidence level(years)

Page 126: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

127Use of Use of GMGM Declaration - Declaration -

(presenting subgroups with statistically significant differences)(presenting subgroups with statistically significant differences)

16%11%

16%22%

15%21%

7%12% 12%

19% 21%

12%

22%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

18-24

25-34

35-44

45-54

55-64 65

+

Primary

Secondary

Trade

Tertiar

y or h

igher

Australia

New Zealand

BASE: All respondents n=1940Total Age Education Country

(years)

Denotes a statistically significant difference within the subgroups at the 95% confidence level

Page 127: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

128Genetically Modified DeclarationGenetically Modified Declaration

Q5b. When buying (product) how often do you look at (element)?Frequency: Every time I buy product (45%)

Most of the time (29%)Only occasionally (10%)Buying for the first time (16%)

Q5c Which of these best describes how clear and easy to understand you think (element) is?Clarity: Very clear (20%)

Fairly clear (51%)Not very clear (29%)

Q5d. And how much do you feel you can trust the information given in (element)?Trust: I trust what it says (23%)

I’m pretty sure I can trust what it says (51%)I’m not sure whether to trust it (27%)

Base: n=80

Return to Label Element Menu

Base: n=80

Base: n=79

Page 128: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

129Irradiated FoodIrradiated Food

Page 129: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

130Irradiated FoodIrradiated Food

0%

3%

6%

0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Unpromptedawareness

Prompted awareness

Use

Use most often

BASE: n=1940

Return to Label Element Menu

Page 130: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

131Preparation / Storage Preparation / Storage

InstructionsInstructions

Page 131: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

132Preparation / Storage Preparation / Storage

InstructionsInstructions

16%

45%

65%

7%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Unpromptedawareness

Prompted awareness

Use

Use most often

Products used for:

Frozen foods : 66%

Fresh produce : 36%

Pasta, rice, noodles : 36%

Dairy products : 35%

BASE: n=1940

Page 132: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

133Prompted awareness of Prompted awareness of prep & storage prep & storage

instructionsinstructions - - (presenting subgroups with statistically (presenting subgroups with statistically significant differences)significant differences)

65%70%

65% 63%67% 68%

60% 62%

70%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ Australia NewZealand

BASE: All respondents n=1940Total Age Country

Denotes a statistically significant difference within the subgroups at the 95% confidence level(years)

Page 133: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

134Use of Use of prep & storage instructionsprep & storage instructions - - (presenting subgroups with statistically significant differences)(presenting subgroups with statistically significant differences)

45%

37%

48%

40%

53%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Male Female Australia New Zealand

BASE: All respondents n=1940

Total Gender Country

Denotes a statistically significant difference within the subgroups at the 95% confidence level

Page 134: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

135Preparation / Storage Preparation / Storage

InstructionsInstructions

Q5b. When buying (product) how often do you look at (element)?Frequency: Every time I buy product (20%)

Most of the time (35%)Only occasionally (26%)Buying for the first time (20%)

Q5c Which of these best describes how clear and easy to understand you think (element) is?Clarity: Very clear (36%)

Fairly clear (60%)Not very clear (3%)

Q5d. And how much do you feel you can trust the information given in (element)?Trust: I trust what it says (50%)

I’m pretty sure I can trust what it says (48%)I’m not sure whether to trust it (2%)

Base: n=324

Return to Label Element Menu

Base: n=324

Base: n=321

Page 135: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

136Health ClaimsHealth Claims

Page 136: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

137Health ClaimsHealth Claims

4%

14%

24%

4%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Unpromptedawareness

Prompted awareness

Use

Use most often

Products used for:

Oils, butter, spreads : 66%

Dairy products : 58%

Breakfast cereals : 54%

Breads : 36%

BASE: n=1940

Page 137: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

138Health ClaimsHealth Claims

Q5b. When buying (product) how often do you look at (element)?Frequency: Every time I buy product (28%)

Most of the time (35%)Only occasionally (16%)Buying for the first time (21%)

