Sugar labeling: How numerical information of sugar content influences healthiness and tastiness expectations


Autoři: Simona Haasova aff001;  Arnd Florack aff001
Působiště autorů: Department of Psychology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria aff001
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(11)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0223510

Souhrn

Overconsumption of highly sugary foods contributes to increases in obesity and diabetes in our population, and initiatives are issued worldwide to reduce sugar content in food products. However, it is unclear how the presentation of reduced sugar content on food packages affects taste expectations of consumers. Based on the learned knowledge about negative health effects of sugar and the common belief that unhealthy food tastes better than healthy food, consumers might conclude that lower sugar levels are associated with higher healthiness and lower tastiness. Addressing this concern, we examined how quantitative information about sugar content without any verbal description influences consumers’ health and taste expectations of dairy desserts. We asked participants to indicate the expected healthiness and tastiness of randomly sampled dairy desserts, while varying systematically the quantitative sugar information provided in a label presented with the desserts (numerical sugar level in grams per 100 grams of product: low vs. original vs. high). We assumed that quantitative sugar content is not equally associated with healthiness and tastiness of products and that numerical information about sugar content informs health more than taste expectations. Therefore, we predicted that consumers expect higher healthiness, but not to the same degree lower tastiness for products with reduced sugar contented compared to products with higher sugar content. The results of the present study are in line with this hypothesis. We found that consumers expected desserts with less sugar to be healthier than desserts with higher levels of sugar. The experimentally varied sugar levels did not affect the tastiness expectations. Notably, consumers did not follow the unhealthy = tasty intuition and did not devaluate the tastiness of desserts because of heightened healthiness expectations. Our findings suggest that sole numerical information about sugar content—an important nutritional value—is more diagnostic in the construction of healthiness rather than tastiness expectations of food products.

Klíčová slova:

European Union – Fats – Food consumption – Global health – Health informatics – Obesity – Taste


Zdroje

1. World Health Organization. News. Fact sheets. Diabetes [Internet]. Geneva: World Health Organization (WHO); 2019 [cited 2019 April 24]. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/diabetes

2. Robinson M, Caldeira S, Wollgast J. Sugars content in selected foods in the EU. A 2015 baseline to monitor sugars reduction progress [Internet]. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2018 [cited 2019 May 6]. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/sugars-content-selected-foods-eu-2015-baseline-monitor-sugars-reduction-progress

3. EU Science hub. Towards the reduction of added sugars in food [Internet]. Brussels: The European Commission’s science and knowledge service; 2018. [cited 2019 May 2] Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/science-update/towards-reduction-added-sugars-food-0

4. Handelszeitung. Flaggl A. Rewe für einen bewussten Umgang mit Zucker [Internet]. Vienna: Österreichischer Wirtschaftsverlag GmbH; 2018 [cited 2019 April 14]. Available from: https://www.handelszeitung.at/handelszeitung/rewe-fuer-einen-bewussten-umgang-mit-zucker-165289.

5. beveragedaily.com. Arthur R. Coca-cola assesses sugar tax impact [Internet]. Crawley: William Reed Business Media Ltd 2019; 2018 [cited 2019 April 11]. Available from: https://www.beveragedaily.com/Article/2018/09/11/Coca-Cola-assesses-sugar-tax-impact-UK-and-South-Africa

6. Raghunathan R, Naylor RW, Hoyer WD. The unhealthy = tasty intuition and its effects on taste inferences, enjoyment, and choice of food products. Journal of Marketing. 2006 Oct;70(4):170–84.

7. Roininen K, Lähteenmäki L, Tuorila H. Quantification of consumer attitudes to health and hedonic characteristics of foods. Appetite. 1999 Aug 1;33(1):71–88. doi: 10.1006/appe.1999.0232 10447981

8. Piqueras-Fiszman B, Spence C. Sensory expectations based on product-extrinsic food cues: An interdisciplinary review of the empirical evidence and theoretical accounts. Food Quality and Preference. 2015 Mar 1;40:165–79.

