October 28, 2013
Study: Nutritional Ratings Support Healthier Purchases
An independent study found that Guiding Stars, a nutrition guidance program developed by Hannaford grocery stores, delivered notably increased demand for products that are rated more nutritious, at the expense of those that are not.
In conducting the study, researchers examined purchase data of ready-to-eat cereals before and after implementation of the Guiding Stars program at 134 Hannaford stores, comparing it to data from an equal number of Hannaford-like control stores across the country without the Guiding Stars system in place.
The study, published in the journal Food Policy, found sales of no-star cereals dropped 2.58 percent, while one-, two-, and three-star products saw modest gains from 0.5 percent to one percent in the first 20 months of the study.
"Although the percentages are small, if you think in terms of the actual quantities or boxes of cereal sold in the national market," study author and FDA scientist Jordan Lin told The Associated Press, "this could have some important implications on the nation’s health."
Julie Greene, healthy living manager at Hannaford, told AP that the cereal aisle is "a virtual billboard of health claims," and Guiding Stars is helping consumers quickly navigate often confusing claims. She also said manufacturers have been reformulating their products to improve the nutritional value of their offerings partly due to the ratings system.
Guiding Stars was instituted in 2006 in Hannaford stores and is now licensed for use in more than 1,800 stores in the U.S. and Canada.
The research, conducted by scientists at the USDA, FDA and the University of Florida, was undertaken in response to the Institute of Medicine’s October 2011 report calling for a uniform point or star system to rate foods on the amount of added sugars, sodium and saturated or trans fats.
Many grocers also use a rating system from NuVal or have developed their own. Grocery Manufacturers of America and Food Marketing Institute in 2011 began rolling out a Facts Up Front system, which simplifies the back-of-pack nutrition information, in a bid toward "self-regulation."
Health advocates continue to call for the FDA to create federal standards for front-of-package nutrition labels system to avoid the confusion created by competing rating systems. Other critics claim putting healthier labels on processed foods such as potato chips works against the goal of getting people to eat more actual fruits and vegetables.
- New Study Confirms Guiding Stars Program Helps Shoppers Make More Nutritious Food Choices – Guiding Stars Licensing Co.
- Effects of the Guiding Stars Program on purchases of ready-to-eat cereals with different nutritional attributes – Food Policy (sub. required)
- Shoppers follow nutrition star ratings, study says – The Associated Press/San Francisco Chronicle
- Groceries hire companies to score foods’ nutritional value – USA Today
- Big Food Preps $50M Push for ‘Facts Up Front’ Labeling – Advertising Age (tiered sub.)
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Does there need to be a single standard for front-of-package nutritional labels? How should food retailers and manufacturers respond to calls for more simplified nutritional guidelines?
Poll
Without a system such as Guiding Stars, I fear shopper confusion will remain inherent within the retail environment. Although not failsafe, placing meaningful details at shelf is a definite improvement as consumers struggle to make better-informed decisions about their health and wellness product choices. Simplicity and consistency will be keys to success of any at-shelf rating system.
First of all, the numbers here – while perhaps significant over time – are, in fact, small.
Secondly, given a choice, how many shoppers are going to consciously opt for food which is less nutritious?
Yes, an objective (and that’s a loaded word) single standard would be helpful, but it also means retailers would – over time – find themselves with a lot fewer products to sell.
It’s hard to imagine that, as America drifts kicking and screaming toward some form of national health care, we won’t eventually get to some kind of mandated “wellness packaging.”
Better to get on the train before it leaves the station.
Standards or not, CPG marketers that make it easier for consumers to identify healthy food and beverage solutions will encourage sales and build loyalty. Two-thirds of consumers are trying to eat healthier, but the world of nutrition can be overwhelming, particularly for those that are not accustomed to planning and preparing healthy fare on a daily basis.
Consumers rely heavily on CPG marketer support to aid in their efforts. In fact, 44% of consumers look for retailers to clearly identify healthier items within their aisles and 45% of consumers want clear labeling on packaging to help them pick healthier options.
On the package or in the store, manufacturers and retailers definitely need to play a role in simplifying the notion of “healthy eating” for consumers.
A single standard would be great and helpful. Multiple standards are confusing to consumers. Current nutritional food labels are important and useful for consumers who need them. In the US, at least, are standardized. Without standardization the labels are not so useful.
Most people want and try to make healthy choices, but the grocery store is a mine field of mis and dis information. Armed with accurate information, consumers will make the healthy choice and if they don’t, it will be with their informed consent.
From a consumer point of view, a single standard would be the best. Everyone would be playing with the same rules and it would be easier for us to navigate.
“Big Animal Pictures” are the best way to communicate to the masses. Although standardized in many countries, the current nutrition labels are too detailed to be read by the majority of shoppers. Something simple and accurate like this program will prove to be an effective method of nutritional value communication.
I’m in favor of giving the consumer nutritional information that lets them make informed purchase decisions. If this “star” system helps the harried shopper make better grocery decisions, it has some value. Since this appears to be a private service presented as an added-value to the retailer’s shoppers then I say great. But I don’t think the government needs to dumb-down the food information presentation. There is already a lot of nutritional information on food products including the recent information presented at fast food restaurants. At some point it is the responsibility of the individual consumer to take the information and make a decision that is right for that person.
Yeah, it’s amazing what you can sell if you provide a really simple standard from which people can judge whether or not they’re getting quality. Imagine if there was a simple ‘stop light’ approach: red = no, green = yes, yellow = maybe.
Of course, the system discussed was implemented by the retailer. If the gov was involved, think of how much the ‘Big Food’ lobbyists influence would come into play. I’ll bet Oreos and Twinkies would get a ‘green’ light!!