Q5c Which of these best describes how clear and easy to understand you think (element) is?Clarity: Very clear (35%)

Fairly clear (56%)Not very clear (8%)

Q5d. And how much do you feel you can trust the information given in (element)?Trust: I trust what it says (35%)

I’m pretty sure I can trust what it says (52%)I’m not sure whether to trust it (13%)

Base: n=71

Return to Label Element Menu

Base: n=71

Base: n=71

Page 138: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

139Novel FoodsNovel Foods

Page 139: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

140Novel FoodsNovel Foods

2%

9%

12%

0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Unpromptedawareness

Prompted awareness

Use

Use most often

BASE: n=1940Products used for:

Oils, butter, spreads : 65%

Fresh produce : 48%

Page 140: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

141Prompted awareness of Prompted awareness of novel foodnovel food - - (presenting subgroups with statistically significant differences)(presenting subgroups with statistically significant differences)

12%9%

17%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Australia New Zealand

BASE: All respondents n=1940Total Country

Page 141: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

142Use of Use of novel foodnovel food - -

(presenting subgroups with statistically significant differences)(presenting subgroups with statistically significant differences)

9%6%

14%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Australia New Zealand

BASE: All respondents n=1940Total Country

Page 142: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

143Novel FoodsNovel Foods

Q5b. When buying (product) how often do you look at (element)?Frequency: Every time I buy product (30%)

Most of the time (30%)Only occasionally (19%)Buying for the first time (21%)

Q5c Which of these best describes how clear and easy to understand you think (element) is?Clarity: Very clear (35%)

Fairly clear (58%)Not very clear (7%)

Q5d. And how much do you feel you can trust the information given in (element)?Trust: I trust what it says (35%)

I’m pretty sure I can trust what it says (49%)I’m not sure whether to trust it (16%)

Base: n=43

Return to Label Element Menu

Base: n=43

Base: n=43

Page 143: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

144EndorsementsEndorsements

Page 144: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

145EndorsementsEndorsements

17%

39%

42%

6%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Unpromptedawareness

Prompted awareness

Use

Use most

Products used for:

Oils, butter, spreads : 64%

Dairy products : 56%

Breakfast cereals : 39%

Canned foods : 36%

Fresh produce : 31%

BASE: n=1940

Page 145: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

146EndorsementsEndorsements

Q5b. When buying (product) how often do you look at (element)?Frequency: Every time I buy product (29%)

Most of the time (34%)Only occasionally (21%)Buying for the first time (16%)

Q5c Which of these best describes how clear and easy to understand you think (element) is?Clarity: Very clear (55%)

Fairly clear (42%)Not very clear (3%)

Q5d. And how much do you feel you can trust the information given in (element)?Trust: I trust what it says (53%)

I’m pretty sure I can trust what it says (40%)I’m not sure whether to trust it (7%)

Base: n=338

Base: n=336

Base: n=336

Page 146: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

147EndorsementsEndorsements

Click Here

Return to Label Element Menu

Page 147: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

148EndorsementsEndorsements

‘Friendly Production ‘Friendly Production Processes’ Processes’

The fictitious endorsement; ‘Friendly production Processes’ was included in the final set of picture cards. This was included to provide a measure of the validity of respondents’ recall and recognition of the legitimate endorsements, and more generally recognition of all other elements.

Only 2% of respondents reported recognising this endorsement, which strengthens the validity of recall results for all other elements, and the overall study per se.

Friendly

Return to Label Element Menu

Return to Main Menu

Page 148: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

149Segmentation of Label UsersSegmentation of Label UsersMotivated

Unmotivated

CapableUnable

Click on segment for

more detail or proceed

through all segment profiles

1

3

4

6

5

2

HIGHLabel Use

LOWLabel Use

Back to Main Menu

Click here for Overview of Findings

Page 149: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

150What is segmentation?What is segmentation?• Segmentation analysis is conducted in order to group individuals into

segments with like qualities. It is a way of examining whether the sample population is homogenous (ie basically one single group with similar attitudes and behaviour) or heterogeneous (ie comprised of several distinct segments, each with different priorities, preference, attitudes or behaviours).

