Introduction and methods

Nutrition labelling is a valuable way to help guide people to healthier food choices (Kristal et al, 1998). Label use is significantly associated with lower fat consumption and higher intakes of fruits and vegetables (Neuhouser et al, 1999) as well as better diet quality overall (Perez-Escamilla & Haldeman, 2002; Kreuter et al, 1997). Consumers who hold a strong belief that what is consumed can help reduce the risk of disease are more likely to use nutritional information related to fat on foods (Nayga, 1996; Smith et al, 2000; Kim et al, 2001). Men, younger consumers and those with lower levels of education are less likely to use food labels (Nayga, 1996; 2000; Smith et al, 2000; Kim et al, 2001). Consumers can have difficulty in differentiating between similar claims—for example reduced fat and low fat claims (Levy & Fein, 1998) and a product may be thought low in fat if there is a claim of low cholesterol (Reid and Hendricks, 1994). To help inform the development of regulations about nutrient claims, this study was undertaken to explore the beliefs and attitudes of consumers to claims about fat made on food labels.

For this qualitative study, participants were recruited through newspaper advertisements in the Illawarra region, south of Sydney, and allocated to six groups: six women aged 20–35 y (mean age 29 y); six women aged above 35 y (mean age 55 y); four male adults (mean age 46 y); three adult couples (mean age 53 y); overweight adults (three male and five female adults; mean age 42 y); six adults with high blood cholesterol levels (mean age 57 y). This stratification was designed to explore the views of participants of different gender, age, and health status including those most likely to be interested in claims about fat.

Focus groups were conducted by the same moderator (CP), with conversations audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. A semistructured discussion process was used, with the following questions: what are the most important aspects of a healthy diet? What does the 'eat less fat' message mean to you? How would you achieve the healthy eating guidelines relating to fat when you are shopping? In total, 10 products were provided for consideration, carrying different types of fat claims: Fat Free, No Fat, Low Fat, Low in Fat, Lite, Extra Light, 97% Fat Free, 92% Fat Free, 50% Less Fat, and the Heart Foundation Tick (which indicates foods that meet specific nutritional criteria for cardiovascular health (Noakes & Crawford, 1991)). Participants were asked: what do you think of these? Which parts of the label do you look at specifically? What does the claim mean? Do you believe the claims? Do you think you can eat more of these products than the regular equivalent? How often do you look at these claims when shopping? Are there any foods that you would not buy the variety with a 'low fat' claim on the label and why? Subjects were asked to indicate on which foods from a list of 36 they believed it would be useful to have claims about low or reduced fat or cholesterol. They were also asked to consider four brands of margarine and one butter, choose the healthiest spread, and explain the reasons for their choice.

Transcripts were examined for emerging themes, using a combination of content and thematic analyses (Rice & Ezzy, 1999). All quotes were allocated to theme categories by one author with the allocation checked by the other two. Exemplar quotes have been selected to illustrate key findings. Percentages of responses have generally not been presented because the relatively small and nonrepresentative nature of the sample make quantitative extrapolation inappropriate. Where there was clear consensus (>50% participant comments), this has been reported as 'most participants'.

Results and discussion

Table 1 sets out the main thematic categories. Four main beliefs related to fat and a healthy diet were identified: 'Good fat and bad fat' (32 comments); 'Reduce saturated fat' (22); 'Reduce total fat' (16) and 'Fat should not be excluded' (14). However, there were a number of notable contradictions in the beliefs held by the participants.

Table 1 - Selected thematic categories used in coding focus group transcripts and exemplar quotations.

Full table

Belief in the need for 'good' fats vs fat avoidance

While acknowledging that there were 'good' fats that were needed in the diet, many participants agreed that low fat claims influenced their purchasing. Some participants mentioned that they would generally try low fat products and, if other product characteristics met their specifications, they would continue to purchase them.

Scepticism vs use of claims about fat

Most participants did not believe that fat claims are always truthful. Despite this, participants still reported using such claims, although they liked to check their accuracy against values in the nutrition information panel (NIP). However, when shopping time was limited, some participants admitted that fat claims alone were relied upon.

Some claims about fat were seen as misleading even when legally permitted. For example participants regarded 'Fat Free' as often being a false claim, because of small amounts of fat declared in the NIP. This finding is consistent with results from a 1995 survey of Australian consumers that reported 32% of shoppers looked at nutrition claims when purchasing a product for the first time, but 30% overall were unsure whether they could trust them (Australia New Zealand Food Authority, 1996). Such scepticism can reduce the use of nutrient claims (Szykman et al, 1997) and consumer testing of alternative claims such as 'Negligible Fat' would be useful.

Knowledge about saturated fat vs butter preference

Participants identified vegetable oils, fish oils and unsaturated fats as good fats, and saturated and animal fats as bad fats. However, when choosing a spread, just over one-third preferred the more 'natural' butter blend. The main reason given was concern about the artificiality of margarine. The use of food additives and the safety of processed foods are among the most important consumer concerns about the food supply (Worsley & Scott, 2000; Williams et al, 2004).