9. Mai R, Symmank C, Seeberg-Elverfeldt B. Light and pale colors in food packaging: When does this package cue signal superior healthiness or inferior tastiness?. Journal of Retailing. 2016 Dec 1;92(4):426–44.

10. Aaron JI, Mela DJ, Evans RE. The influences of attitudes, beliefs and label information on perceptions of reduced-fat spread. Appetite. 1994 Feb 1;22(1):25–37. doi: 10.1006/appe.1994.1003 8172488

11. Roe B, Levy AS, Derby BM. The impact of health claims on consumer search and product evaluation outcomes: results from FDA experimental data. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing. 1999 Mar;18(1):89–105.

12. Schuldt JP, Schwarz N. The" organic" path to obesity? Organic claims influence calorie judgments and exercise recommendations. Judgment and Decision Making. 2010 Jun 1;5(3):144.

13. Rothman RL, Housam R, Weiss H, Davis D, Gregory R, Gebretsadik T, Shintani A, Elasy TA. Patient understanding of food labels: the role of literacy and numeracy. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2006 Nov 1;31(5):391–8. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2006.07.025 17046410

14. Piqueras-Fiszman B, Spence C. Colour, pleasantness, and consumption behaviour within a meal. Appetite. 2014 Apr 1;75:165–72. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2014.01.004 24462488

15. Woods AT, Poliakoff E, Lloyd DM, Kuenzel J, Hodson R, Gonda H, Batchelor J, Dijksterhuis GB, Thomas A. Effect of background noise on food perception. Food Quality and Preference. 2011 Jan 1;22(1):42–7.

16. Hu FB, Malik VS. Sugar-sweetened beverages and risk of obesity and type 2 diabetes: epidemiologic evidence. Physiology & behavior. 2010 Apr 26;100(1):47–54.

17. Yang Q, Zhang Z, Gregg EW, Flanders WD, Merritt R, Hu FB. Added sugar intake and cardiovascular diseases mortality among US adults. JAMA Internal Medicine. 2014 Apr 1;174(4):516–24. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.13563 24493081

18. BBC Good Food. Torrens K.The truth about sugar. [Internet]. London: Immediate Media Company Limited under licence from BBC Studios Distribution; 2019 [cited 2019 May 6]. Available from: https://www.bbcgoodfood.com/howto/guide/truth-about-sugar

19. Medical News Today. Nordqvist J. How much sugar is in your food and drink? [Internet]. Brighton: Healthline Media UK Ltd, 2018. Available from: https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/262978.php

20. Higginson CS, Kirk TR, Rayner MJ, Draper S. How do consumers use nutrition label information?. Nutrition & Food Science. 2002 Aug 1;32(4):145–52.

21. Visschers VH, Hess R, Siegrist M. Health motivation and product design determine consumers’ visual attention to nutrition information on food products. Public Health Nutrition. 2010 Jul;13(7):1099–106. doi: 10.1017/S1368980009993235 20100390

22. Bialkova S, van Trijp HC. An efficient methodology for assessing attention to and effect of nutrition information displayed front-of-pack. Food Quality and Preference. 2011 Sep 1;22(6):592–601.

23. Borgmeier I, Westenhoefer J. Impact of different food label formats on healthiness evaluation and food choice of consumers: a randomized-controlled study. BMC Public Health. 2009 Dec;9(1):184.

24. Werle CO, Roche K, Trendel O, Yamim A. 9-B: a Nuanced Nutritional System Facilitates the Recognition of Healthy Options, Increases Sales and Choice of Healthy Foods: a Comparison Between 3-Colors and 5-Colors Traffic-Lights Systems. ACR North American Advances. 2017.

