randd.defra.gov.ukrandd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=13915_… · Web viewand informally-published retailer and trade association works, as well as academic/technical documents

\\

DefraFA 0132 Baseline Evaluation of EU Food Information for Consumers (FIC) Labelling: Executive Summary

This research was commissioned and funded by Defra. The views expressed reflect the research findings and the authors’ interpretation; they do not necessarily reflect Defra policy or opinions.

Disclaimer

Anthesis Consulting Group PLC has prepared this report for the sole use of the client and for the intended purposes as stated in the agreement between Anthesis and the client under which this report was completed. Anthesis has exercised due and customary care in preparing this report but has not, save as specifically stated, independently verified information provided by others. No other warranty, express or implied, is made in relation to the contents of this report. The use of this report or reliance on its content, by unauthorised third parties without written permission from Anthesis shall be at their own risk, and Anthesis accepts no duty of care to such third parties. Any recommendations, opinions or findings stated in this report are based on facts and circumstances as they existed at the time the report was prepared. Any changes in such facts and circumstances may adversely affect the recommendations, opinions or findings contained in this report.

Executive Summary

Purpose of the study

In October 2011 the EU passed Regulation No. 1169/2011 on the provision of food information to consumers (EU FIC Regulation). This makes changes to existing food labelling regulations within the European Union. Most of its provisions apply from December 2014. Defra commissioned this study to provide a baseline for the UK against which the consumer and business impacts of the regulation could be reviewed after it has been fully implemented.

A mixed-method approach has been used to gather insights for this project. Researchers have carried out a thorough and critical assessment of the evidence base around food labelling in general, and assessed awareness of the changes required for compliance with the new regulations.

The impact on consumers of EU FIC labelling changes already implemented has been critically assessed through a programme of in-home and in-store observations, alongside a structured omnibus survey of 1,672 consumers.

As well as consumer research, insights into the opportunities and barriers for businesses expected to implement change has been explored. Knowledge gaps and preparedness have been examined in detail through in-depth qualitative interviews with a sample (7) of businesses involved, in addition to a telephone survey of 1,002 businesses of varying sizes. Results provide a picture of the level of knowledge, engagement and activity in relation to the December 2014 deadline for compliance.

The methodology used, and the format for presenting the data to create this baseline study has been designed so that other research teams can make future evaluations of the penetration of the new EU FIC labelling.

Project objectives were to:

1. Critically assess and summarise the existing evidence on consumer and business view of food labels, and their awareness of the changes required if existing food label structures are to meet FIC regulation requirements.

2. Explore and summarise current consumer understanding of food label information, and changes in purchasing decisions following the first wave of regulatory changes to food labelling in line with the FIC regulation requirements.

3. Explore and identify the barriers facing businesses expected to implement the new labelling changes, and their information requirements

4. Provide a baseline and methodology that can be used for future evaluation of the penetration of the new EU FIC labelling.

Scope

The project focused on assessing changes to be introduced by the EU FIC regulation with the greatest potential impact. The following project boundaries were agreed:

1

1. Geographical regions: England with smaller samples in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (due to budget and time constraints).

2. EU FIC Changes for assessment: The project assessed five of the EU FIC changes considered by the project steering group to have the greatest potential impact on businesses and consumers, as follows: Country of Origin/Place of Provenance (COOL); Voluntary front-of-pack nutrition labelling; Food allergen labelling and information; Labelling of vegetable and palm oils; and Quantitative indication of ingredients (QUID).

3. Priority Products: To further focus the assessment of impacts, a sample group of food products were used to assess the label changes. Products chosen were minced meat, unprocessed meat (e.g. poultry, lamb, goat and swine), dairy (yoghurt, cheese, and milk), ready meals and cereals and biscuits.

Methodology

A mixed-method approach has been used to gather insights for this project. Desk based research was conducted in phase 1 and was subsequently followed by primary research in phase 2. This mixed method approach was the appropriate method of choice for this project. It enables the use of quantitative data (e.g. consumer and business survey output) for statistical robustness (in both the design and deployment of the survey and in the findings gathered) in addition to qualitative data (e.g. participant observations and interviews). Utilising both types of research methods enables the qualitative findings to provide the context of the quantitative statistics allowing the overall story of the research findings to be built, something which is not easily captured using statistics alone. Additionally by adopting a mixed method approach across multiple disciplines the research team were able to triangulate data creating a robust evidence base possible upon which future evaluation work can be built upon.

