| Literature DB >> 33957970 |
Hassan Aguenaou1, Laila El Ammari2, Maryam Bigdeli3, Amina El Hajjab4, Houria Lahmam5, Saloua Labzizi2, Hasnae Gamih2, Anouar Talouizte2, Chaimae Serbouti1, Khalid El Kari1, Hasnae Benkirane1, Hicham El Berri6, Ayoub Al-Jawaldeh6, Abdelhakim Yahyane2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The front of pack nutrition label Nutri-Score, intended to help consumers orient their choices towards foods that are more favorable to health, was developed in France and applied in several European countries. Consideration is underway for its use in Morocco. This study aims to assess Moroccan consumers' perception and objective understanding of Nutri-Score and 4 other nutritional information labels (Health Star Rating, Health warning, Reference Intakes and Multiple Trafic Light) and their impact on purchase intentions.Entities:
Keywords: Food choice; Front-of-pack nutrition labels; Moroccan consumers; Nutritional policy; Objective understanding; Perception of labels
Year: 2021 PMID: 33957970 PMCID: PMC8101098 DOI: 10.1186/s13690-021-00595-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Arch Public Health ISSN: 0778-7367
Fig. 1The five labels studied: (1) Health Star Rating; (2) Nutri-Score; (3) Reference Intakes; (4) Multiple Trafic Light; (5) Warning Symbol. Comparison study of the relevance of Nutri-Score and other nutritional labels on the front of the packaging. Morocco (2019)
Fig. 2Example of a product with the label on the front presented in the questionnary: Comparison study of the relevance of Nutri-Score and other nutritional labels on the front of the packaging. Morocco (2019)
Characteristics of the study population: Comparison study of the relevance of Nutri-Score and other nutritional labels on the front of the packaging. Morocco (2019)
| Number | (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Men | 327 | 40,2% | |
| Women | 487 | 59,8% | |
| Urban | 772 | 95,2% | |
| Rural | 39 | 4,8% | |
| 10–18 | 126 | 15,8% | |
| 18–29 | 239 | 30,0% | |
| 30–49 | 264 | 33,1% | |
| > 50 | 168 | 21,1% | |
| Single | 398 | 49,1% | |
| Married | 364 | 44,9% | |
| Divorced | 33 | 4,1% | |
| Widowed | 16 | 2,0% | |
| Primary or Msid | 41 | 5,0% | |
| Secondary | 232 | 28,5% | |
| University | 540 | 66,5% | |
| State employee | 195 | 24,1% | |
| Private sector employee | 120 | 14,8% | |
| Liberal profession or business manager | 75 | 9,3% | |
| Manual worker | 29 | 3,6% | |
| Retired | 18 | 2,2% | |
| Housewife | 58 | 7,2% | |
| Student | 280 | 34,6% | |
| Without profession | 34 | 4,2% | |
| < 3000 DH | 118 | 16,2% | |
| 3000–5999 DH | 76 | 10,4% | |
| 6000–9999 DH | 90 | 12,3% | |
| 10,000–15,999 DH | 71 | 9,7% | |
| 16,000–25,000 DH | 66 | 9,1% | |
| > 25,000 DH | 41 | 5,6% | |
| I don’t know | 132 | 18,1% | |
| I refuse to answer | 135 | 18,5% | |
| Yes | 315 | 39,2% | |
| No | 302 | 37,6% | |
| Purchases are distributed fairly throughout the household | 187 | 23,3% | |
| I have a very balanced diet | 47 | 5,8% | |
| I have a balanced diet | 308 | 38,0% | |
| I have an unbalanced diet | 338 | 41,7% | |
| I have a very unbalanced diet | 118 | 14,5% | |
| I know a lot about nutrition | 147 | 18,1% | |
| I know enough about nutrition | 367 | 45,1% | |
| I know a little about nutrition | 222 | 27,3% | |
| I don’t know anything about nutrition | 78 | 9,6% | |
| Always | 255 | 31,4% | |
| Often | 255 | 31,4% | |
| Sometimes | 212 | 26,1% | |
| Rarely | 74 | 9,1% | |
| Never | 16 | 2,0% | |
| Always | 106 | 13,2% | |
| Often | 132 | 16,4% | |
| Sometimes | 205 | 25,4% | |
| Rarely | 216 | 26,8% | |
| Never | 147 | 18,2% | |
| Always | 71 | 8,8% | |
| Often | 123 | 15,2% | |
| Sometimes | 226 | 27,9% | |
| Rarely | 261 | 32,2% | |
| Never | 130 | 16,0% | |
Fig. 3Comparison of correct answers for ranking products according to nutritional quality with and without label: Comparison study of the relevance of Nutri-Score and other nutritional labels on the front of the packaging. Morocco (2019)
