Research Article Open Access

Effectiveness of Front-of-Package Traffic Light (FoPTL) Labels in Selected Young Adults' Acceptance and Comprehension

Authors

Hafizhah Fadhillah
Department of Public Health Nutrition, Faculty of Public Health, Universitas Indonesia, Depok City, West Java Province, Indonesia
|
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Fatmah
Department of Public Health Nutrition, Faculty of Public Health, Universitas Indonesia, Depok City, West Java Province, Indonesia
Published on: January 15, 2019
DOI 10.3923/pjn.2019.165.170
PDF

Abstract

Background and Objective: Many studies have examined the impact of Front-of-Package Traffic Light (FoPTL) labels on consumers’ acceptance and comprehension of nutritional information; however, very few have focused on Indonesia. The objective of this study was to evaluate young adult consumers’ acceptance and comprehension of nutrition facts using FoPTL nutrition labels. Methodology: A quasi-experimental design was used for a three-week study that included 18 female employees as its treatment group. The participants’ initial comprehension of nutrition was measured prior to the intervention via the use of fictitious packaging for yoghurt, instant noodles and wafer products. Subsequently, the participants attended two educational sessions as part of the intervention. One week following the second educational session, a posttest of the subjects’ acceptance and comprehension of nutrition using FoPTL nutrition labels was conducted. The difference between the two variables before and after the study was analyzed using a paired t-test. Results: The findings revealed an improvement in the participants’ comprehension of nutrition labels after the intervention (87.0±9.0), which was significantly higher than their initial comprehension rate (51.5±19.1). Although, subjects with high levels of label acceptance had better comprehension of nutrition labels, no significant relationship was found between the two variables. FoPTL labels enable consumers to comprehend nutrition facts disclosed on the labels. Meanwhile, labels containing a nutrition facts panel (NFP) ranked below FoPTL labels in this study. As evidenced by the t-test results, there was a significant difference between use of the FoPTL and the use of NFP labels (p<0.05). Conclusion: As such, the National Agency of Drug and Food Control of the Republic of Indonesia (BPOM RI) and the Ministry of Health of the Republic of Indonesia should consider complementing the use of FoPTL labels with NFP labels.

Keywords:

Consumer awareness, FoPTL, nutritional information, nutritional quality and packaged food, nutrition facts labels

Article Metrics

113 Abstract Views
119 File Views
0 Downloads

License

Copyright (c) 2019 The Author(s)

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Article Citation Metrics

Find Effectiveness of Front-of-Package Traffic Light (FoPTL) Labels in Selected Young Adults' Acceptance and Comprehension on PlumX

How to Cite

Fadhillah, H., & Fatmah. (2019). Effectiveness of Front-of-Package Traffic Light (FoPTL) Labels in Selected Young Adults’ Acceptance and Comprehension. Pakistan Journal of Nutrition, 18(2), 165–170. https://doi.org/10.3923/pjn.2019.165.170
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

References

1.
Hawkes, C., 2004. Nutrition labels and health claims: The Global regulatory environment. WHO Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data, France.
2.
Van Camp, D., D.M. de Souza Monteiro and N.H. Hooker, 2011. Stop or go? How is the UK food industry responding to front-of-pack nutrition labels? Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ., 39: 821-842.
3.
WHO., 2013. Global action plan for the prevention and control of noncommunicable diseases 2013-2020. WHO Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data, Geneva, Switzerland.
4.
EUFIC., 2014. Global update on nutrition labeling-January 2014. European Food Information Council, Brussels, Belgium.
5.
Grunert, K.G. and J.M. Wills, 2007. A review of European research on consumer response to nutrition information on food labels. J. Public Health, 15: 385-399.
6.
Asgha, B., 2016. Analysis of the use of nutritional value information labels on food products by consumers at Semarang city G. J. Econ. Stud. Bull., 21: 128-135.
7.
Vemula, S.R., S.M. Gavaravarapu, V.V.R. Mendu, P. Mathur and L. Avula, 2014. Use of food label information by urban consumers in India-a study among supermarket shoppers. Public Health Nutr., 17: 2104-2114.
8.
Feunekes, G.I.J, I.A. Gortemaker, A.A. Willems, R. Lion and M. Van Den Kommer, 2008. Front-of-pack nutrition labelling: Testing effectiveness of different nutrition labelling formats front-of-pack in four European countries. Appetite, 50: 57-70.
9.
Kelly, B., C. Hughes, K. Chapman, J.C.Y. Louie and H. Dixon et al., 2009. Consumer testing of the acceptability and effectiveness of front-of-pack food labelling systems for the Australian grocery market. Health Promotion Int., 24: 120-129.
10.
Sonnenberg, L., E. Gelsomin, D.E. Levy, J. Riis, S. Barraclough and A.N. Thorndike, 2013. A traffic light food labeling intervention increases consumer awareness of health and healthy choices at the point-of-purchase. Prevent. Med., 57: 253-257.
11.
Emrich, T.E., Y. Qi, W.Y. Lou and M.R. L'Abbe, 2017. Traffic-light labels could reduce population intakes of calories, total fat, saturated fat and sodium. Plos One, Vol. 12.
12.
Sari, M.P., I.R. Palupi and M.D. Jamil, 2016. Consumer perceptions and attitudes towards the application of traffic light cards in packaging food products. Nutr. Food Res., 39: 27-36.
13.
Byrd-Bredbenner, C., L. Alfieri and L. Kiefer, 2000. The nutrition label knowledge and usage behaviours of women in the US. Nutr. Bull., 25: 315-322.
14.
Alfieri, L. and C. Byrd-Bredbenner, 2000. Assessing the performance of women on nutrition labeling tasks. Am. J. Health Stud., 16: 113-123.
15.
Levy, A.S. and S.B. Fein, 1998. Consumer’s ability to perform tasks using nutrition labels. J. Nutr. Educ., 30: 210-217.
16.
Cowburn, G. and L. Stockley, 2005. Consumer understanding and use of nutrition labelling: A systematic review. Public Health Nutr., 8: 21-28.
17.
Miller, L.M.S., L.A. Beckett, J.J. Bergman, M.D. Wilson, E.A. Applegate and T.N. Gibson, 2017. Developing nutrition label reading skills: A web-based practice approach. J. Med. Internet Res., Vol. 19, No. 1.
18.
Malam, S., S. Clegg, S. Kirwan, S. McGinigal and M. Raats et al., 2009. Comprehension and use of UK nutrition signpost labelling schemes. Food Standards Agency, May, 2009, pp: 1-150.
19.
Borgmeier, I. and J. Westenhoefer, 2009. Impact of different food label formats on healthiness evaluation and food choice of consumers: A randomized-controlled study. BMC Public Health, Vol. 9.
20.
Gorton, D., C.N. Mhurchu, M.H. Chen and R. Dixon, 2009. Nutrition labels: A survey of use, understanding and preferences among ethnically diverse shoppers in New Zealand. Public Health Nutr., 12: 1359-1365.
21.
Watson, W.L., B. Kelly, D. Hector, C. Hughes and L. King et al., 2014. Can front-of-pack labelling schemes guide healthier food choices? Australian shopper’s responses to seven labelling formats. Appetite, 72: 90-97.
22.
Muller, L. and M. Prevost, 2016. What cognitive sciences have to say about the impacts of nutritional labelling formats. J. Econ. Psychol., 55: 17-29.
23.
Ducrot, P., C. Mejean, C. Julia, E. Kesse-Guyot and M. Touvier et al., 2015. Effectiveness of front-of-pack nutrition labels in French adults: Results from the NutriNet-Sante cohort study. PloS One, Vol. 10, No. 10.