February 27, 2008
Keep the Labels Simple, Stupid
By Bernice Hurst, Managing Director, Fine Food Network
Providing simple nutritional information is not a simple matter. Consensus has evolved in Britain and Europe over the past few years that a uniform labeling system should be introduced but it has not resulted in agreement on the form that system should take.
Suggestions on placing information front or back of pack, or both, using color codes, pie charts, tick boxes, percentages, portion or pack sizes were floated. Formats currently in use in British supermarkets include Traffic Lights, Guideline Daily Amounts (GDA) and a Wheel of Health.
Unilever added its own study results to the discussion in January. A random combination of three out of six nutrition labeling formats were shown to 1,630 participants who were asked to rate them according to comprehension, likeability and credibility as well as “the impact of the formats on perceived healthiness of the products”, reported Food & Drink Europe. Follow-on research compared product choices with “behavioral intention measures” among 776 Italian and British participants looking at four label formats.
According to Food & Drink Europe, Unilever found that healthy choices were made more quickly with simpler, front-of-pack formats than more detailed GDA panels. The conclusion was that “simple labels, supported by a back-of pack nutritional information fact box and endorsement from a health organization, could have ‘a substantial positive impact on public health’ while a multitude of different labeling formats was confusing and decreased their effectiveness, meaning that ‘The current challenge is therefore to come up with a harmonized European or even global front-of-pack labeling format across all foods.’”
Also in January, the UK’s Food Standards Agency announced that it was evaluating the conflicting schemes used by retailers and reiterated its preference for a consistent but voluntary scheme. At the very end of the month the European Commission announced a set of compulsory standards to be imposed on all its 27 member states.
Although good intentions are generally accepted, accusations about which combination of information and presentation best serves the public are heated, to say the least. The results until now have been a chorus of disagreement about the best way forward on all points except the need for simplicity, which is about the only thing on which everyone appears to agree – so long as it isn’t oversimplification, as EU health commissioner, Markos Kyprianou, said traffic lights might be.
Discussion questions: What do you see as the best way of providing nutritional information on packaging? Do you think front-of-pack information would be a good solution for U.S. consumers? Would you expect product manufacturers to support such a requirement?
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Poll
Front of package labeling will not fly–too much money is spent on the main image to give up the required space.
Consumers are accustomed to the nutritional panel on the side or back of the package and that’s where it should stay.
What I would like to see is allergens listed with consistent images, rather than words. I have a nephew with severe allergies that would love to have a quick look for a certain picture than read through the long ingredient list. His egg allergy is sometimes listed as whole eggs, frozen eggs, egg yolks, yolks, albumen, or enzyme. We’d all be happier if he just had to look for a picture.
If I were a United States grocery supplier or retailer I would count my lucky stars that your labels are unilingual. Over here, in Canada, labels have to be bilingual. This creates huge challenges for companies and their marketing departments, not to mention applied graphics people who have to squeeze all that information on limited real estate.
Mind you, I am not complaining; Canada is officially a bilingual country. C’est la vie. In a few years Americans might find themselves in the same boat when the increase in the number of Hispanic consumers might force suppliers to go the Anglo and Hispanic labeling way.
U.S. consumers like pretty packages. It might work for some products, but then again, how many products really want to make their nutritional content clear to consumers?
I would not support front of box labeling and suspect that CPG manufacturers would strongly resist it. In the US, most CPG food products have nutritional information on the side of the package. Consumers know to look for it there.
The EU needs to come up with guidelines that train the consumer where to look, while allowing manufacturers to retain the real estate on the front of their packages.
The simpler the better. Too many “icons” would be confusing.
I think the Yale-affiliated hospital, Griffin Health, might have the answer with their “Overall Nutritional Quality Index” or ONQI. It is a simple rating from 0 to 100 for healthiness. This type of rating with the full nutritional information elsewhere might be the way to go.
Putting it on the label requires either a government mandate or agreement among all parties toward a common system…unlikely, and perhaps not the right answer anyway. A system that is appropriate for the general population might be off the mark considerably, and potentially legally, for a consumer with an overweight, type-two diabetic child.
Putting labels on the SHELF in FRONT of the product offers the ability to build/adopt the program you believe suits your customers best, offers the most from a banner re-enforcement standpoint and allows neighborhood variants for multi-store operators.
Having the government mandate, or the manufacturers arrive at a consensus about programs does not engender the strongest trust from the consumer who see H&W gurus, coupled with their local supermarket as much more trustworthy (according to a recent GFK study).
The challenge in all of this is really having accurate product information upon which to base the ratings. This is very far from straightforward. A recent joint study indicated that fewer than 1/4 of a given retailer’s food products have the necessary accurate product information to be “ratable”.
If there is agreement on what it should say, then some standards should be created for minimum disclosure of relevant information (as we have now). Let the market determine how enhanced communication can help.
Positive health claims are already all over labels–the problem is knowing what they really mean. I don’t think the focus should be on standardizing packaging, it should be on standardizing the meaning of terms and creating claims that consumers can evaluate fairly.
Food label nutrition info and ingredient lists should have a reasonable minimum type size and contrast. If the info isn’t legible, it’s useless. Here’s a proposal no food manufacturer would like: the ingredients and nutrition info font size should be no smaller than the brand name on the front of the package. An icon should show the average weight and body shape of folks in the 80th percentile of consumption. In other words, a typical high calorie snack would have an icon showing an obese person with “250 pounds” printed below the icon in the same size type as the brand name. The icon would be double the size of the brand name. Violators would have to pay for a free annual gym membership for every inadequately labeled package sold.