Associations between label and the ability to correctly rank products according to nutritional quality, by label and food categorya: Comparison study of the relevance of Nutri-Score and other nutritional labels on the front of the packaging. Morocco (2019)
| Product classification | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Yoghurt | OR | 95% IC | |
| 0.60 | 0.34, 1.04 | 0.072 | |
| 1.95 | 1.15, 3.33 | 0.014 | |
| 0.85 | 0.50, 1.46 | 0.6 | |
| 1.46 | 0.86, 2.50 | 0.2 | |
| | 2.13 | 1.19, 3.84 | 0.012 |
| | 2.69 | 1.52, 4.80 | < 0.001 |
| | 1.53 | 0.86, 2.71 | 0.15 |
| | 1.69 | 0.95, 3.03 | 0.078 |
| | 1.90 | 1.04, 3.48 | 0.038 |
| | 2.57 | 1.44, 4.64 | 0.001 |
| | 1.60 | 0.89, 2.89 | 0.12 |
| | 1.09 | 0.59, 2.02 | 0.8 |
| | 1.43 | 0.87, 2.35 | 0.2 |
| | 2.48 | 1.53, 4.05 | < 0.001 |
| | 1.17 | 0.72, 1.89 | 0.5 |
| | 1.51 | 0.93, 2.46 | 0.10 |
a The reference for multivariate ordinal logistic regression was the “Reference Intakes” label. The multivariate model was adjusted for sex, place of residence, marital status, age, level of education, level of income, occupation, responsibility for shopping. OR: Odds Ratio; CI: confidence interval
Fig. 4Change in product choice with and without labels: Comparison study of the relevance of Nutri-Score and other nutritional labels on the front of the packaging. Morocco (2019)
Associations between labels and change in nutritional quality of food choices, by label and food category in participants who made a choicea: Comparison study of the relevance of Nutri-Score and other nutritional labels on the front of the packaging. Morocco (2019)
| Product choice | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Yoghurt | OR | 95% CI | P-value |
| 0.47 | 0.27, 0.80 | 0.006 | |
| 1.05 | 0.63, 1.75 | 0.8 | |
| 0.75 | 0.46, 1.24 | 0.3 | |
| 0.76 | 0.46, 1.27 | 0.3 | |
| | 0.66 | 0.36, 1.18 | 0.2 |
| | 1.07 | 0.60, 1.88 | 0.8 |
| | 1.14 | 0.66, 1.98 | 0.6 |
| | 0.94 | 0.54, 1.64 | 0.8 |
| | 0.65 | 0.35, 1.20 | 0.2 |
| | 0.86 | 0.50, 1.51 | 0.6 |
| | 0.77 | 0.43, 1.39 | 0.4 |
| | 0.62 | 0.35, 1.12 | 0.12 |
| | 0.55 | 0.29, 1.06 | 0.072 |
| | 0.97 | 0.53, 1.78 | > 0.9 |
| | 1.01 | 0.55, 1.86 | > 0.9 |
| | 0.65 | 0.35, 1.19 | 0.2 |
a The reference for multivariate ordinal logistic regression was the “Reference Intakes” label. The multivariate model was adjusted for gender, place of residence, marital status, age, level of education, level of income, occupation, responsibility for shopping. OR: Odds Ratio; CI: confidence interval
Distribution of participants according to the positive appreciation of the labels: Comparison study of the relevance of Nutri-Score and other nutritional labels on the front of the packaging. Morocco (2019)
| Reference Intakes | Health warning | Nutriscore | Health star rating | Multiple Traffic Light | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 107 14.3% | 20 2.7% | 487 64.9% | 39 5.2% | 97 12.9% | |
| 112 14.9% | 31 4.1% | 437 58.2% | 45 6% | 126 16.8% | |
| 77 10.2% | 27 3.6% | 552 74% | 32 4.3% | 70 9.4% | |
| 53 7% | 14 1.9% | 611 82.2% | 12 1.6% | 63 8.4% | |
| 161 21.6% | 32 4.3% | 337 45.2% | 46 6.2% | 170 22.8% | |
| 138 18.6% | 25 3.4% | 391 52.6% | 57 7.7% | 132 17.8% | |
| 140 18.8% | 26 3.5% | 355 47.6% | 62 8.3% | 163 21.8% | |
| 86 11.4% | 27 3.6% | 519 68.8% | 35 4.6% | 87 11.5% | |
| 103 13.7% | 19 2.5% | 490 65.2% | 44 5.9% | 95 12.6% |
Breakdown of consumers according to negative appreciation of labels: Comparison study of the relevance of Nutri-Score and other nutritional labels on the front of the packaging. Morocco (2019)
| Reference Intakes | Health warning | Nutriscore | Health star rating | Multiple Traffic Light | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 140 18.5% | 349 47.7% | 53 7.1% | 125 16.7% | 88 11.7% | |
| 124 16.9% | 321 42.9% | 75 10% | 85 11.6% | 127 17.3% | |
| 191 25.5% | 224 29.9% | 72 9.6% | 150 20% | 112 15% | |
| 252 33.6% | 108 14.4% | 5.6% | 133 17.8% | 214 28.6% |