Article Type : Research Article
Authors : Duarte A
Keywords : Advertising; Communication; Nutrition; Healthy; Labels
Scientific data revealing a link between diseases and
a poor diet have made consumers more attentive to what they consume and wanting
to adopt new lifestyles. Although nutritional knowledge is scarce, brands need
to reinvent themselves and be attentive to these changes so that they can keep
up with their competition. Therefore, the aim of this study is to understand
the perspective from the two sides: brands and consumers. On the one hand, how
do brands advertise (supposedly) healthy products and, on the other, how do
consumers perceive these same products. For a more targeted study, we chose to
study the biscuit sector with an observational study in a supermarket, analyzed
through a questionnaire survey. Overall, this study concludes that consumers
are somewhat concerned with their eating habits. However, this preoccupation
differs from the true nutritional reality from each product. We then conclude
that the public’s lack of knowledge is the key factor that allow companies to
sell these products in a healthy way.
The growing concern for well-being and health has been evident in recent years and the search for a healthy lifestyle has become an obsession for many people [1,2]. As a result, we have seen a change in the communication made by the brands themselves and the appearance of many others aimed at satisfying these recent public desires. Any supermarket is full of "light", "diet", "sugar-free", "organic", "gluten-free" products and, in our subconscious, all these characteristics equate to healthy products that will help us lose weight [3]. But do we really know what we're buying and consuming? Are all these products that advertise themselves as "healthy" really healthy?
The need to clarify and demystify all the "secrets" behind product labels justifies this research, which aims to answer the following question: How does the information provided on the labels of products reported as healthy influence consumers’ perceptions?
It is not certain where advertising originated or when
it began, but the truth is that the history of advertising has evolved step by
step with human development and technical progress [4]. Although different
authors suggest different dates and moments for its emergence there is a
consensus that, although Gutenberg's invention of the movable typo machine in
the 15th century gave a significant boost to communication, it was with the
Industrial Revolution that productive, commercial, and communicative activities
really became a mass phenomenon. Despite this natural evolution, it took until
the end of the 20th century for a new and significant change to revolutionize
this industry once again: the appearance of the internet. With it, the world
became virtually networked, consumers had instant and easy access to information
and became increasingly suspicious of advertising [5,6].
Ethics, according to Tai, is a set of moral principles
whose aim is to improve the well- being of society [7]. As an extremely
persuasive activity with clear commercial motivations, advertising is often
accused of ethical violations which, for the most part, are centered on an
apparent lack of social responsibility and regularly target potentially more
vulnerable groups, such as children, minorities, or the disadvantaged [8]. With
consumers' growing concern and demand for truthful, serious, responsible, and
sustainable communication organizations are changing their approach and
communication to demonstrate coherence between their actions and the image they
wish to project [9,10].
The
packaging as a communication tool
As a result of consumer demands, immediate access to
information, ever-increasing competition, and the internationalization of
markets, as well as legislation in different countries, packaging is constantly
evolving [11]. "Packaging is a complete and complex object that combines
two major functions: to contain the product and to advertise it" and is an
important communication tool as it plays a fundamental role in decision-making
[12-14]. In other words, packaging can both be used as a marketing tool and can
help consumers make informed choices [15]. In the case of eating products, and
to ensure that consumers receive reliable nutritional information about the
products they buy, the organizations responsible for health issues have created
regulations so that the message on the packaging can be more easily controlled
[16]. Food labels must therefore inform consumers about the composition of
products to avoid misunderstandings and protect them from misuse and possible
risks [17]. In recent years, nutritional claims have been added to the
traditional nutritional information in the form of a table on the back of the
pack and, in fact, this is what consumers base their purchasing decision on
[16-18]. Nutritional information is not understood by most people as it is
difficult to understand for those who are not in the field of nutrition but the
