O4. Is there anything that you would change in the label to make it more useful in helping you make food purchase choices? Sample size n = 360 The most frequent suggestion for improving the FoPL was to replace the “Low/Medium/High” component with DI (or to have both), with around 27% of those who provided a suggested improvement (representing around 9% of the total sample) making this suggestion. Note from earlier findings presented in the report that there was minority” of respondents who “large preferred DI over and given that at this point in the survey, the FoPL contained “Low/Medium/High”, only it should not be surprising that a number of respondents noted their “Low/Medium/High”, preference for DI. Apart from this, there was a tail” of suggestions, with some of the more “long noteworthy suggestions including: Colour coding Low/Medium/High Include accreditation (who devised/regulates the label) Just have the star rating Respondents were then shown four different versions of the complete FoPL label and asked to rate how useful each variant would be to them, with the four variants emphasising different components of the label. Participant Preference for Overall Design O5. Below you can see four different versions of the label. Which version would you find most useful? Although all variants were chosen to some extent, the kilojoules” variant had significantly “Enlarged more responses than the next highest. Although respondents were not asked explicitly in the survey to explain their choices, it is likely that this variant was chosen given the overall importance of kilojoules relative to other nutrients (and the fact that the star ratings element is already quite prominent).
O4. Is there anything that you would change in the label to make it more useful in helping you make food purchase choices? Sample size n = 360 The most frequent suggestion for improving the FoPL was to replace the “Low/Medium/High” component with DI (or to have both), with around 27% of those who provided a suggested improvement (representing around 9% of the total sample) making this suggestion. Note from earlier findings presented in the report that there was “large minority” of respondents who preferred DI over “Low/Medium/High”, and given that at this point in the survey, the FoPL contained only “Low/Medium/High”, it should not be surprising that a number of respondents noted their preference for DI. Apart from this, there was a “long tail” of suggestions, with some of the more noteworthy suggestions including: Colour coding Low/Medium/High Include accreditation (who devised/regulates the label) Just have the star rating Respondents were then shown four different versions of the complete FoPL label and asked to rate how useful each variant would be to them, with the four variants emphasising different components of the label. Participant Preference for Overall Design O5. Below you can see four different versions of the label. Which version would you find most useful? Although all variants were chosen to some extent, the “Enlarged kilojoules” variant had significantly more responses than the next highest. Although respondents were not asked explicitly in the survey to explain their choices, it is likely that this variant was chosen given the overall importance of kilojoules relative to other nutrients (and the fact that the star ratings element is already quite prominent).
April%202013_FOPL%20Quantitative%20Report%20FINAL.docx