Premium
An independent assessment of the Australian food industry's Daily Intake Guide ‘energy alone’ label
Author(s) -
Carter Owen,
Mills Brennen,
Phan Tina
Publication year - 2011
Publication title -
health promotion journal of australia
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.515
H-Index - 32
eISSN - 2201-1617
pISSN - 1036-1073
DOI - 10.1071/he11063
Subject(s) - overconsumption , dig , purchasing , thumbnail , environmental health , focus group , psychology , advertising , medicine , marketing , business , computer science , economics , computer security , artificial intelligence , production (economics) , image (mathematics) , macroeconomics
Issues addressed A single thumbnail variant of the food industry's voluntary front‐of‐package Daily Intake Guide (DIG) – called the ‘Energy Alone’ thumbnail (DIG kJ) – has recently appeared on many energy‐dense, nutrient‐poor foods and beverages, especially soft drinks and confectionery. However, there is no published data to date that has assessed its merit. Method A quota sample of 58 Australian adults (50% female; 47% blue collar; mean age 35 years, range 18–59) was presented with photographs of three food packages alternatively labelled with DIG kJ, full DIG (five thumbnails) and Traffic Lights (TL) systems. Participants ranked each labelling system along seven‐point scales for the following dimensions: ‘interpretable’, ‘noticeable’, ‘useful’ and ‘a deterrent to purchasing unhealthy snack foods'. Participants were afterwards brought together in eight focus groups of 7–8 to discuss the merits of each system. Results Paired samples t‐tests suggested the DIG kJ was rated significantly less ‘noticeable’, ‘useful’ or ‘a deterrent’ than either the full DIG or TL systems. The TL system was also rated as significantly more ‘interpretable’ and ‘a deterrent’ than either variant of DIG. In the focus groups, participants described the DIG kJ as too small to be noticeable, too abstract to be meaningful, and of little practical use. Higher energy on food labels was also associated with positive health, rather than as a risk for overconsumption. Conclusion The DIG kJ performed poorly against the TL and full DIG. Our results suggest it is an ineffective food labelling system, that is unlikely to affect consumer knowledge, awareness, attitudes, purchasing or consumption behaviours. So what? If the food industry is sincere in its expressed commitment to improving the health outcomes of Australians via meaningful, front‐of‐pack nutrition labels then the DIG kJ labelling system should be abandoned.