2

The research methods deployed in establishing a baseline evidence base included the following:

1. Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA): REA provided a quick rigorous method (relative to the search terms used) of gathering the secondary evidence on which the phase two methodologies and research questions were based. The literature reviewed was a mixture of grey1 and informally-published retailer and trade association works, as well as academic/technical documents from institutions such as The European Commission. Evidence from this variety of sources was evaluated to determine where gaps in knowledge exist and which of these gaps could be addressed by this research.

Evidence was evaluated that informed knowledge of (1) consumer and business understanding of current food labels; (2) awareness of the specific EU FIC changes being introduced; and (3) the potential impact on consumers (e.g. changes in purchasing decisions, increased difficulty in processing food label information, reduced use of food labels) and businesses (e.g. financial implications of making required changes, scale of changes required etc.) of changes introduced.

2. Consumer Omnibus Survey: The research team conducted a survey of 1,672 consumers identified as ‘main shoppers’2 across the UK. The survey explored consumer engagement with, and uses of, on-pack food labelling. Researchers interviewed participants face-to-face in their homes, following a scripted interview process designed to elicit prompted and unprompted responses. The samples of main shoppers across the regions within this study were broken down as follows:

Region Main Shopper Sample Size

England 1,254Scotland 138

Wales 132Northern

Ireland148

3. Consumer Observations: Researchers followed 90 consumers as they shopped in-store and in-home (online), with observations taking place in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. The aim was to correct for the significant differences often found between what people claim they do in surveys, and their real behaviour, sometimes described as the ‘values/actions’3 gap.

In total 26 in home observations (with online shoppers) and 64 in-store observations were conducted: 26 in England and 12 each in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. In-store observations were of pre-recruited shoppers with varying shopping influences (e.g. demographics, food allergies/intolerances). These shoppers were observed for a period ranging from 45 to 75 minutes. Observers watched how they interacted with food labels

1 Grey literature is defined as literature from industry sources such as trade associations and manufacturers which does not go through a defined peer review process. Such literature includes conference papers, news articles, blog posts and reports.2 Main shoppers are defined as those shoppers who are solely or mainly responsible for conducting the weekly food shop within their household (i.e. single, family or couple).3 The values action gap has become a shorthand for the theory that not all behaviour is planned or reasoned. It is a challenge to the theory that behaviour is driven by intentions and attitudes – and which would suggest that a consumer claiming to like a certain brand of food means they are more likely to purchase the brand above other items (Mairesse et al, 2012). The values-action gap is much debated in the field of environmental psychology as most studies report small to modest correlations between environmental attitudes and pro-environmental behaviour.

3

and carried out a guided exercise on an element of EU FIC label changes to gather insight on consumers understanding of specific EU FIC label changes.

4. Business Survey: 1,002 businesses across the Food Business Operators (FBO)4

community (encompassing small, medium and large businesses) were interviewed via telephone, to investigate awareness and preparedness to meet regulatory requirements, to understand expectations around implementation, and to explore what type of help can be provided to support businesses in relation to changes in legislation.

5. In-depth Qualitative Interviews with Large Corporations: Seven in-depth interviews were conducted with four major food retailers and three leading brand manufacturers. These interviews captured the views of the more engaged, large scale and experienced FBO community members who are already implementing label changes across their portfolios.

6. Photo library: During March 2014 the research team collected images of the illustrative products to capture the current uptake of EU FIC label changes. The images were of products from different retailers and give a snapshot of uptake across both branded and own-brand products. This collection is for Defra use but can be viewed on request

Limitations

The project was commissioned during the time between the new regulations being introduced and the date when they officially come into force. Some FBOs had already implemented changes, therefore labels that people were looking at within the study are a mixture of ‘old style’ and sometimes ‘new style’ their responses varied accordingly. Further project limitations are explored in more depth within the main report, a short summary of these are provided below:

Rapid evidence assessment (REA): Following the structure provided by the Civil Service for conducting an effective REA it is critical to note that the REA is as robust as the search terms that are used to drive the search. The research team continually reviewed the search terms and iterated the search term list to ensure the maximum results were returned. However, even after employing these measures the team cannot confirm with absolute certainty that all relevant results were captured and assessed, only that the results were made as robust as the method allowed.

