| Literature DB >> 27502411 |
Ishanka A Talagala1, Carukshi Arambepola2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Unhealthy snacking is commonly seen among adolescents. Therefore, use of food labels is promoted for making healthier choices on packaged snacks. This study was conducted to assess the use of food labels in making choices on packaged snack and its associated factors among adolescents.Entities:
Keywords: Adolescents; Food labels; Marketing strategies; Snacking
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27502411 PMCID: PMC4977762 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-016-3422-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Fig. 1Hypothetical labels created by the authors to collect information on the label use by the student
Snacking behaviour of adolescents in Grade 12 (n = 542)
| Snacking behaviour | Number | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Frequency of snacking | ||
| More than 5 times a week | 70 | 12.9 |
| 3–5 times a week | 197 | 36.3 |
| 1–2 times a week | 275 | 50.7 |
| Most frequent snacking timea | ||
| During school interval | 209 | 40.9 |
| During tuition classes outside school | 126 | 24.7 |
| At home | 74 | 14.5 |
| During school extra-curricular activities | 65 | 12.7 |
| During recreational activities outside school | 37 | 7.2 |
| Snacking with peers/siblingsb | ||
| Yes | 425 | 80.0 |
| No* | 106 | 20.0 |
| Decision made on the snack | ||
| Alone | 479 | 88.4 |
| Parents | 36 | 6.6 |
| Peer/siblings | 27 | 5.0 |
| Most commonly consumed packaged foodsnackc | ||
| Biscuits | 463 | 85.4 |
| Noodles | 359 | 66.2 |
| Chocolates | 332 | 61.3 |
| Most commonly consumed packaged/bottled drink snackc | ||
| Cola drinks | 417 | 76.9 |
| Milk | 383 | 70.7 |
aInformation was not available for 31 students
bInformation was not available for 11 students
cStudents were asked to write three most commonly consumed packaged food and drink items
*With parents/alone
Practices on the label reading frequency and attention paid to label contents among adolescents
| Practices | Always | Most | Sometimes | Not at all |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | of the time % | % | % | |
| Frequency of reading labelsa | 40.8 | 33.8 | 23.7 | 1.7 |
| Attention paid to contentsb | ||||
| Brand name | 24.6 | 50.1 | 20.5 | 4.9 |
| Price | 34.7 | 50.3 | 12.0 | 3.0 |
| Expiry date | 93.6 | 5.4 | 0.4 | 0.6 |
| Manufactured date | 55.2 | 26.6 | 13.7 | 4.5 |
| Serving amount | 7.5 | 22.8 | 47.5 | 22.2 |
| Batch number | 2.6 | 8.7 | 32 | 56.7 |
| Nutrition information | 38.4 | 43.7 | 13.2 | 4.7 |
| Country of manufacture | 9.2 | 34.7 | 37.8 | 18.3 |
| Storage instructions | 21.5 | 41.7 | 21.3 | 15.5 |
| Medical certification | 28.8 | 38.0 | 20.2 | 13.0 |
| Attractiveness of the label | 6.2 | 22.4 | 33.7 | 37.7 |
| Readability of the label | 30.3 | 41.8 | 20.5 | 7.4 |
a N = 542 (the total number of participants who responded)
b N = 533 (out of the total number of participants responded, 9 students who never read food labels were excluded)
Interpretation of labels by the grade 12 adolescents for their selection of healthier snacks
| Option selected based on each pair of hypothetical labelsa | Reasons for selection |
|---|---|
| Pair 1 (Fig. | |
| Healthier option - 85 % ( | • Natural ingredients (32 %) |
| (Natural fruit drink—local product with a picture of oranges, a true claim on ‘no added sugar’) | • High nutritive value (23 %) |
| • Local product (ethical claim) (6 %) | |
| • Fruits showing ‘healthiness’ (4 %) | |
| Less healthy option - 15 % ( | • Imported product (26 %) |
| (Fizzy drink—imported product with an eye-catching picture, a false claim on ‘empty calories’) | • Attractive label (16 %) |
| Pair 2 (Fig. | |
| Healthier option - 70.5 % ( | • Medical recommendation (73 %) |