nutritional claims on the front of packs are better perceived by consumers,
something that can be understood as subjective perception or understanding
[19-21]. It should also be noted that visual elements are usually the most eye-
catching and their processing in the consumer's mind is unconscious, while
verbal elements require greater cognitive effort to be attractive and trigger
attention [22]. For better and easier nutritional reading, front-of-pack
labelling systems have been created to allow quick decision-making through a
simple format that is accessible to view and spontaneous to interpret [23]. It
is important to note that these labels do not provide a complete assessment of
the product's level of health, but rather a summary and not very detailed
analysis of the product [24]. One such case is Nutri-Score (Figure 1). Created
in France in 2017 by Santé publique France, this system, which has since been
adopted by many other countries, consists of assessing the nutritional profile
of a food product using an algorithm based on nutritional criteria that
classifies the product between dark green, being the healthiest, (letter A) and
red, being the least healthy, (letter E) [25]. In the Nutritional Traffic Light
(Figure 2), some of the nutritional elements (fat, saturated fat, sugar, and
salt/sodium) are represented by a symbol that indicates whether the value is
low (in green), medium (in orange) or high (in red) [24]. Another system is the
Health Star Rating (Figure 3), which classifies the general nutritional profile
of foods and assigns them ratings ranging from half a star to 5 stars, making
it quick and easy to compare similar products - the more stars it has, the
healthier the product. Nutritional information on packaging has evolved a lot
over time. In the beginning, this data was only used to inform consumers about
the nature and composition of products, but now a detailed description is
mandatory so that trade is fair and free from fraud, and so that food choices
are made in an informed manner, with full factual knowledge [26].
Figure 1: Nutri-Score.
Source: Santé publique France, 2021.
Figure 2: Nutritional Traffic Light (example)
Source: Costa, 2021.
Figure 3: Health
Star Rating System.
Source: healthdirect, 2021.
Figure 4: Label Decoder.
Source: Programa Nacional
Promoção Alimentação Saudável,
2015.
Examples of this are regulations 178/2002, 1924/2006
and 1169/2011 of the European Parliament, or the General Standards for the
Labelling of Prepackaged Foods of the Codex Alimentarius - International Food
Standards, to name just a few. As the decision to choose a product is becoming
increasingly difficult, given the variety on the market and the short time available
to make that choice the National Program for the Promotion of Healthy Eating
(NPPHE) has created a Label Decoder in Portugal (Figure 4), in conjunction with
the Directorate General for Health, based on the recommendations of the UK
Department of Health/Ministry of Health. It is therefore suggested that
consumers take these cards with them when they go shopping, opting mainly for
foods/drinks whose nutrients fall into the green category, moderating those in
the yellow category and avoiding those in the red category [27].
Instruments
used and sample
A mixed methodology was used for this study, combining
qualitative and quantitative methods. The qualitative method was based on
points of sale visits, recording, and analyzing the data. As for the
quantitative method, the instrument used was a questionnaire survey. For the
study in question, we chose to use a non-probabilistic random sample, since
everyone in the sample has a known, non-zero chance of being selected.
Methodological
design
Biscuits, which can be eaten anywhere, at any time of
day and by all age groups and economic classes, are one of the food products
most favored by consumers and, representing 3% of the value generated by food
goods, are found in most Portuguese homes [28,29]. However, this product, which
is often associated with snacking moments, has been declining in sales due to
increased competition from healthier options that end up taking their place in
consumers' lives, which means that this sector must reinvent itself and provide
consumers products that are compatible with their healthier lifestyles, to slow
down the decline in consumption [29,56]. After choosing the object of study -
biscuit packaging - it was also decided that it would be carried out in two
hypermarkets since they sell a wide variety of food products. The food products
were chosen with the advice of a nutrition professional, nutritionist Ana Sofia
Ramos, registered with the Order of Nutritionists under number 4860N, and
analyzed using the Label Decoder mentioned above [27]. The questionnaire survey
was carried out online via Google Forms and was available between 24 September
and 4 October 2021. The questions are shown (Table 1).
Observation
To find out about the market and the options available
for biscuits in the healthy eating category, an observational study was carried
out, which is described in the following (Table 2).