• Traditionally, evaluation analysis involves the disaggregation of respondents by demographic characteristics such as age, gender, income, education etc. In some cases, differences in label use can be explained by these types of characteristics however, if two ‘like’ consumers (with the same demographics) use different numbers of label elements, there maybe other factors at play which cannot be explained by traditional analysis.

Page 150: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

151How is segmentation used here?How is segmentation used here?• This segmentation analysis and model attempts to understand what drives

high or low label element use, in order to assist FSANZ in developing food standards in the future. The results could also be useful for developing education strategies.

• The ‘dependent’ variable is therefore the number of label elements a consumer uses. The segment produces ‘higher’ and ‘lower’ users, compared to the ‘average’ number of label elements used by the sample population.

• The segmentation is an attempt to simplify a very complex and partly irrational behaviour (both impulsive and habitual), and should therefore be used bearing this in mind.

Page 151: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

152The 6 Segment PictureThe 6 Segment Picture• The segmentation analysis confirms that this sample of n=1940 consumers

is not homogenous in terms of label use. The analysis produced a 6 segment solution, supported by firm statistics.

• However, the results show that several of the six segments do not differ greatly from each other. Two segments (1 & 6) are clustered together, around higher label use, motivation and capacity. Three other segments (2, 4 & 5) are clustered together around ‘average’ levels of use, motivation and capacity. We suspect that this is because they are based on use of all the label elements a consumer uses (eg a date mark, an NIP, an allergen declaration, a nutrient claim etc). The earlier analysis of the data also suggests that different characteristics drive the use of different elements, eg. having special health needs. This would further contribute to the apparent lack of significant distinction between some segments of label users.

Page 152: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

153The 6 Segment Picture cont’dThe 6 Segment Picture cont’d• The premise underlying the segmentation analysis emerged from the preceding

qualitative research, which indicated that consumers’ use of food labels varied enormously depending on their motivation, (and the reasons behind their motivation), and their capacity, including their success in previous attempts to interpret labels.

• The Model is therefore built around two dimensions, ‘motivation’ and ‘capacity’ to use labels:– “Motivation” = health consciousness, special health needs, interest in food

label information, and importance/usefulness of food label information.– “Capacity” = past success in finding food label information; sufficient time to

read labels while shopping; perceptions of label element clarity and trust of label elements.

• Levels or strength of “motivation” and “capacity” are broadly expressed as ‘high’, ‘moderate’ and ‘low’ - these are qualitative terms applied to give relative meaning to motivation/capacity between the segments. Intuitively, it appears that the “motivation” dimension is stronger than the “capacity” dimension, but this proposition has not been tested statistically.

Page 153: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

154The 6 Segment Picture cont’dThe 6 Segment Picture cont’d• Each segment is profiled in the following slides. Differences between the

segments are discussed where they differ slightly or substantially from the average (ie the total sample) on a particular variable. Segments are firstly described in terms of “motivation” and “capacity”, and then profiled with demographic differences that help explain the “motivation” and “capacity’ indicators.

• Where the segments ‘fit’ on the model is in the end an intuitive placement, based on quantitative measures of this study, together with qualitative findings that proceeded it.

Page 154: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

155Technical DetailsTechnical Details• Analysis was conducted using GEMSegment, a sophisticated segmentation

analysis, because traditional cluster analysis proved unstable.

• For some capacity indicators (ability to find any information needed, enough time to read labels when shopping) results are reported as an agreement/disagreement differential. The differential is either:–strongly agree minus strongly disagree ratings, or–strongly agree/tend to agree minus strongly disagree/tend to disagree ratings.

The differential is reported in comparison to the total sample. When the differential is a negative number, more people disagree than agree.

Page 155: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

156Overview of FindingsOverview of Findings• The number of label elements used by a consumer increases with stronger

motivation and/or capacity. The average number of label elements used is five (5.3).