| (Ordinary label—same nutrients, low price, a claim on ‘Certified by the Medical Association’) | • Reasonable price (15 %) |
| Less healthy option-29.5 % ( | • Attractive label (63 %) |
| (Attractive label—same nutrients, high price, no claims) | • Costly, so better quality (2.5 %) |
| Pair 3 (Fig. | |
| Healthier option - 64.5 % ( | • Taste of chocolate (35 %) |
| (High-energy product—high calories and all major nutrients included in the nutrition panel, no claims) | • High calories (21 %) |
| • Nutritive value (16 %) | |
| • Attractive label (11 %) | |
| Less healthy option -35.5 % ( | • Zero cholesterol (65 %) |
| (Less energy product—false claim on ‘zero cholesterol’ despite saturated fatty acids in the nutrition panel) | • Pizza like taste (15 %) |
| • Quick snack (7 %) | |
a N = 533 (9 students who never read food labels were excluded)
Nutrition related knowledge of grade 12 adolescents required for reading labels on packaged snacks (n = 533)a
| Knowledge domain | Students with good knowledge | |
|---|---|---|
| No. | % | |
| Interpretation of “best before date” on the label | 471 | 88.5 % |
| Interpretation of “high in fats” on the label | 434 | 81.7 % |
| Use of permitted preservatives in snacks | 470 | 88.5 % |
| Fibre content in snacks | 360 | 67.8 % |
| Use of permitted colours and additives in snacks | 281 | 52.9 % |
| Unhealthy fat types in snacks | 252 | 47.5 % |
| Interpretation of serving size | 274 | 51.6 % |
| Definition of % RDA | 143 | 26.9 % |
| Interpretation of "natural product” on the label | 52 | 9.8 % |
| Overall ‘Good’ knowledge | 448 | 84.1 % |
aOf the 542 in the sample, 9 students who never read labels were excluded
Attitudes of the students towards the marketing strategies used by the manufacturers to promote unhealthy snacks (n = 533)a
| Information given on labels of packaged snacks is trustworthy, if | Strongly agree | Agree | Disagree | Strongly disagree |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | % | % | % | |
| - Has a popular brand name | 15.0 | 48.8 | 30.2 | 6.0 |
| - Advertised frequently on media | 3.9 | 5.9 | 66.6 | 23.6 |
| - Marketed as ‘imported’ | 9.2 | 28.0 | 49.5 | 13.3 |
| - Marketed as ‘expensive’ | 10.5 | 54.6 | 28.1 | 6.8 |
| - Endorsed by a celebrity | 6.2 | 3.5 | 41.1 | 49.2 |
| - A sports star is portrayed | 4.1 | 7.1 | 51.4 | 37.4 |
aOf the 542 in the sample, 9 students were excluded as they did not read labels at all
Comparison of unsatisfactory use of food labels by their nutrition related knowledge and attitudes towards marketing strategies used for promoting snacks (n = 533)a
| Characteristic | Total No. | Unsatisfactory label users | Satisfactory label users | Level of Significanceb | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. | % | No. | % | |||
| Nutrition related knowledge | ||||||
| Good 448 | 448 | 313 | 69.9 | 135 | 30.1 |
|
| Poor 85 | 85 | 60 | 70.6 | 25 | 29.4 | |
| Attitudes | ||||||
| Brand name |
| |||||
| Disagree | 193 | 124 | 64.2 | 69 | 35.8 | |
| Agree | 340 | 249 | 73.2 | 91 | 26.8 | |
| Television advertisements |
| |||||
| Disagree | 481 | 333 | 69.2 | 148 | 30.8 | |
| Agree | 52 | 40 | 76.9 | 12 | 23.1 | |
| Imported products |
| |||||
| Disagree | 335 | 223 | 66.6 | 112 | 33.4 | |
| Agree | 198 | 150 | 75.8 | 48 | 24.2 | |
| Portrayal of a sports star |
| |||||
| Disagree | 473 | 333 | 70.4 | 140 | 29.6 | |
| Agree | 60 | 40 | 66.7 | 20 | 33.3 | |
| Endorsement of a celebrity |
| |||||
| Disagree | 481 | 331 | 68.8 | 150 | 31.2 | |
| Agree | 52 | 42 | 80.8 | 10 | 19.2 | |
| Expensive products |
| |||||
| Disagree | 186 | 126 | 67.7 | 60 | 32.3 | |
| Agree | 347 | 247 | 71.2 | 100 | 28.8 | |
aOf the 542 in the sample, 9 students were excluded as they did not read labels at all
bSignificant associations (significant level p < 0.05) shown in bold letters