Questionnaire
survey
With a random sample, the survey received a total of
400 responses, of which 72.25% were female and 27.75% male (Graph 1), with the
majority aged over 51 and between 36 and 50 (Graph 2). Of
all the respondents, 44.3% have a bachelor's degree and 28.25% have secondary
education. 19.25% said they had a master's degree and few people had
postgraduate or PhD degrees (Graph 3). Regarding
their district of residence, the overwhelming majority (75.75%) live in Lisbon,
with 6.75% in Setubal and 6% in Porto (Graph 4).
Concern
about food and shopping habits
As can be seen (Graph 5), concern for health is a
factor that has been on the rise. However, it was essential to understand
whether this was accompanied by due attention to eating habits. 89.5% of
respondents (358) replied that they are concerned about food and only 8.75%
(35) said "No", with 1.75% replying "Don't know/no answer"
(Graph 6). Of the 400 responses, 292 indicate the number of individuals whose
eating habits are in line with their concern for food, compared to 96 who
indicate that their eating practices are not (Graph 7). Since worldwide obesity
and various diseases associated with poor diet have been increasing, we asked
the participants if they had any pathologies associated with poor diet. 290 of
them answered in the negative and 105 in the affirmative (Graph 8).
Eating
out
People were also asked about their eating habits when
dining out. When faced with 4 statements, respondents assessed their level of
agreement using a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 = "Strongly disagree"
and 5 = "Strongly agree". About
the statement "When eating out, I always choose a quick option", most
responses were between levels 1, 2, and 3, with 107, 124, and 116 responses
respectively. Only 51 people agree/strongly agree and 2 people say they don't
know (chart 9). Regarding
the statement, "When eating out, I stick to my usual diet", the
largest number of responses were at level 3, where neither agree nor disagree.
However, 138 people disagreed and 109 agreed, as well as 5 who did not indicate
their level of agreement (Graph 9). The
data obtained from the last two questions is somewhat contradictory. In the
statement "When eating out, I choose a healthier option", most
responses are between levels 1, 2, and 3, with values of 45, 110, and 152,
respectively. Only 56 people indicated that they agreed and 31 that they totally
agreed, and 6 Doesn’t Know/Doesn´t Answer (DK/DA) (chart 9). This suggests that
when people eat out, they opt for less healthy options. But for the last
statement, "When eating out, I choose a less healthy option", 302
answers are between levels 1, 2, and 3 and only 88 indicate that they
agree/strongly agree. In other words, this is not an issue with much relevance
and impact for individuals and, when they eat out, there is no rule as to the
type of food they will eat.
Graph 1: Gender
Graph 2:
Age.
Graph 3: Academic qualifications.
Graph 4: District
of residence.
Graph 5: In your opinion, and in general, is the concern with food something that has been increasing?.
Graph 6: Do you consider yourself to be a person concerned about food?
Graph 7: Do your eating habits
meet this concern?.
Graph 8: Do you have any pathology associated with poor diet?.
Figure 9: Level of agreement: eating out.
Graph 10:
Do the food choices
you make consider the environment and its preservation?.
Figure 11: Level of agreement: going to the supermarket.
Graph 12: Do you usually read the nutritional information on foods?.
Graph 13: In your opinion,
is the nutritional information and ingredients on the packaging clear?.
Graph 14: Have you ever stopped buying a product because of the nutritional information and ingredients?.
Graph 15: If a product has nutrition and health claims on the front of the pack, do you check the nutrition and ingredient information on the back of the packaging?
Graph 16: What factors do you
consider when choosing a food
product?.
Graph 17:
Which of the following nutrition and health claims make you think a product
is healthy?.
Figure 18: In your opinion, are nutrition and health claims a guarantee that a product is healthy?.
Graph 19: “Nutríssimas Equilíbrio” VS. “Marinheiras Biológicas”.
Graph 20: “Aveia Bio Organic” VS. “Digestive sugar-free”.
Graph 21: “Bolacha
Avenacol Rústica” VS. “Bolachas Chiquilin sugar- free”.