Geographic distribution: To incorporate a wider geographical scope for review, additional sampling and accompanied shops were carried out in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; (as well as England) within the limited time constraints of the original project brief. These sample sizes for surveys and accompanied shops were smaller for the additional regions. Results from these areas are therefore only indicative of consumer behaviour in these regions and are not statistically representative.

Business participant sample sizes: As part of the mixed method approach adopted for this project both the consumer and business elements of this research project incorporated surveys and participant interaction either through observations or in-depth interviews. For the business section the findings which draw on evidence from the 7 in-depth interviews with businesses are limited by the small sample size, but they provide interesting insights from big businesses.

4 Food business operators (FBO) are defined as either retail or manufacturers of differing sizes (1) small FBO between 1-10 employees and/or up to £999,999; (2) medium FB between 11-99 employees and/or £1 million - £9,999,999 turnover; and (3) large FBO 100+ employees and/or £10 million + turnover.

4

Key findings

This project had four overarching objectives (refer to Purpose of this Study for more information) aimed at covering three evidence outcomes:

1. Gain an understanding of the existing evidence on consumer and business views of food labels and the implications of the changes that the EU FIC regulation may have on the food labelling landscape;

2. Develop a summary of the current consumer use and understanding of food label information and how the FIC label changes have impacted on behaviours; and

3. Identification of the opportunities and barriers facing businesses expected to implement the new labelling changes, and their information requirements.

Outlined below are the findings collected to meet the above outlined evidence outcomes.

Objective: Gain an understanding of the existing evidence on consumer and business views of food labels and the implications of the changes that the EU FIC regulation may have on the food labelling landscape

The REA method for the above objective indicated that whilst there is an abundance of literature which assesses consumer use of food labels (449 resources on this topic were identified during the initial REA scoping) there is limited research which adequately assesses or explores the implications of the changes that the introduction of the EU FIC regulation might have on the food labelling landscape (none of the 158 resources reviewed in-depth captured this information). Instead the literature assessed and explored what the changes were, providing guidance on different elements of the EU FIC changes. This was particularly true of sources from industry or governmental bodies such DEFRA, The Food Standards Agency and the European Commission. Academic and peer-reviewed literature tended to focus more on:

1. Consumer interaction with and the effectiveness of FoP nutrition labelling; 2. Consumer use of nutrition labels; and 3. How specific shopper categories respond to/use food labels differently (for more detailed

information on the outputs of the REA please refer to the Impacts on consumer in chapter 4).

Specifically, the REA identified core data gaps relating to the use of all five prioritised FIC information changes for consumers:

1. Country of origin/ place of provenance labelling.2. Voluntary front of pack nutrition labelling.3. Food allergen labelling and information.4. Labelling of vegetable oil, including palm oil.5. Quantitative indication of ingredients (QUID) including meat content and added water

declarations.

The detailed findings of the REA are summarised within the impact on consumer chapter within the body of the final report.

5

Objective: Develop a summary of the current consumer understanding of food label information and how the FIC label changes have impacted on behaviours

Summary:

Currently, 58% (n=985) of survey respondents feel that the product content information on food and drink labels provide information is always or usually easy to understand. Only 13% (n=213) say it it usually or never easy to understand. Nearly three quarters of respondents (70%, n=1174) say they feel very or fairly confident that labels provide accurate information about the food and drink they buy. Around a quarter (26%,n=451) say they are not very or not at all confident.

The reviewed evidence and information from consumers surveyed (n = 1,672) demonstrate that they expect changes to labels to have a positive impact in terms of increasing their understanding and confidence in the food and drink that they buy, despite their low use of labels in store. For future assessments it will be interesting to see if the levels of understanding and confidence consumers hold increases from the current baseline established by this project following the full roll out of label changes.

