PDI Food Labeling in Australia: Consumer Behavior and Policy

Introduction to PDI Labeling in Australia

In many countries, packaged foods are labeled with the "Percentage Daily Intake" (PDI) of nutrients contained in the food. These thumbnail-like labels are provided to consumers to help them make informed dietary decisions when they shop. This nutritional labeling is not mandatory and is supplementary to other nutritional information included in the nutrition information panel typically located on the back of packaged foods. The effectiveness of this type of labeling in supporting healthful food choices and eating habits is the focus of this brief.

Selection of Launch Approach

A top-down approach to promoting nutritional labeling is preferred because multiple instruments must be employed to increase consumer interest in healthy eating, and the labeling policy must be embedded in a comprehensive and robust promotional campaign. Perhaps more than policymakers, advertising agencies hold the key to successfully changing public attitudes with regard to healthful eating.

The "Got Milk" campaign carried out by dairy organizations is a good example of the type of marketing likely to generate greater interest in healthful eating. The California Milk Processor Board (CMPB) hired Jeff Manning in June 1993 as their executive director. One month later, Manning hired the San Francisco advertising agency Goody, Silverstein & Partners to develop an ad campaign for milk — a campaign that ultimately became one of the most popular and award-winning promotions of the decade. For years, the California Milk Advisory Board had relied on the campaign "Milk Does a Body Good," which echoed the government's nutritional program and encouraged the consumption of several glasses of milk each day for health. Consumers reportedly understood that milk was nutritious. Market research found that 94% of respondents knew that milk was good for them, 90% knew that milk contained calcium, and a significant percentage recognized that calcium could help prevent osteoporosis. Regardless of what consumers knew about milk, they did not change their behavior to reflect that knowledge. Consumers of all ages — especially young consumers — considered milk boring. Milk had long been promoted as a wholesome, healthful product, a message echoed by mothers, schools, pediatricians, dentists, and post-World War II nutritionists. With sales volume dropping, Manning decided to abandon the advertising theme based on milk's nutritional value and sought a more appealing and competitive campaign.

The primary competitors of milk in the 1990s were Gatorade, Snapple, Mountain Dew, and Sprite. With glitzy packaging and lifestyle-enhancing portability, soft drinks outclassed milk. For the fast-moving packaged goods market, a common rule of thumb held that it was harder to convert new consumers to a product than to convince existing consumers to buy more of what they already used — and ostensibly liked. The campaign initially pushed forward with a deprivation theme that illustrated how well milk paired with other products, including co-branded items. Building on this successful promotion, the ads then sought even stronger associations. The "Got Milk" ad campaign focused first on adolescent consumers, and then specifically on male adolescents and young adults — the logic being that marketers could retain or convert teenage consumers and follow them into an adult market that enjoyed milk. The next rational step — and the advertisers took it — was to have celebrities promote milk. The beverage became more popular than ever, sales soared, and more people benefitted from the nutritional value of milk.

Consumer Knowledge and Food Choice Variables

Consumer food choices are based on many variables, including their knowledge about the nutritional attributes of their food. Food choice research has identified a range of variables that influence consumers' decisions (Raine, 2005; Shepherd, 2005). These variables, which include individual attributes and circumstances as well as environmental factors, have contributed to the development of a socio-ecological theory. The socio-ecological model provides a conceptual framework for research that encompasses micro-level to macro-level variables and everything in between (McLeroy et al., 1988; Story et al., 2008).

When consumer choice research focuses on the interpersonal level, the variables that appear most influential are predominantly social: what norms are perceived by consumers, what do others in their social networks eat, and what kind and degree of social support is available to them for healthy eating (Glanz, 2008; Drewnowski, 1977)? At the individual level, research consistently finds that consumers are most influenced by taste when choosing food (Drewnowski, 1977). Other variables influencing food choices include attitudes and beliefs about food, health, and budget. Overlaying those factors are demographic attributes such as gender, age, level of education, geographic region of residence, and ethnicity and race (Devine, 2005; Honkanen et al., 2005). At the environmental level, dietary choices are influenced by the accessibility of food in markets and grocery stores, the restaurants, cafeterias, cafes, and fast food outlets at which food is consumed, cultural traditions and expectations, pricing, and available nutritional information — including packaged food labels and point-of-purchase labels wherever food is accessed (Grasso, 2005; Willows, 2005).