Going
to the supermarket
People were also asked whether their food choices take
the environment and its preservation into account. The results show that
"sometimes" is the majority answer (244 answers, 61%) but 107 people
indicate "yes" and only 47 indicate "no" and 2 say
“DK/DA" (Graph 10). Four
statements were made again, with each respondent marking their level of
agreement on a 5-point Likert scale. Thus, in the statement "On a
supermarket visit, I choose food produced in a sustainable way", 166
people indicated that they neither agreed nor disagreed (level 3) against 111
who disagreed/strongly disagreed and 118 who agreed/strongly agreed (only 5
people indicated that they didn't know) (Graph 11). In other words, this is not
yet a relevant issue for consumers, because although there are more people who
agree than those who disagree, the difference is quite slight, and most people
remain indifferent. Regarding the statement "On a supermarket visit, I
choose foods that I know are good nutritionally", most of the answers are
between levels 3, 4, and 5, with 130, 147, and 61 answers respectively, against
56 people who indicate that they totally disagree/disagree and 6 people who
answer “DK/DA” (Graph 11). When it came to the statement "On a supermarket
visit, I choose food and food products of vegetable origin", most
responses were again at level 3, with a total of 143. Again, the difference
between levels 1 and 2 and 3 and 4 was very small, with 130 being the total
number of people who disagreed/strongly disagreed and 119 being the number of
people who agreed/strongly agreed. 8 people answered “DK/DA”. Finally, for the
statement "On a supermarket visit, I choose foods whose packaging contains
nutrition and health claims", "neither agree nor disagree" was
once again the option with the most responses, with a total of 126. As before,
the difference between the levels of disagreement and agreement is quite small.
This time, levels 1 and 2 had a total of 125 responses and levels 3 and 4 had
136 (Graph 11). In other words, habits of buying sustainable and healthy
products are not yet ingrained in people's lifestyles.
Reading
labels
To get a good understanding of how people read and
understand labels, a few questions were asked. To the question "Do you
read the nutritional information on food?", the majority (53%) answered
"Yes, it depends on the food". 69 people indicated that they may (or
may not) have this habit, but that they don't know how to interpret the
information, 61 of those surveyed said that they don't do it due to lack of
interest and only 52 said that they always do it (Graph 12). When asked whether
the nutritional information and ingredients on the packaging are clear, 264 (66%) of the respondents said
"Sometimes" and 75 people said "No", which is in line with the number of people who said they
didn't know how to interpret the nutritional
information in the previous question. Lastly, 57 people said that the
information was clear, which is also in line with the figures
mentioned in the previous question,
in which 264 people said that they read the nutritional
information (either always or depending on the food) (Graph 13). Considering the number of people who
indicated "sometimes" when asked about the clarity of the information
on the packaging (264 people), it is consistent that 222 said they had already
stopped buying a product because of its nutritional information. Only 79 said
they hadn't and 86 said they sometimes had (Graph 14). Since
the front of the package generally doesn't contain all the information needed to
properly analyze the product, we asked about the habit of reading the
nutritional information and ingredients on the back. The answers to this
question were close, with 134 people saying yes, 111 saying no and 145 saying
sometimes (chart 15). Despite the very close figures and the fact that the
majority say they do so, the number of people who don't check the nutritional
information and ingredients on the back of packs leads us to conclude that it's
not common knowledge that this information alone isn't enough to fully
understand the product in question. Given that front of pack reading is of
great importance when making a choice, we asked which of a list of seven
factors were considered the most. The most chosen factor was the price, with
26.5% of the total responses, followed by ingredients with 22.9%. Other
relevant factors were also mentioned, such as nutritional information (18.5%)
and the brand (14.3%). There were also those who chose other factors, such as
"environmental impact", "national products/produced in
Portugal", "organic vs. non-organic", "the flavor",
"the type of packaging (avoiding plastic)", "whatever I
want", "the price/sustainability ratio", "whether it is of
plant or animal origin" and "the quality" (Graph 16). By
crossing the "Age" factor with "Do you consider yourself a
food-conscious person?" and "What factors do you take into account
when choosing a food product?”, the following conclusions were drawn: the 3
responses obtained by under-18s, all of them indicate that they are concerned
about food. The factors that respondents mention when choosing a food product
are the ingredients (3 answers), the price (3 answers), and the nutritional
information (1 answer); in the 19-25 age range, there were 79 responses, 69 of
which said they were concerned about food. These 69 people chose price (29.4%),
ingredients (21%), nutritional information (19.6%), and brand (17.8%) in the
first place. Health claims (5.1%), potential allergens (4.2%), packaging design
(1.9%), and environmental impact were also mentioned to a slightly lesser
extent, with one respondent mentioning "other (which?)"; of the 67
answers given by people aged between 26 and 35, 58 said they were concerned
about food. Once again, price was the most mentioned factor, with 26.2% of the
total responses, followed by nutritional information with 20.4%. Ingredients
(18.3%), the brand (13.6%), and health claims (9.9%) were also selected. The
design of the packaging (5.2%), and potential allergens (4.2%) were mentioned
to a lesser extent, and in the "other" option, three people answered
"organic vs. non-organic", "whether it's of plant or animal
origin" and "type of packaging (avoid plastic)".