Country of o

rigin/p

lace o

f prove

nance

Allergy

inform

ation to

be emphasi

sed in

the i

ngredien

ts list

Minimum fo

nt size

Label

must speci

fy which

plant o

il comes

from

Engin

eered

nano m

ateria

ls must b

e speci

fied

Added w

ater d

eclara

tions

Minced m

eat co

nnective

fat tissu

e lab

elling

Nutrition in

formati

on provided

in a s

et form

at

None of th

ese will

help

Don't know

31% 30%35%

20% 20%

29% 31% 28%

15%7%

47% 45%52%

27% 24%

46% 44%

34%

9%5%

Q18/Q19 And which of these information requirements, if any, will help to improve your understanding of the content of food and drink you buy/make

you feel more confident about the food and drink you buy?

Understanding Confidence

Apart from those consumers with special dietary requirements (e.g. allergies), consumers tend to report higher levels of engagement with labels than they reveal in store. 45% (n=750) of respondents

6

in the survey said they always or usually read the label before they buy a product they are not already familiar with. This goes down slightly to 41% (n=143) for respondents who do online food and drink shopping. But consumers exhibited low actual use of food labels when making purchasing decisions as was found in the majority of instore and in-home participant observations.

Most purchases are driven by time and budget constraints, as well as what is available, on offer or familiar suggesting that consumers place more emphasis on information such as price, brand name, special offers and familiarity than ingredient labelling information when making purchasing decisions.

Actual use of labels drops further for online shoppers, with just under half (11 out of 26) of online shoppers claiming they never, or only occasionally read food labels when purchasing food products, compared to around a third (22 out of 46) of in-store shoppers. Given the difference between reported use of labelling and actual use in store, it will be interesting to see whether label changes impact on behaviours and in what way.

Despite this, when asked about how valuable it is to have information about product contents for consumers personally, 55% (n=926) say that it is either essential, extremely or very valuable. A further 30% (n=500) say it is fairly valuable. Primary Research Findings on consumer understanding, use of, and confidence in food labels

Outlined below is a brief summary of the primary research findings across the different food label elements reviewed as part of this project.

Country of Origin Labelling

Consumers place high value on provision of COOL but generally the use of COOL for purchase decisions is low.

In the survey, consumers rank COOL 2nd of 12 types of information that they report would increase confidence (47%, n=798) and understanding (31%, n=516) of food purchased. However, they rank COOL 11th out of 16 types of information they look for when purchasing food or drink (rising to 8th for Welsh consumers (n=132) and 9th for Scottish consumers (n=183) though sample sizes are small).This varies by product type (e.g. higher for meat). These counter intuitive results reinforce behaviour that was exhibited during instore observations which is that while consumers rate that COOL would increase their confidence and understanding of the products they buy they still prefer to use and rely on their visual assessments of products (especially meat) to inform their decision making process.

Though sample sizes for the Scotland are small, results indicate that Scottish consumers are around twice more likely to look for food and drink from particular parts of the UK than English consumers. With 36% (n=49) of Scottish consumers reporting to use this information ‘often’ when purchasing food and drink products compared to 17% (n=339) of English consumers. It should also be noted that 49% (n=616) of participants from England ‘often’ or ‘sometimes’ report that they look for food and drink from particular parts of the UK in contrast to 63% (n-87) of participants from Scotland.

In-store observations revealed that for unprocessed meat, COOL is often used as a proxy for product quality after visually assessing the product.

Health & Nutrition information

Many observed and interviewed participants claimed an interest in the health and wellbeing effects of products. Despite this, there was little evidence that these

7

concerns were driving the product evaluation and buying behaviours observed in-store or online unless there are particular health concerns.

80% (n=1338) of consumers surveyed report that having information on the label about product contents will help them make healthier choices with 47% (n=786) stating it will be a ‘big help’ and a further 35% (n=585) stating it will be a ‘small help’.

Around a third of consumers surveyed (34%, n=568) say health and nutrition information will improve their confidence in the food they purchase and a quarter (16%, n=267) say it will increase their understanding of the food.

Consumers with dietary restrictions rank nutrition information as the most important information to be provided on food and drink labels (39%, n=103), followed by ingredients list (33%, n=87). Regional differences apply in reference to wider consumer ranking (please refer to full report).

Allergen information

EU FIC allergy regulation changes did have an effect on their intended target group, with many allergy and intolerance shoppers using this information as evidenced by both accompanied shop observations and consumer survey results.

14% (n=236) of overall survey respondents report an allergy that influences the food and drink they buy. A further 12% (n=194) say that have a food intolerance. 6% (n=93) purchase food for somebody with other special dietary requirements.