Research has demonstrated that an easy-to-read, easy-to-understand food nutrient labeling system can improve consumers' knowledge about nutrition and support positive, healthful food choice behavior. However, research on the Percentage Daily Intake labeling system also supports the view that consumers may not be sufficiently motivated or persuaded to use the nutritional information on the labels to which they are exposed (Bonsmann, 2010; Grunert et al., 2010a; Grunert et al., 2010b).

Conclusion

The effectiveness of the Percentage Daily Intake food labeling system must be considered against the background of the disparity between behavior and intent. Available research on the effectiveness of nutritional labeling of packaged foods has focused more on the details of labeling and less on what motivates consumers to eat healthfully — and, further, what moves consumers from good intentions grounded in nutritional knowledge to choices that actually manifest those intentions ("Food Information Council," 2010). For a PDI labeling system to be effective in Australia, a broad-based, top-down effort must be in place. Research has concluded that "only when labeling policy is embedded in a broader nutrition policy that uses multiple instruments to increase interest in healthy eating can both understandability and use of nutrition information on food labels be expected to increase" ("Food Information Council," 2010). The launch of the nutritional labeling initiative in Australia would do well to adopt the advertising and marketing strategies of the dairy industry — and indeed many other industries. That strategy is endorsement by celebrity.

References

Bonsmann, SS, Fernandez Celemin, L, Larranaga, S, Egger, JM, Wills, C, Hodgkins, C and Raats, MM. [Flabel Consortium. Penetration of nutrition information on food labels across the EU-27 plus Turkey]. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2010; DOI: 10.1038/ejcn.2010.179

Devine CM. (2005) A life course perspective: Understanding food choices in time, social location, and history. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 37(3):121–128.

EUFIC — European Food Information Council (2010, October 13). Nutrition labels on food and drinks in the UK: Available, understood but not always used to make healthy choices. ScienceDaily. Retrieved September 24, 2011, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101013153838.htm

European Association for the Study of Obesity (2009, May 7). Consumers more likely to identify healthy food using traffic light nutrition labels. ScienceDaily. Retrieved September 24, 2011 from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090507055506.htm

Glanz K, Resnicow K, Seymour J, Hoy K, Stewart H, Lyons M, Goldberg J. (2007) How major restaurant chains plan their menus: The role of profit, demand, and health. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 32(5):383–388.

Glanz K, Rimer BK, Viswanath K, (Eds.) (2008) Health behavior and health education: Theory, research, and practice. (4th ed.) San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Glanz K, Sallis JF, Saelens BE, Frank LD. (2005) Healthy nutrition environments: Concepts and measures. American Journal of Health Promotion. 19(5):330–333.

Gordon A, Fox MK. (2007) School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Survey-III: Summary of findings. Washington, DC: USDA Food and Nutrition Service.

Grasso VB. (2008) Department of Defense food procurement: Background and status CRS Report No. RS22190. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress.

Grunert, KG, Wills, JM, Fernandez-Celemin, L. (2010a) Nutrition knowledge, and use and understanding of nutrition information on food labels among consumers in the UK. Appetite, 55(2):177. DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2010.05.045

Grunert, KG, Fernandez-Celemin, L, Wills, JM, Bonsmann, SS, Nureeva, L. (2010b) Use and understanding of nutrition information on food labels in six European countries. Journal of Public Health, 18(3):261. DOI: 10.1007/s10389-009-0307-0

Honkanen P, Olsen SO, Verplanken B. (2005) Intention to consume seafood — The importance of habit. Appetite. 45(2):161–168.

McLeroy KR, Bibeau D, Steckler A, Glanz K. (1988) An ecological perspective on health promotion programs. Health Education Quarterly. 15(4):351–377.

Raine KD. (2005) Determinants of healthy eating in Canada: An overview and synthesis. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 96(Supplement 3).

Shepherd R. (2005) Influences on food choice and dietary behavior. Forum of Nutrition, 57:36–43.

Steele, Jon (1998) Truth, Lies, and Advertising: The Art of Account Planning. New York, NY: John Wiley. [Case study courtesy of Goody, Silverstein & Partners.] Retrieved from

Story M, Kaphingst KM, Robinson-O'Brien R, Glanz K. (2009) Creating healthy food and eating environments: Policy and environmental approaches. Annual Review of Public Health, 29:253–272.