Table 1: Theoretical foundation.
Question |
Theoretical background |
Informed consent |
General Data Protection Regulation - Law 58/2019 |
Q1: Do you consider yourself a healthy
person? |
Proença (2010); Plank
& Gould (1990);
Sanderson (2016) |
Q2: Are your eating
habits in line with this
concern? |
|
Q3: Do you have
any pathologies associated with a bad diet (diabetes, obesity, high
cholesterol, etc.)? |
Greger (2019); World
Health Organization (2000); Nestle (2002) |
Q4:
In your opinion and in general, is concern aboutfood something that
has been increasing? |
Dudeja &
Gupta (2017); Northup
(2014); Plank &
Gould (1990); Proença (2010); Carmo (2020) |
Q5: Do the food
choices you make take
the environment and
its preservation into
account? |
Lairon (2019); Scheer
& Moss (2011); Sanderson (2016) |
Q6: Do you read
the nutritional information on food? |
Cowburn & Stockley (2004); Muñoz (2018) |
Q7: Please
indicate your level
of agreement with thestatements on a scale
of 1 to 5 (where
1 = Strongly Disagree and 5 = Strongly Agree): |
Dudeja e Minhas (2017);
Brunner, van der Horst, &
Siegrist, (2010); Dudeja
& Gupta (2017) |
Q7.1: When I eat
out, I always
choose a quick
option |
|
Q7.2: When I eat out, I stick to my usual
diet |
|
Q7.3: When
I eat out,
I choose a healthier option |
Q7.4: When I eat out I choose a less healthy option |
|
Q8: Please indicate your level of agreement with the statements on a scale of 1 to 5 (where
1 = Strongly Disagree and 5 = Strongly Agree): |
Lairon (2019); Scheer & Moss (2011); Northup (2014); Marinho, Hamann & Lima
(2007); Kanter, Vanderlee & Vandevijvere (2018); Leitzmann (2005); Aschemann- Witzel, Gantriis,
Fraga, & Perez-Cuet (2020) |
Q8.1: When
going to the supermarket, I choose food produced in a sustainable way |
|
Q8.2: When
going to the
supermarket, I choose
food that I know is nutritionally good |
|
Q8.3: When
going to the supermarket, I choose food
and food products of vegetable origin |
|
Q8.4: When
going to the supermarket, I choose foods whose packaging contains nutritional and health claims |
|
Q9: What factors do you consider when choosing a foodproduct? |
Agariya, Johari, Sharma, Chandraul, & Singh(2012); Simmonds & Spence (2016);
Koen, Blaauw &
Wentzel-Viloen (2016); Stanhope & Havel (2008); Rundh (2005);
Elliott & Truman
(2020) |
Q10: In your opinion, is the nutritional information and ingredients on the packaging clear? |
Cowburn & Stockley (2004); Northup (2014); |
Q11: Have you ever
not bought a product because of the nutritional information and ingredients? |
Cowburn &
Stockley (2004); |
Q12: If a product has nutrition and health claims on the front
of the pack,
do you check
the nutrition informationand ingredients on the back of the pack? |
Huang & Lu (2015); Borgmeier & Westenhoefer (2009);
Kanter, Vanderlee &
Vandevijvere (2018) |
Q13: Which of the following nutrition and
health claimsmake you