For those consumers with food and drink allergies, 67% (n=235) say the changes to allergen information will improve their confidence in the content of food and drink purchases, though fewer (48%, n=167) say it will increase their understanding.

During the 26 online shopper observations, online shoppers used the thumbnail image of the product as the main basis for a decision, and only allergy sufferers clicked through to a larger image of the product.

Additional EU FIC label requirements

Less than 13% (n=213) of consumers surveyed where aware (unprompted) of the wider EU FIC requirements:

o vegetable oil/palm oil content information 2% (n=35); o nano-materials 1% (n=19); o meat content information 6% (n=102);o added water declaration 4% (n=57): ando collagen/meat protein information 1% (n=19).

In contrast when prompted with a list of potential label options awareness of each item increases with awareness of:

8

o vegetable oil/palm oil information increasing by 20% to a 22% (n=348);o nano-material awareness increases to 6% (n=102);o awareness of meat content increasing the most (by 38%) to 44% (n=685);o added water declaration awareness increasing by 31% to 35% (n=545);and

finallyo collagen/meat protein awareness increasing to 12% (n=195).

Nearly half of consumers surveyed say that added water information and minced meat declarations would increase their confidence in the food they buy (46%, n=769 and 44%, n=735 respectively). Less respondents (20% (n=334) say it would increase their understanding.

For further insight into how consumers reported use of, and interacted with, different food label elements a summary of the key findings by label element is outlined below. For a more detailed exploration please refer to the full report.

Objective: Identification of the barriers facing businesses expected to implement the new labelling changes, and their information requirements

It is worth noting that fieldwork was carried out early in 2014, before the regulations were due to be rolled out, though some businesses had already made some changes.

Summary:

Overall for companies impacted by the EU FIC regulation changes research findings suggest that the most significant barriers that businesses may face in relation to the implementation of the new labelling changes are:

1. Low awareness levels of the legislation (at the time of primary research);

2. Low levels of preparedness to meet the impending changes (at the time of primary research); and

3. Associated investment requirements of implementation.

On average 63% (635 respondents) of all FBOs surveyed were unaware of any food label regulation changes to be introduced in the immediate or near future. Of those aware (35%, n=355) FBO manufacturers reported the highest level of awareness of the EU FIC regulations, with 78% (101 respondents) showing a higher awareness than the FBO average whether from the EU or elsewhere. The evidenced low awareness level mirrors the low levels of FBO self-reported preparedness to meet the EU FIC changes. On all preparedness activities FBO manufacturers were significantly (statistically) more advanced than retailers. The most common response from FBOs was that they have plans to conduct preparedness activities but have yet to start. FBOs receiving advice on compliance tended to be much more advanced in preparing for the changes than those not receiving advice.

Half of brand owners anticipate extra costs in association with the EU FIC regulation changes. Not surprisingly the picture is very different for businesses selling brands that they do not own, with

9

only 16% (102 respondents) anticipating extra costs. The two most commonly stated ‘costs’ required to meet the EU FIC requirements are (1) extra packaging and print costs, and (2) extra burden on existing staff. Those citing extra burden on existing staff were predominantly FBOs not receiving advice and having done very little (or no) preparation so far. Better-advised and more prepared FBOs were more likely to specify extra packaging/printing costs.

50%

9%2%

19%7% 6%

56%

7% 3%11%

1% 2%

Q19: What is it in particular that will cost extra money to ensure EU FIC compliance?

For your own brand For other brands

Primary research findings on business awareness, perception of and opinion of the EU FIC legislation changes

A summary of key primary research findings are below; please refer to the full report for a deeper exploration of findings.

Awareness

There are varying levels of awareness of different EU FIC changes, with allergen labelling, COOL and minimum font size most widely recognised.

Small businesses are generally less aware, engaged and prepared for labelling changes with 6% (117 respondents) of FBOs with fewer than 5 employees being unaware of impending FIC changes to be introduced, in contrast to only 10% (3 respondents)of FBOs with 100+ employees

Preparedness

On all preparedness activities FBO manufacturers were significantly (statistically) more advanced than retailers.