• Two of the smallest segments (11% each) are highest users - each segment uses approximately 7 label elements. These segments do have some different characteristics, but both indicated higher motivation and moderate-high capacity, compared to the other segments.

• The largest segment (31%) is comprised of the low users - 4 label elements. This segment of users indicated the lowest motivation and low-moderate capacity.

• The remaining 3 segments are clustered together, around ‘moderate’ levels of motivation and capacity. – The two largest of these segments (19% and 17%) are ‘average’ label

users (5 label elements).– The smallest segment (10%) is comprised of slightly higher users (6 label

elements).

Page 156: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

157Implications - ‘food for Implications - ‘food for

thought’thought’• Surprisingly, there are few statistically significant differences (at 95% level)

between most of the characteristic traits examined for each of the segments, particularly for demographic variables. This suggests that whilst some segments differ enough to require different ‘messages’ (motivational or capacity/behaviour focused), a ‘mass’ approach to message and information dissemination is possibly the best way to proceed, in the absence of detailed understanding of what drives use of each individual label element (see comments under technical details).

• Although higher motivation and capacity appear to predict higher use of labels, more research is needed to understand whether this is true for all label elements or just some, and which ones. However, in terms of actioning the findings, to increase use of some or all elements, the results indicate that increasing a consumer’s motivation, without addressing capacity, is not sufficient. Simply trying to move consumers in the lower-use segments into the higher-use segments, by increasing their interest in labels or their perceived relevance is not enough. Consumers also need to be enabled, via education and practice, in order to become satisfied and effective users.

Page 157: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

158Implications cont’dImplications cont’d• For example, segments 1 and 6 (high users) appear to be highly motivated

by their special needs, health consciousness and (therefore) interest in labelling. However these consumers still reported slightly lower levels of ‘success’ in finding label information they need, compared to consumers in lower user segments. These people appear to be ’soldiering on’ because the motivational indicators driving their use of labels are dominating ‘lifestyle’ needs. However if consumers in other segments, who are motivated by less fundamental needs are encouraged to increase use of labels, without the ‘capability’ issues being addressed, they are probably less likely to remain higher users for long.

• This hypothesis builds a strong argument for mass education, even if on a selected number of priority label elements, if labelling is to be useful, as it could well be, to the general population.

Back to Main Menu

Page 158: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

159Profile: Segment 1 (11%)Profile: Segment 1 (11%)HIGH LABEL USERS HIGH LABEL USERS (6 elements vs 5 average)(6 elements vs 5 average)

MOTIVATION (moderate-high)• strongest interest in label information, compared to other segments and the

total sample (82% agree very interested vs 69% total sample)- statistically significant at 95%;

• slightly above ‘average’ health consciousness (60% always/regularly choose health alternative vs 55% total sample) - not statistically significant at 95%;

• slightly above average agreement that label information is really useful or important (28% strongly agree vs 23% total sample) - not statistically significant at 95%;

CAPACITY (moderate-high)• success in finding any label information needed slightly more unsuccessful than successful

(three times more consumers in this segment disagree that they have always been able to find any information they need on a food or drink label, compared to the total sample, with dis/agree differential of -6 vs 3.5 total sample);

• find most label elements very clear and easy to understand;• trust the information in most label elements;• most do not find time a barrier to reading labels while shopping (a third more consumers in

this segment disagree that they don’t have enough time, compared to the total sample, with dis/agree differential of -31 vs -20 total sample).

Page 159: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

160Profile: Segment 1 (11%)Profile: Segment 1 (11%)

• Uses more label elements than the average for the total sample (mean = 6.9 vs 5.3 total sample);

• Same proportion of males/females to total population• Has a higher household income (61% earn over $40,000 vs 50% total

sample). Most respondents are in the ‘middle’ income bracket of $40,000-$74,999;

• Is mainly ‘middle’ aged. Within this segment there are significantly more people aged 35-64yrs than all other ages;

• Has three times more couples than singles (68% couples vs 20% singles, 12% other/refused);

• Has slightly more children than the total sample (51% vs 45% total sample), however these differences are not statistically significant.