think a product
is healthy? |
Stanhope & Havel
(2008); Mateus (2019); Lindstrom (2011);
The Nielsen Company (2015); Breen, James,
Rangan & Gemming
(2020) |
Q14/15/161: Which
of the following products do you think is the healthiest at first glance? |
PNPAS (2015);
Stanhope & Havel
(2008); |
Q14: Nutríssimas Equilíbrio - Bolachas integrais VS. Marinheiras Biológicas |
Cavallo & Piqueras-Fiszman (2016); Cowburn & Stockley (2004); Borgmeier &
Westenhoefer (2009) |
Q15: Aveia
Bio Organic VS. Digestive sem açúcares |
|
Q16: Bolacha Avenacol Rústica VS. Bolacha Chiquilín sem
açúcar |
|
Q17: In your opinion, are the nutrition and health claim a guarantee that the product is healthy? (E.g.,
"No added sugar", "Light", "Reduces the risk
of", "Source of", "Free from", "Low in", "Organic", "Contains natural
ingredients", etc.) |
Bakers & Martinson (2001); Gaffney apud Bakers &
Martinson (2001); Stanhope & Havel (2008); Lindstrom (2011) |
Table 2: Market Options analyzed and Correspondent ingredients.
?
There was also one person who opted not to choose any
of the factors. Between the ages of 36 and 50, a total of 118 responses were
received, 104 of which said they were concerned about food. Of the factors
mentioned when choosing a food product, price came first, with 26.2% of the
total responses, followed by ingredients, with 23.4%, and nutritional
information, with 20.6%. Respondents in this category also mentioned health
claims (11.7%), the brand (10.6%), and potential allergens (5.3%). There were
also two extra factors mentioned, "whatever I want" and
"produced in Portugal" and 4 people who didn't mention any factors.
Finally, of the 133 respondents aged over 51, 124 are concerned about food. In
this bracket, price loses the lead to ingredients (28.3%), but reaches second
place among the most mentioned factors, with 21.5% (a significant difference).
Nutritional information (19.5%), health claims (12.6%), the brand (10.9%), and
potential allergens (6.1%) were also mentioned, while "national
products" and "price/sustainability ratio" were given as extra
factors. In this range, only one person didn't select any of the options. It's
important to note that only in the 16 to 25 and 26 to 35 age groups was the
design of the packaging mentioned, as well as responses to the environment and
its preservation. The most important factor is undoubtedly the price, and only
in the 51+ age group was the price not mentioned the most. This leads to the
conclusion that, for people over 51, price is no longer the most decisive
factor. The four most mentioned factors were price, with 25.6% of all
responses, followed by ingredients (23.5%), nutritional information (19.9%),
and brand (12.7%). these figures lead us to conclude that although price is the
most important factor, nutritional issues are beginning to gain strength when
it comes to choosing food products.