The most common response from FBOs was that they have plans to conduct preparedness activities but have yet to start. This was the response for 56% (395

10

100% of 1,002 FBO respondents surveyed

respondents) of FBO retailers, 37% (48 respondents) of FBO manufacturers, and 55% (92 respondents) of both FBO retailers and manufacturers.

FBOs receiving advice on compliance tended to be much more advanced in preparing for the changes than those not receiving advice.

Ease of implementation perceptions

Half of brand owners surveyed anticipate extra costs to implement changes (extra packaging/printing costs being the most regularly cited extra cost), but about half of those surveyed felt it would be very/fairly easy to implement the changes.

Opportunities for change

FBOs expect positives and negatives and do not see labelling changes as a panacea but do seem to recognise that they are part of a package of initiatives that might influence consumer behaviour, if done in a way that doesn't overload consumers with information.

70% (701 respondents) of FBOs surveyed felt the new label would have positive impacts for consumers (mostly greater awareness of healthier eating but also easier to read labels and standardised allergy information).

Meanwhile, 63% (631 respondents) also thought there would be downsides (increase in costs, overload of information for consumers most commonly cited).

Key EU FIC baseline findings & hypotheses for future consideration

The table below summarises the main findings about the EU FIC labelling changes reviewed in this study (Country of Origin, Allergen Information, Nutrition/Health labelling and Additional EU FIC labelling requirements). These findings make up the ‘Baseline Position’. The table also offers research hypotheses for each baseline position. The research hypotheses have been designed as a starting point for measuring particular areas of change in consumer and businesses behaviour post EU FIC regulation implementation. In the final column, the table also offers guidance on research methods needed to measure change most effectively.

11

Consumer research summary and hypotheses for the future

Assessment area Criteria/theme Baseline Position Hypothesis Method of

assessment

Country of Origin

Labelling

Limited COOL information use during decision making

COOL ranked 2nd of 12 types of information that would increase both confidence and understanding of food purchased.

COOL ranked 11th of 16 when making general food purchasing decisions (though this varied by product type).

Consumers will continue to place a high value on the provision of COOL (i.e. that COOL information will improve their confidence and understanding of the food they purchase) and its use during the decision making process will increase.

Qualitative: accompanied shop observations & in-home observations

Use of regional food label information

Small sample but interesting to note that 36% (n=49) survey respondents from Scotland look for food and drink from ‘particular parts of the UK’ often, compared to 19% in the UK (17% England, n=339)).

Of the four regions assessed within the UK, Scottish participants use regional food label information (i.e. Devonshire Cream, Scotch Beef etc.) will remain higher than other UK regions.

Quantitative: consumer survey

COOL information as a proxy for product quality

Consumers use COOL when other visual assessments of food quality are inconclusive. There is no clear-cut characterisation of how a consumer will use COOL information though when used, COOL often infers product quality.

COOL label information is used as a primary decision making criteria. COOL is used to confirm if a product meets the home grown/local produce criteria that the majority of consumer strive for which, to the majority of our participants is deemed an indication of product quality.

Qualitative: accompanied shop observations & in-home observations

12

Nutrition/Health

Labelling

Hierarchical use of nutrition/health information

REA evidence suggested hierarchical use of nutrition, health and UK Front of Pack (FoP) labelling. Finding also supported by accompanied shop evidence.

Continued hierarchical use of food labelling information during consumer decision making, with the following ranking applied: (1) health claims; (2) nutrition claims; and (3) UK 2013 FoP & BoP nutrition information.


Qualitative: accompanied shop & in-home observations

Prioritisation of individual nutrients on food labels

REA evidence outlined that fat, sugar and energy information are the most used by consumers. The consumer survey concluded that awareness of nutrition information ranks the three types of information above, in the same order, for consumer awareness on food labels.

Continued prioritisation of individual pieces of nutrition information in a hierarchical order within the decision making process. The following ranking will be applied: (1) fat; (2) sugar; and (3) calories.


Contribution of nutrition labelling to consumer use of, and confidence in the food they purchase

47% (n=786) of consumers claim consistently formatted nutrition information is a ‘big help’ in making healthier choices. 34% (n=576) say such information will improve their confidence in the food they purchase, and 28% (n=467) state that it will increase their understanding of the food they are purchasing.

Increased levels of consumer understanding of, and confidence in, the food they purchase as a consequence of the food label changes introduced by the EU FIC regulation.


