\\

Defra
FA 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. 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.

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 grey[1] 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.

  1. 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:
  1. 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 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.

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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 werelooking 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.

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.

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 theyexpect 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.

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 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