Aim of low-fat eating vs eating more of foods with low-fat claims

Some participants interpreted a low-fat claim as a licence to consume more of a product and most agreed that fat claims might trigger consumers to think they could eat more of low fat products than their normal counterparts. Most said that they would not act the same way, but some admitted they had consumed more of a product because of the presence of low or reduced fat claims.

Low-fat preference vs barriers of price, taste and habit

Cost and taste were noted by all groups as potential barriers to purchase of low-fat products. One salient belief was that low-fat products must be high in sugar in order to preserve the taste. When considering claims about fat, 'negative' ingredients such as sugar and salt were mentioned as other important factors that were considered, whereas 'positive' nutrients such as dietary fibre were not—a finding that has been reported by others (Garretson & Burton, 2000). This suggests some consumers take a risk avoidance approach to food selection rather than considering the full nutritional profile of foods. Participants in all groups mentioned that one major reason they chose higher fat products was out of habit. A few participants explained that some food categories (like chocolate) were perceived as treats and the fat content was irrelevant when making purchase decisions.

Of the fat claim formats, participants preferred 'X% Fat Free' because its accuracy could be checked easily against the NIP. Claims of 'X% less fat' were least understood and many participants were unsure about what the relevant reference products were. Participants preferred fat claims to be carried only on foods that they would normally expect to be high in fat, such as cheese, mayonnaise, milk and ice cream (Table 2). Foods that were seen as least relevant to carry claims about fat were naturally low fat products, and perhaps these should be labelled as such.

Table 2 - Foods identified by focus group participants as most and least suitable to carry claims about fat.

Full table

Caution is needed in interpreting the results from a qualitative study such as this. It is probable that the self-selected participants were more interested in nutrition issues than the general population. Nonetheless, it is likely that these findings have wider applicability than just in Australia. As food marketing becomes more global, consumers in all developed markets face similar messages and food choices. It would be desirable for the regulation of claims about fat to be better informed by more consumer research to enhance the credibility of labelling and support its role in assisting consumers to make healthier food choices.

References

1. Australia New Zealand Food Authority (1996): National Consumer Survey on Food Labelling. Canberra: ANZFA.
2. Garretson J & Burton S (2000): Effects of nutrition facts panel values, nutrition claims, and health claims on consumer attitudes, perceptions of disease-related risks, and trust. J. Public Pol. Marketing. 19, 213–227. | Article |
3. Kim S-Y, Nayga R & Capps O (2001): Food label use, self-selectivity, and diet quality. J. Consum. Affairs 35, 346–363.
4. Kreuter M, Brennan L, Scharff D & Lukwago S (1997): Do nutrition label readers eat healthier diets? Behavioral correlates of adults' use of food labels. Am. J. Prev. Med. 13, 277–283. | PubMed | ChemPort |
5. Kristal A, Levy L, Patterson R & Li S (1998): Trends in food label use with new nutrition labeling regulations. Am. J. Public Health. 88, 1212–1215. | PubMed | ChemPort |
6. Levy A & Fein S (1998): Consumers' ability to perform tasks using nutrition labels. J. Nutr. Ed. 30, 210–217.
7. Nayga R (1996): Determinants of consumers' use of nutritional information on food packages. J. Agric. Appl. Econ. 28, 303–312.
8. Nayga R (2000): Nutrition knowledge, gender and food label use. J. Consum. Affairs 34, 97–112.
9. Neuhouser M, Kristal A & Patterson R (1999): Use of food labels is associated with lower fat intakes. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 99, 45–50, 53. | Article | PubMed | ChemPort |
10. Noakes M & Crawford D (1991): The National Heart Foundation's Pick the Tick programme. Consumer awareness, attitudes and interpretation. Food Aust. 43, 262–266.
11. Perez-Escamilla R & Haldeman L (2002): Food label use modifies association of income and dietary quality. J. Nutr. 132, 768–772. | PubMed | ChemPort |
12. Reid D & Hendricks S (1994): Consumer understanding and use of fat and cholesterol information on food labels. Can. J. Public Health. 85, 334–337. | PubMed | ChemPort |
13. Rice P & Ezzy D (1999): Qualitative Research Methods. South Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
14. Smith S, Taylor J & Stephen A (2000): Use of food labels and beliefs about diet-disease relationships among university students. Public Health Nutr. 3, 175–182. | PubMed | ChemPort |
15. Szykman L, Bloom P & Levy A (1997): A proposed model of the use of package claims and nutrition labels. J. Public Pol. Marketing. 16, 228–241.
16. Williams P, Sterling E & Keynes N (2004): Food Fears: a national survey on the attitudes of Australian adults about the safety and quality of food. Asia Pacific J. Clin. Nutr. 13, 32–39.
17. Worsley A & Scott V (2000): Consumers' concerns about food and health in Australia and New Zealand. Asia Pacific J. Clin. Nutr. 9, 24–32. | Article |