Return to Segmentation of Label Users

Page 160: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

161Profile: Segment 2 (19%)Profile: Segment 2 (19%)

USE THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF ELEMENTSUSE THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF ELEMENTS (5)(5)MOTIVATION (moderate)• Slightly (but not statistically) higher health consciousness compared to the

total sample (59% always/regularly choose health alternative vs 55% total sample, ranked 4th amongst all segments);

• Agreement that label information is really useful or important reflects total sample (24% strongly agree vs 23% total sample);

• Interest in label information reflects total sample (72% agree very interested vs 69% total sample, and 82% segment 1);

• Special health needs reflects total sample (40% have no special needs, vs 41% total sample, and 33% the lowest segment, seg 6);

CAPACITY (moderate)• success in finding any label information needed slightly more successful than

unsuccessful (twice as many consumers in this segment agree that they have always been able to find any information they need on a food or drink label, compared to the total sample, with dis/agree differential of 1.8 vs 3.5 total sample);

• fewer rate most label elements as very clear and easy to understand;• fewer trust the information in most label elements, in particular GM labels);• third largest segment who do not find time a barrier to reading labels while

shopping, reflecting the total sample.

Page 161: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

162Profile: Segment 2 (19%)Profile: Segment 2 (19%)

• Uses the average number of label elements (mean = 5 vs 5.3 total sample);• Same proportion of males/females as total population• Education levels are more polarised than some segments, with slightly

larger proportions of tertiary or higher (27% vs 24% total sample) and secondary only (50% vs 46% total sample);

• Mainly ‘middle’ aged. Within this segment there are slightly more people aged 35-64yrs than all other ages, and fewer people aged 18-24, than other segments;

• Proportionally more couples compared to other segments (63% couples vs 28% singles, 12% other/refused).

Return to Segmentation of Label Users

Page 162: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

163Profile: Segment 3 (31%)Profile: Segment 3 (31%)

LOW LABEL USERS (4 elements vs 5 average)LOW LABEL USERS (4 elements vs 5 average)MOTIVATION (low)• lowest interest in label information (64% agree very interested vs 69% total

sample, and 82% segment 1 (high label users));• lowest health consciousness compared to all segments but not statistically

different from the total sample (50% always/regularly choose health alternative vs 55% total sample and 66% segment 6);

• lowest agreement that label information is really useful or important (19% strongly agree vs 23% total sample - not statistically significant at 95%);

• fewest special health needs of all segments and largest proportion of no special health needs (45% no special needs vs 41% total population - not statistically significant at 95%);

CAPACITY (moderate-low)• one and a half times as many consumers in this segment agree that they have

always been able to find any information they need on a food or drink label, compared to the total sample (dis/agree differential of 5.4 vs 3.5 total sample);

• fewer rate most label elements as very clear and easy to understand;• fewer trust the information in most label elements, in particular ingredients list,

allergen declaration, nutrient claim and endorsements);• largest proportion who find time a barrier to reading labels while shopping.

Page 163: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

164Profile: Segment 3 (31%)Profile: Segment 3 (31%)

• Uses the fewest label elements (mean = 4.2 vs 5.3 total sample);• Has the most males (38% vs 33% total sample);• Education levels are slightly lower compared to other segments, but

generally reflect total sample;• Proportionally more older (65+) and younger (18-24) respondents than

other segments; • Proportionally fewer couples compared to singles (57% couples vs 28%

singles, 12% other/refused);• Fewest children, compared to other segments as well as the total sample

(40% vs 45% total sample), these differences are statistically significant;

Return to Segmentation of Label Users

Page 164: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

165Profile: Segment 4 (17%) Profile: Segment 4 (17%)

USE THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF ELEMENTSUSE THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF ELEMENTS (5)(5)MOTIVATION (moderate)• ‘average’ level of health consciousness (57% always/regularly choose health

alternative vs 55% total sample);• ‘average’ agreement that label information is really useful or important ie (26%

strongly agree vs 23% total sample);• ‘average’ interest in label information, reflecting the total sample (69% agree very

interested);• few special health needs (allergens, vegetarian/vegan, religious beliefs) and

smaller proportion of no special health needs (34% no special needs vs 41% total population).