Another reason this will not fly easily on a grand scale is that the next step would be restaurants. Ouch. We have a lot of ‘red’ restaurants out there!
While I always applaud careful research – indeed much of what is often called “research” probably shouldn’t be – if I were a big fan of ratings systems, I would find these results discouraging: as everyone seems to agree, low single-digit changes are small, and unless one wants to make a desperate attempt to extrapolate them into something bigger and better, I don’t see them adding up to “important.” But I don’t know where that leaves us: simplification is desirable, but only to the extent that it isn’t oversimplification, or ripe for manipulation. Maybe we should just stick with the tried-and-true standard: if your kids want you to buy it, don’t.
Simplified guidelines are great, but we should first show that this all makes a difference. If you read the original study, the test and control stores are nothing alike and the authors have to go through a number of statistical hoops to get their answer – it makes a very small difference.
Yes. How much more “simplified” can our nutritional guidelines become without losing their value? The greatest issue here is not the guidelines, but more the consumer who doesn’t read (or follow) them. Without this value, the best guidelines in the world are meaningless.
More Discussions
Is Meta Committing to Retail via Meta Lab Stores, or Are Other Goals More Important?
Is Meta playing in retail, actually committing to retail, or looking for more data?Aerie Recruits Pamela Anderson To Highlight No-AI Models Promise
American Eagle’s Aerie banner has recruited former “Baywatch” star Pamela Anderson to broadcast the lifestyle brand’s…How Timely Is the Planned Lowe’s Website Renovation Focusing on Personalization?
Is Lowe’s being timely with its website reno, and is it right to be placed as…
Without a system such as Guiding Stars, I fear shopper confusion will remain inherent within the retail environment. Although not failsafe, placing meaningful details at shelf is a definite improvement as consumers struggle to make better-informed decisions about their health and wellness product choices. Simplicity and consistency will be keys to success of any at-shelf rating system.
First of all, the numbers here – while perhaps significant over time – are, in fact, small.
Secondly, given a choice, how many shoppers are going to consciously opt for food which is less nutritious?
Yes, an objective (and that’s a loaded word) single standard would be helpful, but it also means retailers would – over time – find themselves with a lot fewer products to sell.
It’s hard to imagine that, as America drifts kicking and screaming toward some form of national health care, we won’t eventually get to some kind of mandated “wellness packaging.”
Better to get on the train before it leaves the station.
Standards or not, CPG marketers that make it easier for consumers to identify healthy food and beverage solutions will encourage sales and build loyalty. Two-thirds of consumers are trying to eat healthier, but the world of nutrition can be overwhelming, particularly for those that are not accustomed to planning and preparing healthy fare on a daily basis.
Consumers rely heavily on CPG marketer support to aid in their efforts. In fact, 44% of consumers look for retailers to clearly identify healthier items within their aisles and 45% of consumers want clear labeling on packaging to help them pick healthier options.
On the package or in the store, manufacturers and retailers definitely need to play a role in simplifying the notion of “healthy eating” for consumers.
A single standard would be great and helpful. Multiple standards are confusing to consumers. Current nutritional food labels are important and useful for consumers who need them. In the US, at least, are standardized. Without standardization the labels are not so useful.
Most people want and try to make healthy choices, but the grocery store is a mine field of mis and dis information. Armed with accurate information, consumers will make the healthy choice and if they don’t, it will be with their informed consent.
From a consumer point of view, a single standard would be the best. Everyone would be playing with the same rules and it would be easier for us to navigate.
“Big Animal Pictures” are the best way to communicate to the masses. Although standardized in many countries, the current nutrition labels are too detailed to be read by the majority of shoppers. Something simple and accurate like this program will prove to be an effective method of nutritional value communication.
I’m in favor of giving the consumer nutritional information that lets them make informed purchase decisions. If this “star” system helps the harried shopper make better grocery decisions, it has some value. Since this appears to be a private service presented as an added-value to the retailer’s shoppers then I say great. But I don’t think the government needs to dumb-down the food information presentation. There is already a lot of nutritional information on food products including the recent information presented at fast food restaurants. At some point it is the responsibility of the individual consumer to take the information and make a decision that is right for that person.
Yeah, it’s amazing what you can sell if you provide a really simple standard from which people can judge whether or not they’re getting quality. Imagine if there was a simple ‘stop light’ approach: red = no, green = yes, yellow = maybe.
Of course, the system discussed was implemented by the retailer. If the gov was involved, think of how much the ‘Big Food’ lobbyists influence would come into play. I’ll bet Oreos and Twinkies would get a ‘green’ light!!
Another reason this will not fly easily on a grand scale is that the next step would be restaurants. Ouch. We have a lot of ‘red’ restaurants out there!
While I always applaud careful research – indeed much of what is often called “research” probably shouldn’t be – if I were a big fan of ratings systems, I would find these results discouraging: as everyone seems to agree, low single-digit changes are small, and unless one wants to make a desperate attempt to extrapolate them into something bigger and better, I don’t see them adding up to “important.” But I don’t know where that leaves us: simplification is desirable, but only to the extent that it isn’t oversimplification, or ripe for manipulation. Maybe we should just stick with the tried-and-true standard: if your kids want you to buy it, don’t.
Simplified guidelines are great, but we should first show that this all makes a difference. If you read the original study, the test and control stores are nothing alike and the authors have to go through a number of statistical hoops to get their answer – it makes a very small difference.
Yes. How much more “simplified” can our nutritional guidelines become without losing their value? The greatest issue here is not the guidelines, but more the consumer who doesn’t read (or follow) them. Without this value, the best guidelines in the world are meaningless.