Knowing that the use of triggers and keywords is
essential to get the consumer to buy, we asked, from a list of eleven options,
which nutritional and health claims made the respondent think that a product is
healthy. In this question, each person could choose the number of options that
best suited their opinion. The most mentioned option was "no added
sugar", with 308 answers (20.3%), followed by "low fat", with
274 answers (18.1%). The "organic product" option came third, with
199 responses (13.1%), and "natural ingredients" followed with 165
choices (10.9%). The option "low in cholesterol" was also mentioned a
lot (141 responses and 9.3%), as
was "high in fiber" (118 responses and 7.8%). The alternatives
"lactose-free" (4.8%), "made with whole grains" (4.4%),
"higher percentage of fruit" (4.4%), "gluten-free" (3.4%),
"vegan product" (2.8%), the option not to answer (0.5%) and an extra
option, mentioned by one respondent, "low salt and sugar content"
(0.1%) should also be considered (Graph 17). Crossing again "Age"
with "Do you consider yourself to be a food-conscious person?" and
"Which of the following nutritional and health claims make you think a
product is healthy?", it turns out that: all three respondents aged up to
18 mentioned being concerned about their diet. From the list of options
presented, "low in fat", "contains natural ingredients" and
"no added sugars" were also mentioned (the three options with 23.1%
each of the total responses). "Low cholesterol content", "made
with whole grains", "higher percentage of fruit" and
"organic product" were also mentioned once each (7.7% for each
option) between the ages of 19 and 25, 79 responses were obtained, 69 of which
said they were concerned about their diet. In this bracket, the most mentioned
option was "no added sugar", with 18.1% of the total responses,
followed by "low fat", with 15.7%. It is also important to mention
the options "organic product" and "contains natural
ingredients", with 13.9% and 12.5%t respectively. Respondents in this age
group also mentioned "lactose-free" (7.8%), "low in
cholesterol" (7.5%), "vegan product" (5.7%), "high in
fiber" (5.7%), "gluten-free" (5.3%), "made with whole
grains" (4.3%) and "higher percentage of fruit" (3.6%) for the
58 individuals aged between 26 and 35 who say they are concerned about their
diet, the claim they most associate with a product being healthy is "no
added sugar", which received 48 responses (equivalent to 21.6%). With very
close margins, in second and third place were "organic product"
(16.2%), and "low fat content" (15.8%) respectively. "Contains
natural ingredients" (9%), "low in cholesterol" (8.6%),
"high in fiber" (6.3%), "higher percentage of fruit" and
"lactose-free" (5% each), "made with whole grains" (4.5%),
"vegan product" (4.1%) and "gluten-free" (3.6%) were also
mentioned. This group also received an extra response where "low salt and
low sugar content" was mentioned (0.5%) of the 118 answers given by people
aged between 36 and 50, 104 were from those who indicated that diet was a
concern. For these respondents, the most frequently mentioned claims were
"no added sugar" (20.5%), and "low fat" (18.4%). The
options "organic product" (12.8%), "contains natural
ingredients" (10.6%), "high in fiber" (9.2%), and "low in
cholesterol" (8.7%) were also mentioned with some expressiveness. Although
with fewer references, the claims "higher percentage of fruit"
(5.3%), "lactose-free" (4.3%), "made with whole grains" and
"gluten-free" (3.6% each), and "vegan product" (2.4%) were
also mentioned. In this range, two people didn't mention any of the options.
Finally, for the 124 respondents who are concerned about their diet and are
over 51 years old, the claims they take most into consideration are "no
added sugar" (20.3%) and "low in fat" (18.8%). These respondents
also mentioned "contains natural ingredients" (11.8%), "organic
product" (11.4%), "low in cholesterol" (11.1%), and "high
in fiber" (9.2%). With fewer mentions, they also referred to "made
with whole grains" (5%), "lactose-free" (4.6%), "higher
percentage of fruit" (3.9%), "gluten-free" (2.6%), and
"vegan product" (1.3%). Out of a total of 358 people who indicated
that they care about their diet, "no added sugar", "low
fat", "organic" and "contains natural ingredients" are
the claims that most condition respondents to think that a product is healthy.
It's
important to note that low-cholesterol and lactose-free products are still
considered healthy, as are those that claim to be rich in fiber. Although the
number of respondents aged up to 18 was low (only 3), this was the only age
group that didn't mention all the options that were presented. All the others
always mentioned at least one of the options, even if some were mentioned only
a few times. Since reading labels is an extremely important factor in making a
good food choice, and to assess people's perception of the actions that brands
take, we asked whether, in the respondent's opinion, nutritional and health
claims are a guarantee that it is healthy. Of the 400 people who answered the
question, 189 said "sometimes" and 158 said "no". Although
only 49 respondents believe that nutrition and health claims are a guarantee
that a product is healthy, the number of people answering "sometimes"
shows that, for some, reading the front of the pack may be enough in some cases
(which, as we have seen, is not the case).
