Alternative labelling of healthy and less healthy foods

The research examined which of the concepts consumers found most useful and easiest to understand.

The five separate concepts tested can be accessed from the link at the foot of this page, along with details of the example products used to stimulate discussion in the focus groups.

Discussion groups were held throughout the UK (including Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland).

The sample covered adults of all ages, with and without children, and with a particular emphasis on consumers from socio-economic groups C2DE.

Mini friendship discussion groups were also held with young people aged 16-18 and still in education.

The research revealed strong approval and support for the idea of front of pack labelling, which consumers felt would make it easier for them to assess the nutritional content of foods, and make healthier choices.

Consumers felt that any signposting system should be independent from the food industry, with many naming the Agency as the appropriate recognisable body. Of the five concepts tested, two had significantly more promise than the others.

These were:

• A 'simple traffic light' system (option A) - where foods are labelled with a single green, amber or red traffic light on the basis of their overall contribution to a balanced diet
• A 'key nutrients' system (option D) - which rates each nutrient, for example as high (red), medium (amber) or low (green)

Consumers considered both these schemes were straightforward and helpful, as well as being sufficiently prominent to attract notice.

They felt they could use them to help choose a balanced diet.

The purpose of the research was to test the broad concept of each approach, rather than the detailed execution on the particular products used to prompt discussion.

However, the research also offered useful guidance for how each concept might be further developed and highlighted those points that might be covered in accompanying consumer information.

This would be likely to include information on the criteria underpinning the schemes (e.g. on consumer understanding of terms like 'saturates', or the factors taken into account when allotting a particular colour traffic light) as well as advice on how consumers could apply the signposting messages to their everyday diets.

The research also took some initial views on the application of signposting to catering establishments, with the intention of informing more research at a later date.

Consumers' views on signposting in catering outlets varied significantly depending on the context, the type of outlet and how often they were likely to eat there.

While many consumers were against signposting in catering outlets that they visited only rarely or for treat occasions, consumers who frequently eat out of the home do have concerns about the availability of healthy options, and would welcome more help in making healthy choices.

It was clear that a system operating in catering would need to take account of the diversity of the catering sector. For this reason, consumers felt that the same system could not be applied across both the retail and catering sectors.

These findings suggest that in any further work, consideration should be given to whether there should be a focus on particular sectors of the catering industry with that context carefully defined.

The results of this research will be used to inform the Agency's discussions with a range of stakeholders to decide which of the concepts to take forward for further development.