CAPACITY (low-moderate)• do not find some label elements very clear and easy to understand (allergen

declaration, nutrient claim, country of origin, GM)• do not trust the information in some label elements (ingredient list, NIP, % label,

but do trust the allergen declaration);• most do not find time a barrier to reading labels while shopping (a third more

consumers in this segment disagree that they don’t have enough time, compared to the total sample, with dis/agree differential of -30 vs -20 total sample).

Page 165: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

166Profile: Segment 4 (17%)Profile: Segment 4 (17%)• Uses just below the average number of label elements (mean = 4.8 vs

5.3 total sample), but is the second lowest ‘user’ segment;• Is comprised of more males than other segments, in proportion with the

total sample (32% vs 33% total sample);• Largest proportion of Australians (71% vs 64% total sample). • Education levels are slightly higher than the total sample, with the

lowest proportion of respondents achieving lowest levels of education (45% secondary or lower vs 50% total sample), however this difference is not significant at the 95% confidence level;

• Proportionally slightly more older (65+) respondents than most other segments, and the total sample (17% vs 16% total sample) however this difference is not significant at the 95% confidence level;

• Proportionally more couples (fewer with children than other segments), with fewer singles (67% couples vs 22% singles, 11% other/refused);

Return to Segmentation of Label Users

Page 166: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

167Profile: Segment 5 (10%) Profile: Segment 5 (10%) USE SLIGHTLY ABOVE AVERAGE NUMBER OF ELEMENTS (6)USE SLIGHTLY ABOVE AVERAGE NUMBER OF ELEMENTS (6)

MOTIVATION (moderate)• few special health needs (allergens and diabetes) and smaller proportion of

no special health needs (34% no special needs vs 41% total population).• ‘average’ agreement that label information is really useful or important ie

(23% strongly agree vs 23% total sample);• slightly above ‘average’ health consciousness (60% always/regularly choose

health alternative vs 55% total sample) - not statistically significant at 95%; • stronger interest in label information than the total sample (77% agree very

interested vs 69% total sample)- not statistically significant at 95%;CAPACITY (moderate)• success in finding any label information needed more successful than unsuccessful (four times more

consumers in this segment agree that they have always been able to find any information they need on a food or drink label, compared to the total sample, with dis/agree differential of 12.6 vs 3.5 total sample);

• find some label elements very clear and easy to understand (ingredients list, NIP, allergen declarations, % label)

• trust the information in some label elements (allergen declaration, % label, date mark, GM but not country of origin);

• largest proportion of respondents who speak other languages at home (19% vs 11%total sample, but small sample sizes);

Page 167: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

168Profile: Segment 5 (10%)Profile: Segment 5 (10%)

• Uses the average number of label elements (mean = 5.9 vs 5.3 total sample);

• Has slightly more females (73% vs 67% total sample);• Education levels are slightly higher than the total sample, with the highest

proportion of tertiary or higher (29% vs 24% total sample) and fewer achieving lowest levels of education (48% secondary or lower vs 50% total sample), however this difference is not significant at the 95% confidence level;

• More 18-24yr olds than most segments, and fewest aged 55+; • Proportionally more couples, with the fewest singles (65% couples vs 14%

singles, 21% other/refused);• Most children compared to all other segments and the total sample (62% vs

45% total sample), these differences are statistically significant;• Largest proportion of respondents who speak other languages at home

(19% vs 11%total sample, but small sample sizes);• 2nd largest proportion of New Zealanders (46% vs 35%v total sample).

Return to Segmentation of Label Users

Page 168: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

169Profile: Segment 6 (11%) Profile: Segment 6 (11%) USE THE MOST ELEMENTS (7)USE THE MOST ELEMENTS (7)

MOTIVATION (high)• significantly above ‘average’ health consciousness (66% always/regularly

choose health alternative vs 55% total sample);• most special health needs (asthma, diabetes, heart disease, general health

concerns, migraine, religious but not allergens!) and smallest proportion of no special health needs (33% no special needs vs 41% total population).

