'Facts Up Front' versus 'Traffic Light' nutrition labels

2013-05-24T21:24:38Z (GMT) by J Perezgonzalez
<p>Roberto et al carried out a research on consumers' understanding of food labels in 2011. They compared how well participants understood nutritional information when giving them an industry-generated label system (<a href="http://factsupfront.org/" target="_blank">'Facts Up Front'</a>), a government-generated label system (<a href="http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Goodfood/Pages/food-labelling.aspx#Tr" target="_blank">'Traffic Light'</a>), and no nutritional label (control group). They also compared the effects of a short version of each label system (which included information about energy, saturated fat, sodium and sugar content) against a longer version of the same (which included above information plus protein and fiber). Overall, the results showed that any of the two label systems were better than no label, and that 'Traffic Light' labels, namely the extended version, outperformed 'Facts Up Front' labels when doing an objective assessment of nutrition information. Regarding the subjective assessment of each type of label, participants considered 'Traffic Light' labels to be most understandable and least confusing, with low levels of cluttered information. The extended version of the 'Facts Up Front' labels ('Facts+'), however, was deemed the least understandable, the one requiring the most time and effort, and the most confusing of all labels. (Also retrievable from <a href="http://wikiofscience.wikidot.com/data1:traffic-facts-labels-roberto2011" target="_blank">Wiki of Science</a>.)</p> <p> </p>