首页|Association between consumers' food selection and differences in food labeling regarding efficacy health information: Food selection based on differences in labeling
Association between consumers' food selection and differences in food labeling regarding efficacy health information: Food selection based on differences in labeling
扫码查看
点击上方二维码区域，可以放大扫码查看
原文链接
NSTL
Elsevier
On April 1, 2015, Japan enacted the foods with function claims (FFCs) system, which categorizes the third function of food, based on the dietary supplement system of the United States. FFCs are popular in the food market in Japan; we detected FFCs with differences between the health claims listed on food labels and the actual efficacy information of functional substances that are based on scientific evidence. The potential health benefits of foods should be accurately conveyed for consumers to make informed food choices for their health promotion. This study clarified the association between food selection and differences in listed efficacy information. A survey was conducted in May 2020 with 664 consumers aged 20-80 years, using a self-administered questionnaire. Participants were asked to select one of two products containing the same functional substance but labeled with either single or multiple claims based on the same scientific evidence. Participants were asked whether they had any queries about the information discrepancy. There were no significant differences between food selection groups stratified by age, sex, academic background, experience with foods with health claims, and selected health claim of interest, with the exception of queries on the information discrepancy referring to the efficacy information of the functional substance-22.2% (22/29) for the single-benefit vs. 37.3% (211/565) for the multiple-benefit group (p < 0.001). A relationship between a query regarding the information discrepancy and the selection of products with multiple benefits listed on the label was found after adjusting for participants' background (adjusted odds ratio: 2.1, 95% confidence interval: 1.2-3.4). Querying the information discrepancy affected food selection; therefore, it may be important to develop a standard clinical evaluation for effective benefit communication.
Benefit communicationClinical evaluationConsumerFood labelingFoods with health claims
Tanemura, Nanae、Hamadate, Naobumi
展开 >
Natl Inst Biomed Innovat Hlth & Nutr, Tokyo, Japan
NSTL
Elsevier