Health & nutrition

80% (1,375 respondents)

The changes introduced to nutrition

Quantitative: consumer

13

labelling informing healthy decision making

reported that UK 2013 FoP nutrition information helped them make healthier choices, with 47% (n=786) stating it’s a ‘big help in making healthier choices’.

labelling by the EU FIC will positively affect consumers purchasing decisions, with a potential to increase the number of consumers making healthier food choices.

survey

Allergy information

Allergy label use by allergy and food intolerance suffers

50% (175 respondents) of the allergy group illustrated an ‘unprompted’ awareness that the list of ingredients is shown on food packaging. Within a prompted exercise the awareness of ingredients lists on food labels increased to 73% (256 respondents) for the allergy group.

Allergy food label information will increase in use by its intended audience (i.e. food allergy and intolerance suffers) and will continue to positively impact consumers through its standardization.



Allergy and food intolerance suffers confidence and understanding

48% (167 respondents) of the allergy group responded that they believe the standardisation of allergenic ingredient information in the ingredients list will improve their understanding of the contents of food products. 67% (235 respondents) of allergy and intolerance respondents reported that the change will improve their confidence in the content of the food and drink that they purchase, rating this change the

Increased, and or maintained, levels of confidence (67%) and understanding (48%) in food labels with the introduction of the EU FIC changes and the standardisation of allergy food label information by food allergy and intolerance suffers.


14

highest in boosting product confidence levels, followed by font size at 57% (198 respondents).

Inexperienced food allergy and intolerance suffers use of food label information

Evidence from the REA, the consumer survey and accompanied shop observations demonstrated that experienced food allergy and intolerance sufferers use ingredients lists to assess product information, rather than targeted allergy information such as ‘contains’ boxes which is predominantly used by newly diagnosed allergy and intolerance sufferers.

Inexperienced food allergy and intolerance suffers have limited engagement with detailed food allergy labelling. Whilst newly diagnosed food allergy and or intolerance suffer may be negatively impacted by the EU FIC changes as they are accustomed to ‘contains’ or allergy boxes in their initial diagnosis phase.

Qualitative assessment: accompanied shop & in-home observations

Additional EU FIC ingredient

labelling requirements

Literature availability on additional EU FIC ingredient labelling requirements

The literature reviewed offered no evidence to support the view that the EU FIC changes to the listing of ‘other’ ingredients would influence consumers’ purchasing decisions. The REA found no sources which assessed awareness or use of information relating to the (1) ‘Engineered nanomaterials’; (2) added water and (3) minced meat declarations.

Wider availability of secondary literature on the following additional EU FIC labelling requirements: (1) minced meat declarations; (2) added water content declarations; (3) engineered nanomaterials; (4) quantitative ingredient declarations; and (5) labelling of oils.

Quantitative: Rapid evidence assessment

Awareness, confidence and

Currently awareness of additional EU FIC

Increased levels of consumer awareness,

Quantitative: consumer

15

understanding of the information provided by additional EU FIC ingredient requirements

Label requirements is below 50% (n=836) as is consumer confidence in the information it provides, with less than 35% (n=585) of main shoppers also reporting an understanding of what information the label changes are trying to provide.

confidence in and understanding associated with the following addition EU FIC ingredients requirements: (1) minced meat declarations; (2) added water content declarations; (3) engineered nano-materials; (4) quantitative ingredient declarations; and (5) labelling of oils. Please note the % is across all five requirements assessed.

survey

Food Business Operator (FBO) research summary and hypotheses for the future

Assessment area Criteria/theme Baseline

Position Hypothesis Method of assessment

Awareness of EU FIC regulation requirements

General business awareness of the EU FIC

On average 63% (635 respondents) of all FBOs surveyed were unaware of any food label regulation changes to be introduced in the immediate or near future, whether from the EU or elsewhere.

Increased levels of awareness (from current level of 35%) of any (EU FIC or otherwise) food regulation changes to be introduced by FBO’s.

Quantitative: survey assessment

FBO type awareness levels

FBO manufacturers reported the highest level of awareness of the EU FIC regulations, with 78% (101 respondents) showing a higher awareness than the FBO average.