• strongest agreement that label information is really useful or important (35% strongly agree vs 23% total sample) - not statistically significant at 95%;

• stronger interest in label information than the total sample (79% agree very interested vs 69% total sample)- not statistically significant at 95%;

CAPACITY (moderate-high)• success in finding any label information needed more unsuccessful than successful

(twice as many consumers in this segment disagree that they have always been able to find any information they need on a food or drink label, compared to the total sample, with dis/agree differential of -1.8 vs 3.5 total sample);

• find most label elements very clear and easy to understand;• trust the information in most label elements;• most do not find time a barrier to reading labels while shopping, represented in the

same proportion as the total sample.

Page 169: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

170Profile: Segment 6 (11%)Profile: Segment 6 (11%)

• Uses the most label elements (mean = 7.2 vs 5.3 total sample);• Has the most females (77% vs 67% total sample);• Education levels reflect total sample, with slightly fewer achieving lowest

education (48% secondary or lower vs 50% total sample), however this difference is not significant at the 95% confidence level;

• Proportionally fewer couples compared to singles (60% couples vs 29% singles, 11% other/refused);

• Largest proportion of respondents who mainly speak English at home (93% vs 89%total sample).

• Has slightly more children than the total sample (50% vs 45% total sample), however these differences are not statistically significant;

Return to Segmentation of Label Users

Return to Main Menu

Page 170: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERSRESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

A Presentation toFood Standards Australia New Zealand

(FSANZ)

Job Number C02020May 2003

Page 171: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

172

18-24 is significantly different to:

35-4445-5455-64

Age:

Click on coloured area to return to relevant graph

Use of Use of nutrient claimnutrient claim - - (presenting subgroups with statistically significant differences)(presenting subgroups with statistically significant differences)

65+ is significantly different to:

35-4455-64

Page 172: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

173

65+ is significantly different to:

25-3435-4445-5455-64

Age:

Click on coloured area to return to relevant graph

Use of Use of GMGM Declaration - Declaration - (presenting subgroups with statistically significant differences)(presenting subgroups with statistically significant differences)

18-24 is significantly different to:

35-4455-64

Education:

Primary is significantly different to:

Tertiary or higher

Secondary is significantly different to:

TradeTertiary or higher

Page 173: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

174

Age:18-24 is significantly different to:

25-3435-4445-5455-6465+

Click on coloured area to return to relevant graph

Use of Use of country of origincountry of origin - - (presenting subgroups with statistically significant differences)(presenting subgroups with statistically significant differences)

25-34 is significantly different to: 45-5455-6465+

Page 174: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

175

‘Secondary’ is significantly different to: Trade

Tertiary or higher

Education:

Income: ‘$75 000 and over’ is significantly different to:

<$40 000$40 000-$74 999

Click on coloured area to return to relevant graph

Prompted awareness of Prompted awareness of country of origincountry of origin - - (presenting subgroups with statistically significant differences)(presenting subgroups with statistically significant differences)

Page 175: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

176

55-64 is significantly different to:

25-3435-44

Age:

Health Conscious: ‘Highly’ is significantly different to:

‘Not at all’‘Moderately’

Click on coloured area to return to relevant graph

Prompted awareness of Prompted awareness of warning statementwarning statement - -

(presenting subgroups with statistically significant differences)(presenting subgroups with statistically significant differences)

18-24 is significantly different to:

25-3435-4445-5455-64

65+ is significantly different to:

25-3435-4445-5455-64

‘Moderately’ is significantly different to:

‘Not at all’

Page 176: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

177

65+ is significantly different to:

45-54 55-64

Age:

Click on coloured area to return to relevant graph

Use of Use of % label% label - - (presenting subgroups with statistically significant differences)(presenting subgroups with statistically significant differences)

18-24 is significantly different to:

45-5455-64

Page 177: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

178Attitudes by AgeAttitudes by Age18-24 significantly different to:

25-4445-64

“I sometimes like to choose healthy or

nutritious foods depending on cost and convenience”

“I regularly choose the healthy alternative”

18-24 significantly different to:

25-4445-6465+

18-24 significantly different to:

25-4445-6465+

Click on coloured area to return to relevant graph

18-24 significantly different to: 25-4445-6465+

“I’m not at all concerned about the health or nutritional value

of the food I choose”

“I usually don’t worry about the health or nutritional value”

65+ significantly different to:

25-44

25-44 significantly different to:

45-64

Page 178: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

179Use of Use of ingredients listingredients list - -

(presenting subgroups with statistically significant differences)(presenting subgroups with statistically significant differences)

18-24 is significantly different to: 25-3435-4445-5455-64

Age:

$75 000 and over is significantly different to:

>$40 000$40 000-$74 999

Income:

Primary is significantly different to:

TradeTertiary or Higher

Education: Secondary is significantly different to:

TradeTertiary or Higher

Click on coloured area to return to relevant graph

65+ is significantly different to: 35-4445-5455-64

Page 179: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

180Use of Use of NIPNIP - - (presenting subgroups with statistically significant differences)(presenting subgroups with statistically significant differences)

65+ is significantly different to:25-34 35-4445-5455-64

18-24 significantly different to: 25-3435-4445-5455-64

Age:

Click on coloured area to return to relevant graph

Page 180: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

181Prompted awareness of Prompted awareness of allergen allergen

declarationdeclaration - - (presenting subgroups with statistically significant differences)(presenting subgroups with statistically significant differences)

18-24 significantly different to:

35-4445-5455-64

Age:

25-34 is significantly different to:

35-4445-5455-64

Primary is significantly different to:

Secondary Trade

Tertiary or higher

Education: Tertiary or higher is significantly different to:

Trade Secondary

Click on coloured area to return to relevant graph

65+ is significantly different to:

18-2425-3435-4445-5455-64

Page 181: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

182

18-24 is significantly different to:

55-64

Prompted awareness of Prompted awareness of % label% label - - (presenting subgroups with statistically significant differences)(presenting subgroups with statistically significant differences)

Age:

Health Conscious: ‘Highly’ is significantly different to: ‘Not at all’

‘Moderately’

Click on coloured area to return to relevant graph

35-44 is significantly different to:

55-64

65+ is significantly different to:

25-3445-5455-64

Special needs:

‘Yes’ is significantly different to:

‘No’

Page 182: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

183

18-24 is significantly different to: 25-3445-5465+

Age:

Click on coloured area to return to relevant graph

Prompted awareness of Prompted awareness of nutrient nutrient claimclaim

(presenting subgroups with statistically significant differences)(presenting subgroups with statistically significant differences)

Health Conscious: ‘Highly’ is significantly different to:

‘Not at all’‘Moderately’

‘Moderately’ is significantly different to:

‘Not at all’

Page 183: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

184

18-24 is significantly different to:

35-4445-5455-64

Age: 65+ is significantly different to:

18-24 25-3435-4445-5455-64

Click on coloured area to return to relevant graph

Prompted awareness of Prompted awareness of advisory statementadvisory statement - -

(presenting subgroups with statistically significant differences)(presenting subgroups with statistically significant differences)

$75 000 and over is significantly different to:<$40 000

Income:

Primary is significantly different to:Secondary

TradeTertiary or Higher

Education: Secondary is significantly different to:

TradeTertiary or Higher

Highly is significantly different to:ModeratelyNot at all

Health Conscious:

25-34 is significantly different to:

35-4445-5455-64

Moderately is significantly different to:

Not at all

Page 184: FOOD LABELLING ISSUES: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WITH CONSUMERS

185Prompted awareness of Prompted awareness of prep and storage prep and storage instructionsinstructions - -

(presenting subgroups with statistically significant differences)(presenting subgroups with statistically significant differences)

Age: 18-24 is significantly different to:

65+