Packaging:
which product is healthier?
To
assess consumers' perceptions of packaging and how healthy or unhealthy it is,
three identical questions were asked in which they were asked to make a direct
comparison between two products and indicate which of the two, at first glance,
was healthier. Of the three questions, the second option was the one whose
nutritional values and ingredients were better for health. However, it is
important to clarify that this does not mean that because one option is better
than the other, it becomes a healthy product. So, the first question compared
Nutríssimas Equilíbrio and Marinheiras Biológicas biscuits since the literature
review indicates that packaging with blue and/or green tones transmits the
sensation of health, and so we wanted to compare a product that satisfied this
aspect with another that was healthier but didn't fulfill this criterion. The
second question aimed to assess the perception of the terms
"organic", "natural" and "organic". Thus, a
product was chosen with the indication of being organic and natural and another
that was a better option and did not have any of these claims, comparing the
Bio Organic Oat biscuits with the Digestive sugar-free biscuits from DietNature
brand. Finally, we set out to measure consumer perception of health claims on
the front of the pack. As in the previous examples, an option was chosen that
met these requirements and another with better values that didn't have any
health claims. The examples presented were Avenacol Rústica biscuits compared
to Chiquilín sugar-free biscuits. Of the three questions presented, only the
first had the highest number of correct answers. Although it was by a small
margin, Marinheiras Biológicas had a total of 194 responses, corresponding to
48.5% of the total responses, so the healthier option ended up being the one
chosen. Nutríssimas Equilíbrio biscuits had a total of 168 responses (42%) and
there were also 38 people who chose not to choose between the two options,
answering “DK/DA" (Graph 19). In the second question, where Bio Organic
oat biscuits were compared with Digestive sugar- free biscuits, most respondents
chose the first option. Although there was some difference, Bio Organic
received a total of 207 responses (equivalent to 51.7% of the total) compared
to Digestive, which received 162 (40.5%), and there was a total of 31 responses
to the "DK/DA" option (Graph 20). Finally,
the third question had the largest difference. Avenacol biscuits, which are
said to help reduce cholesterol, received a total of 283 responses, which
equates to 70.8%. Only 82 people got it right when they chose sugar-free
Chiquilín biscuits as the healthier option and there were still 35 people who
didn't choose either option (Graph 21).
This study allows us to conclude that the lack of
nutritional knowledge is widespread and is holding back the necessary change.
Although respondents say they are concerned about their diet, the data shows
that they lack knowledge on the subject and, therefore, this concern is not
matched by consumption behavior. Although only 49 of the 400 respondents
believe that nutrition and health claims are a guarantee that a product is
healthy, the number of people who answered "sometimes" shows that for
some, reading the front of the pack may be enough. Knowing which nutrition and
health claims lead an individual to believe that a product is healthy, we can
conclude that eating habits will not change as quickly as necessary and that
these products will continue to be healthy in the minds of consumers who don't
have enough knowledge to evaluate them otherwise. Misinformation is constant
and growing day by day, and defense mechanisms need to be put in place to
ensure that health always comes first and is kept up to date with what is true.
On the brands' side, we can conclude that they use lack of knowledge as a key
factor in selling. The combination of that lack of knowledge, front-of-pack
labeling systems, nutritional and/or health claims, and good communication is the
secret to selling a product as healthy, even if it is not. Although it is
common to think that brands are misleading consumers, this is not the case, as
all the necessary information is contained on the packaging, camouflaged,
however, by its location, design, and poor prominence.
On the consumer side, we can admit that the
information placed on food packaging labels is, for the most part, seen as
reliable and, despite their alleged concern for food, the lack of knowledge is
allowing brands to win, even if they often only confuse those who want to make
the best choices for their health. For the future, there must be more concern
about nutritional information and how it is read, and greater care on the part
of organizations about how the message is conveyed. It may be an arduous and
difficult road to travel, but if the information is conveyed as clearly as
possible, there is hope that the problems associated with poor nutrition will
no longer be one of the world's biggest concerns.