This study examined how front-of-pack labels and product healthfulness affect choice and willingness to pay across a range of foods. It was hypothesized that: (i) product choice and (ii) willingness to pay would be more aligned with product healthfulness when healthfulness was expressed through the Health Star Rating, followed by the Multiple Traffic Light, then the Daily Intake Guide, and (iii) the Nutrition Facts Panel would be viewed infrequently. Adults and children aged 10+ years (n = 2069) completed an online discrete choice task involving mock food packages. A 4 food type (cookies, corn flakes, pizza, yoghurt) × 2 front-of-pack label presence (present, absent) × 3 front-of-pack label type (Daily Intake Guide, Multiple Traffic Light, Health Star Rating) × 3 price (cheap, moderate, expensive) × 3 healthfulness (less healthy, moderately healthy, healthier) design was used. A 30 s time limit was imposed for each choice. Of the three front-of-pack labels tested, the Health Star Rating produced the largest differences in choices, with 40% (95% CIs: 38%-42%) of respondents selecting the healthier variant, 33% selecting the moderately healthy variant (95% CIs: 31%-35%), and 23% (95% CIs: 21%-24%) selecting the less healthy variant of the four products included in the study. The Multiple Traffic Light led to significant differences in choices between healthier (35%, 95% CIs: 33%-37%) and less healthy products (29%, 95% CIs: 27%-31%), but not moderately healthy products (32%, 95% CIs: 30%-34%). No significant differences in choices were observed by product healthfulness when the Daily Intake Guide was present. Only the Health Star Rating resulted in a significantly greater willingness to pay for healthier versus less healthy products. The Nutrition Facts Panel was viewed for only 7% of all mock packages. Front-of-pack labels that are more interpretive, such as the Health Star Rating, can be more effective at directing consumers towards healthier choices than reductive front-of-pack labels such as the Daily Intake Guide. The study results provide policy makers with clear guidance on the types of front-of-pack labels that are most likely to achieve positive health outcomes at a population level.

Health claims and front-of-pack labels (FoPLs) may lead consumers to hold more positive attitudes and show a greater willingness to buy food products, regardless of their actual healthiness. A potential negative consequence of this positivity bias is the increased consumption of unhealthy foods. This study investigated whether a positivity bias would occur in unhealthy variations of four products (cookies, corn flakes, pizzas and yoghurts) that featured different health claim conditions (no claim, nutrient claim, general level health claim, and higher level health claim) and FoPL conditions (no FoPL, the Daily Intake Guide (DIG), Multiple Traffic Lights (MTL), and the Health Star Rating (HSR)). Positivity bias was assessed via measures of perceived healthiness, global evaluations (incorporating taste, quality, convenience, etc.) and willingness to buy. On the whole, health claims did not produce a positivity bias, while FoPLs did, with the DIG being the most likely to elicit this bias. The HSR most frequently led to lower ratings of unhealthy foods than the DIG and MTL, suggesting that this FoPL has the lowest risk of creating an inaccurate positivity bias in unhealthy foods.

There is strong interest in front-of-pack labels (FoPLs) as a potential mechanism for improving diets, and therefore health, at the population level. The present study examined Australian consumers' preferences for different types and attributes of FoPLs to provide additional insights into optimal methods of presenting nutrition information on the front of food packets. Much research to date has focused on two main types of FoPLs - those expressing daily intake values for specific nutrients and those utilising 'traffic light' colour coding. This study extends this work by: (i) including the new Health Star Rating system recently introduced in Australia and New Zealand; (ii) allowing a large sample of consumers to self-nominate the evaluation criteria they consider to be most important in choosing between FoPLs; (iii) oversampling consumers of lower socioeconomic status; and (iv) including children, who consume and purchase food in their own right and also influence their parents' food purchase decisions. A cross-sectional online survey of 2058 Australian consumers (1558 adults and 500 children) assessed preferences between a daily intake FoPL, a traffic light FoPL, and the Health Star Rating FoPL. Across the whole sample and among all respondent subgroups (males vs females; adults vs children; lower socioeconomic status vs medium-high socioeconomic status; normal weight vs overweight/obese), the Health Star Rating was the most preferred FoPL (44%) and the daily intake guide was the least preferred (20%). The reasons most commonly provided by respondents to explain their preference related to ease of use, interpretive content, and salience. The findings suggest that a simple to use, interpretive, star-based food label represents a population-based nutrition promotion strategy that is considered helpful by a broad range of consumers.