25. Ebneter DS, Latner JD, Nigg CR. Is less always more? The effects of low-fat labeling and caloric information on food intake, calorie estimates, taste preference, and health attributions. Appetite. 2013 Sep 1;68:92–7. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2013.04.023 23632034

26. Liem DG, Miremadi F, Zandstra EH, Keast RS. Health labelling can influence taste perception and use of table salt for reduced-sodium products. Public Health Nutrition. 2012 Dec;15(12):2340–7. doi: 10.1017/S136898001200064X 22397811

27. Kähkönen P, Tuorila H. Effect of reduced-fat information on expected and actual hedonic and sensory ratings of sausage. Appetite. 1998 Feb 1;30(1):13–23. doi: 10.1006/appe.1997.0104 9500800

28. Okamoto M, Dan I. Extrinsic information influences taste and flavor perception: A review from psychological and neuroimaging perspectives. In Seminars in cell & developmental biology 2013 Mar 1 (Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 247–255). Academic Press.

29. Grabenhorst F, Rolls ET, Bilderbeck A. How cognition modulates affective responses to taste and flavor: top-down influences on the orbitofrontal and pregenual cingulate cortices. Cerebral Cortex. 2007 Dec 1;18(7):1549–59. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhm185 18056086

30. Krishna A. An integrative review of sensory marketing: Engaging the senses to affect perception, judgment and behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology. 2012 Jul;22(3):332–51.

31. Krishna A, Elder R. The gist of gustation. Sensory marketing: Research on the sensuality of products. 2010:281–97.

32. Kleber J, Dickert S, Peters E, Florack A. Same numbers, different meanings: How numeracy influences the importance of numbers for pro-social behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2013 Jul 1;49(4):699–705.

33. Peters E. Numeracy and the perception and communication of risk. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 2008 Apr;1128(1):1–7.

34. Grunert KG. Food quality and safety: consumer perception and demand. European Review of Agricultural Economics. 2005 Sep 1;32(3):369–91.

35. Hoppert K, Mai R, Zahn S, Hoffmann S, Rohm H. Integrating sensory evaluation in adaptive conjoint analysis to elaborate the conflicting influence of intrinsic and extrinsic attributes on food choice. Appetite. 2012 Dec 1;59(3):949–55. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2012.09.005 23000276

36. Haasova S, Florack A. Practicing the (un) healthy = tasty intuition: Toward an ecological view of the relationship between health and taste in consumer judgments. Food Quality and Preference. 2019 Jul 1;75:39–53.

37. Werle CO, Trendel O, Ardito G. Unhealthy food is not tastier for everybody: The “healthy = tasty” French intuition. Food Quality and Preference. 2013 Apr 1;28(1):116–21.

38. Rozin P, Fischler C, Imada S, Sarubin A, Wrzesniewski A. Attitudes to food and the role of food in life in the USA, Japan, Flemish Belgium and France: Possible implications for the diet–health debate. Appetite. 1999 Oct 1;33(2):163–80. doi: 10.1006/appe.1999.0244 10502362

39. Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee JY, Podsakoff NP. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2003 Oct;88(5):879. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 14516251

40. Bless H, Burger AM. A closer look at social psychologists’ silver bullet: Inevitable and evitable side effects of the experimental approach. Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2016 Mar;11(2):296–308. doi: 10.1177/1745691615621278 26993280

41. Fiedler K. Voodoo correlations are everywhere—not only in neuroscience. Perspectives on psychological science. 2011 Mar;6(2):163–71. doi: 10.1177/1745691611400237 26162135

42. EU Commission–Nutrition and Health Claims. Nutrition Claims [Internet]. Brussels: The European Commission’s Policies, Information and services; 2012. [cited 2019 August 18] Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/labelling_nutrition/claims/nutrition_claims_en

43. Gałecki A, Burzykowski T. Linear mixed-effects models using R: A step-by-step approach. Springer Science & Business Media; 2013 Feb 5.

44. Maxwell SE, Delaney HD. Designing experiments and analyzing data: A model comparison perspective. Routledge; 2003 Oct 17.

45. Team RC. R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Computer software manual]. Vienna, Austria.

46. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S, Christensen RH, Singmann H, Dai B, Grothendieck G, Eigen C, Rcpp L. Package ‘lme4’. Convergence. 2015 Oct 6;12(1).

47. Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S, Sarkar D, Team RC. nlme: Linear and Nonlinear Mixed Effects Models, 2015. R package version. 2016;3:103.

48. World Health Organization. Media Center. WHO calls on countries to reduce sugars intake among adults and children. [Internet]. Geneva: World Health Organization (WHO); 2019 [cited 2019 April 24]. Available from: https://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2015/sugar-guideline/en/

49. Coca-Cola Company. Press Center. Coca-Cola Zero Sugar Launches n U.S. with New and Improved Real Coca-Cola Taste. [Internet]. Atlanta: The Coca-Cola Company; 2017 [cited 2019 April 24]. Available from: https://www.coca-colacompany.com/press-center/press-releases/coca-cola—zero-sugar-launches-in-u-s—with-new-and-improved-rea

50. Nestlé. Our Impact. Our Commitments. Reducing sugars, sodium and fat. [Internet]. Vevey: Nestlé; 2019 [cited 2019 April 24]. Available from: website: https://www.nestle.com/csv/impact/tastier-healthier/sugar-salt-fat

51. Kardes FR. Effects of initial product judgments on subsequent memory-based judgments. Journal of Consumer Research. 1986 Jun 1;13(1):1–1.

52. Mai R, Hoffmann S. How to combat the unhealthy = tasty intuition: The influencing role of health consciousness. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing. 2015 May;34(1):63–83.

53. Lee WC, Shimizu M, Kniffin KM, Wansink B. You taste what you see: Do organic labels bias taste perceptions?. Food Quality and Preference. 2013 Jul 1;29(1):33–9.

54. Wang Q, Oostindjer M, Amdam GV, Egelandsdal B. Snacks with nutrition labels: tastiness perception, healthiness perception, and willingness to pay by Norwegian adolescents. Journal of nutrition education and behavior. 2016 Feb 1;48(2):104–11. doi: 10.1016/j.jneb.2015.09.003 26508499

55. Oakes ME, Slotterback CS. Judgements of food healthfulness: food name stereotypes in adults over age 25. Appetite. 2001 Aug 1;37(1):1–8. doi: 10.1006/appe.2001.0405 11562152

56. Chandon P, Wansink B. Is obesity caused by calorie underestimation? A psychophysical model of meal size estimation. Journal of Marketing Research. 2007 Feb;44(1):84–99.

57. Cowburn G, Stockley L. Consumer understanding and use of nutrition labelling: a systematic review. Public Health Nutrition. 2005 Feb;8(1):21–8. 15705241

58. Leary MR, Kowalski RM. Impression management: A literature review and two-component model. Psychological Bulletin. 1990 Jan;107(1):34.

59. Cheung TT, Junghans AF, Dijksterhuis GB, Kroese F, Johansson P, Hall L, De Ridder DT. Consumers' choice-blindness to ingredient information. Appetite. 2016 Nov 1;106:2–12. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2015.09.022 26407803

60. Bialkova S, Sasse L, Fenko A. The role of nutrition labels and advertising claims in altering consumers' evaluation and choice. Appetite. 2016 Jan 1;96:38–46. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2015.08.030 26341955

61. Grandpre J, Alvaro EM, Burgoon M, Miller CH, Hall JR. Adolescent reactance and anti-smoking campaigns: A theoretical approach. Health Communication. 2003 Jul 1;15(3):349–66. doi: 10.1207/S15327027HC1503_6 12788679

62. Dillard JP, Shen L. On the nature of reactance and its role in persuasive health communication. Communication Monographs. 2005 Jun 1;72(2):144–68.

63. Miron AM, Brehm JW. Reactance theory-40 years later. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie. 2006 Jan;37(1):9–18.

64. Dillard JP, Kim J, Li SS. Anti-Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Messages Elicit Reactance: Effects on Attitudes and Policy Preferences. Journal of Health Communication. 2018 Aug 3;23(8):703–11. doi: 10.1080/10810730.2018.1511012 30152722


Článek vyšel v časopise

PLOS One


2019 Číslo 11