Increased awareness (50%+) among retailer FBO’s from current level of 25%. Additionally an increased level (50%+) of awareness of the EU FIC changes among small FBOs, with large FBO awareness remaining the same.


16

Awareness levels were also varied with FBO size with 74% (424 respondents) of FBOs with fewer than 5 employees claimed to be unaware of any impending regulation, whereas 90% (88 respondents) of FBOs with 100+ employees were aware of impending regulation.

Individual requirement awareness levels

Recall awareness levels of EU FIC changes to labelling are all below 5% with FBO retailer and manufacturers showing the same low levels of awareness, apart from allergen label changes for which recall awareness is 30%.

FBO awareness of individual EU FIC regulation requirements (with the exception of allergen labelling requirements) to increase from the current average (unprompted) awareness levels of >5%. Projected increase to 55%.


Preparedness to meet EU FIC regulation requirements

Implementation of changes required to meet the EU FIC requirements

Only 6% (7 respondents) of FBO manufacturers and no FBO retailers surveyed have fully implemented the required business changes to be EU FIC compliant. 49% (63 respondents) of manufacturer FBOs and 5% (32 respondents) of retailers have started their EU

Increased pan FBO implementation of changes required to meet EU FIC regulations. Increased to 70% from current level of 6% FBO manufacturers and 0% FBO retailers.


17

FIC compliance activities but have not completed their work.

Activities engaged with to meet requirements

The most common preparation activities include initial engagement such as (1) working out exactly what information is required to be incorporated on the compliant food labels and (2) reading the regulation in-depth to determine the implications it may have. The prevalence of these activities suggests that the majority of businesses are still at the early stages of becoming EU FIC compliant

Activities that businesses detail that they engaged with to meet the EU FIC requirements encompass but are not limited to the following ranked activities: (1) read about the EU FIC regulation; (2) brief staff on the changes that need to be implemented; (3) talk to suppliers about the EU FIC changes; (4) draw up designs for new labels; and (5) research wider information requirements.


Qualitative: in-depth qualitative interviews

Cost of implementing EU FIC regulation requirements

Implementation costs incurred in a hierarchical order

Half of brand owners anticipate extra costs in association with the EU FIC regulation changes. Not surprisingly the picture is very different for businesses selling brands that they do not own, with only 16% (102 respondents) anticipating extra costs. The two most commonly stated ‘costs’

The business costs associated with implementing the changes required to meet the EU FIC regulations are encompasses but is not limited to the following ranked activities: (1) extra packaging/printing costs; (2) additional burden on existing staff; (3) extra graphic design costs; (4) changing production methods; and (5) consultant/lawyer/adviser to provide guidance on EU FIC requirements.



18

Baseline Evaluation of EU Food Information for Consumers (FIC) Labelling: Final Report

required to meet the EU FIC requirements are (1) extra packaging and print costs, and (2) extra burden on existing staff.

Business perceptions of EU FIC regulation changes

Expansion of positive business perceptions of the EU FIC regulation

70% (701 respondents) of FBO survey respondents felt that the new label requirements will have positive impacts, with negligible difference between the views of retailers and manufacturers (retail only 69% - manufacturing only 72%).

Increased levels of positive opinion associated with the three most widely recognised (by FBO’s) positive outputs of the EU FIC: (1) greater consumer awareness of healthier eating (70%+); (2) clearer/easier to read labels (50%+); and standardisation of all allergy information (50%+).



Reduction of negative business perceptions of the EU FIC regulation

63% (627 respondents) of FBOs surveyed believe implementation of EU FIC requirements will have negative impacts.

Decreased levels of negative opinions associated with the three most widely recognised (By FBO’s) negative outputs of the EU FIC: (1) increase in costs (-25%); (2) overload of information (-25%); and (3) an increase in work load (-10%).



19

Prepared for:

DefraFood Policy Unit

Nobel House17 Smith Square,LondonSW1P 3JR

Prepared by:Anthesis Consulting Group The Future Centre,9 Newtec Place, Magdalen Road,Oxford, OX4 1RE

E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.anthesisgroup.com

Tel: 01865 250818 Fax: 01865 794586

http://www.anthesisgroup.com/

Documents

randd.defra.gov.ukrandd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=13915_… · Web viewand informally-published retailer and trade association works, as well as academic/technical documents