Nice idea, and in line with being “the shopper advocate” that I always espouse. But pragmatically, trying to implement this on a voluntary basis or via legislation would take years and result in watered-down misdirected nonsense. I won’t even attempt to assign blame for that. For now, the voluntary shelf-labeling programs that are springing up at different retailers are all quite good.
My gut is that retailers are more likely to use front-panel package labeling like this on their private label products, to help provide an added advantage vs. national brands who hold their front panels sacred. This could give their private label an edge since it will make it easier for shoppers to make a quick decision at the shelf. It’s all about being the shopper advocate.
I believe that the current US system for nutritional food panels is effective as far as being easy to find and read by consumers. There is no need to put it on the front of the package. I also think we have to draw the line somewhere on allergen listings. People are allergic to all kinds of things. Maybe we should improve the ingredients list requirements to some point but not force too much more on the package, instead require manufacturers offer a 100% complete list of all ingredients on their in a website. A simple computer sponsored by each retail store could provide this free access.
More Discussions
Has Same-Day Delivery Become an Expectation Across Retail?
Are expectations around retail delivery speed in flux?OpenAI Names the Infrastructure Standard for Agentic Commerce
Will OpenAI or Google (or another entity) set the gold standard for agentic commerce?Is Five Below Poised For Even Greater Growth?
Five Below is hitting serious growth numbers. Can this trend continue?
Front of package labeling will not fly–too much money is spent on the main image to give up the required space.
Consumers are accustomed to the nutritional panel on the side or back of the package and that’s where it should stay.
What I would like to see is allergens listed with consistent images, rather than words. I have a nephew with severe allergies that would love to have a quick look for a certain picture than read through the long ingredient list. His egg allergy is sometimes listed as whole eggs, frozen eggs, egg yolks, yolks, albumen, or enzyme. We’d all be happier if he just had to look for a picture.
If I were a United States grocery supplier or retailer I would count my lucky stars that your labels are unilingual. Over here, in Canada, labels have to be bilingual. This creates huge challenges for companies and their marketing departments, not to mention applied graphics people who have to squeeze all that information on limited real estate.
Mind you, I am not complaining; Canada is officially a bilingual country. C’est la vie. In a few years Americans might find themselves in the same boat when the increase in the number of Hispanic consumers might force suppliers to go the Anglo and Hispanic labeling way.
U.S. consumers like pretty packages. It might work for some products, but then again, how many products really want to make their nutritional content clear to consumers?
I would not support front of box labeling and suspect that CPG manufacturers would strongly resist it. In the US, most CPG food products have nutritional information on the side of the package. Consumers know to look for it there.
The EU needs to come up with guidelines that train the consumer where to look, while allowing manufacturers to retain the real estate on the front of their packages.
The simpler the better. Too many “icons” would be confusing.
I think the Yale-affiliated hospital, Griffin Health, might have the answer with their “Overall Nutritional Quality Index” or ONQI. It is a simple rating from 0 to 100 for healthiness. This type of rating with the full nutritional information elsewhere might be the way to go.
Putting it on the label requires either a government mandate or agreement among all parties toward a common system…unlikely, and perhaps not the right answer anyway. A system that is appropriate for the general population might be off the mark considerably, and potentially legally, for a consumer with an overweight, type-two diabetic child.
Putting labels on the SHELF in FRONT of the product offers the ability to build/adopt the program you believe suits your customers best, offers the most from a banner re-enforcement standpoint and allows neighborhood variants for multi-store operators.
Having the government mandate, or the manufacturers arrive at a consensus about programs does not engender the strongest trust from the consumer who see H&W gurus, coupled with their local supermarket as much more trustworthy (according to a recent GFK study).
The challenge in all of this is really having accurate product information upon which to base the ratings. This is very far from straightforward. A recent joint study indicated that fewer than 1/4 of a given retailer’s food products have the necessary accurate product information to be “ratable”.
If there is agreement on what it should say, then some standards should be created for minimum disclosure of relevant information (as we have now). Let the market determine how enhanced communication can help.
Positive health claims are already all over labels–the problem is knowing what they really mean. I don’t think the focus should be on standardizing packaging, it should be on standardizing the meaning of terms and creating claims that consumers can evaluate fairly.
Food label nutrition info and ingredient lists should have a reasonable minimum type size and contrast. If the info isn’t legible, it’s useless. Here’s a proposal no food manufacturer would like: the ingredients and nutrition info font size should be no smaller than the brand name on the front of the package. An icon should show the average weight and body shape of folks in the 80th percentile of consumption. In other words, a typical high calorie snack would have an icon showing an obese person with “250 pounds” printed below the icon in the same size type as the brand name. The icon would be double the size of the brand name. Violators would have to pay for a free annual gym membership for every inadequately labeled package sold.
Nice idea, and in line with being “the shopper advocate” that I always espouse. But pragmatically, trying to implement this on a voluntary basis or via legislation would take years and result in watered-down misdirected nonsense. I won’t even attempt to assign blame for that. For now, the voluntary shelf-labeling programs that are springing up at different retailers are all quite good.
My gut is that retailers are more likely to use front-panel package labeling like this on their private label products, to help provide an added advantage vs. national brands who hold their front panels sacred. This could give their private label an edge since it will make it easier for shoppers to make a quick decision at the shelf. It’s all about being the shopper advocate.
I believe that the current US system for nutritional food panels is effective as far as being easy to find and read by consumers. There is no need to put it on the front of the package. I also think we have to draw the line somewhere on allergen listings. People are allergic to all kinds of things. Maybe we should improve the ingredients list requirements to some point but not force too much more on the package, instead require manufacturers offer a 100% complete list of all ingredients on their in a website. A simple computer sponsored by each retail store could provide this free access.