40
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Setting Policy Priorities for Front-of-Pack Health Claims and Symbols in the European Union: Expert Consensus Built by Using a Delphi Method

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Despite the fact that front-of-pack nutrition labels such as health claims and symbols have received growing attention in consumer behavior research, comprehensive conclusions could not yet be drawn to develop concrete policy actions, owing to the complexity of the subject and a constantly changing market environment. In this study, evidence-based policy recommendations and communication guidelines have been derived from the findings of the EU FP7 project CLYMBOL (“Role of health-related CLaims and sYMBOLs in consumer behavior”, Grant Agreement 311963), and have been evaluated and prioritized by European stakeholders using a three-round Delphi method. A moderate level of consensus was achieved and results suggest that policy priority should focus on ways to improve consumer motivation and interest in healthy eating. Consumers’ interest in healthy eating could be increased by adopting appropriate communication strategies such as using innovative ways to communicate the importance of healthy eating, which may aim to change the possible negative association between healthiness and tastiness. The highest-rated finding was related to consumers’ favorable attitude towards health claims with shorter and less complex messages and health symbols with a visible endorsement. Meanwhile, there was a clear consensus that health claims need to be scientifically substantiated and credible but phrased without using overly complex scientific wordings, in order to be meaningful for consumers. Furthermore, stakeholders from academia and industry believe that consumer awareness about existing health claims should be increased. The identified policy recommendations and communication guidelines stem from recent empirical evidence and provide useful insights that guide future policy development aligning consumer protection issues as well as public health and food marketing communication interests.

          Related collections

          Most cited references45

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          The Delphi Method for Graduate Research

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Policies to promote healthy eating in Europe: a structured review of policies and their effectiveness.

            This review provides a classification of public policies to promote healthier eating as well as a structured mapping of existing measures in Europe. Complete coverage of alternative policy types was ensured by complementing the review with a selection of major interventions from outside Europe. Under the auspices of the Seventh Framework Programme's Eatwell Project, funded by the European Commission, researchers from five countries reviewed a representative selection of policy actions based on scientific papers, policy documents, grey literature, government websites, other policy reviews, and interviews with policy-makers. This work resulted in a list of 129 policy interventions, 121 of which were in Europe. For each type of policy, a critical review of its effectiveness was conducted, based on the evidence currently available. The results of this review indicate a need exists for a more systematic and accurate evaluation of government-level interventions as well as for a stronger focus on actual behavioral change rather than changes in attitude or intentions alone. The currently available evidence is very heterogeneous across policy types and is often incomplete. © 2012 International Life Sciences Institute.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              TENTS guidelines: development of post-disaster psychosocial care guidelines through a Delphi process.

              How best to plan and provide psychosocial care following disasters remains keenly debated. To develop evidence-informed post-disaster psychosocial management guidelines. A three-round web-based Delphi process was conducted. One hundred and six experts rated the importance of statements generated from existing evidence using a one to nine scale. Participants reassessed their original scores in the light of others' responses in the subsequent rounds. A total of 80 (72%) of 111 statements achieved consensus for inclusion. The statement 'all responses should provide access to pharmacological assessment and management' did not achieve consensus. The final guidelines recommend that every area has a multi-agency psychosocial care planning group, that responses provide general support, access to social, physical and psychological support and that specific mental health interventions are only provided if indicated by a comprehensive assessment. Trauma-focused cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) is recommended for acute stress disorder or acute post-traumatic stress disorder, with other treatments with an evidence base for chronic post-traumatic stress disorder being made available if trauma-focused CBT is not tolerated. The Delphi process allowed a consensus to be achieved in an area where there are limitations to the current evidence.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Nutrients
                Nutrients
                nutrients
                Nutrients
                MDPI
                2072-6643
                14 February 2019
                February 2019
                : 11
                : 2
                : 403
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Agricultural Economics, Ghent University, Coupure links 653, 9000 Ghent, Belgium; wim.verbeke@ 123456ugent.be
                [2 ]European Food Information Council (EUFIC), Rue des Deux Eglises 14 (3rd floor), 1000 Brussels, Belgium; sophie.hieke@ 123456eufic.org
                [3 ]MAPP Centre, Aarhus University, Bartholins Allé 10, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark; klg@ 123456mgmt.au.dk
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence: yung.hung@ 123456ugent.be ; Tel.: +32-9-264-61-81
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9510-3525
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9775-9918
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9967-7104
                Article
                nutrients-11-00403
                10.3390/nu11020403
                6412322
                30769879
                de688ef6-07a3-40ef-bb0a-af35d48dd604
                © 2019 by the authors.

                Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 27 December 2018
                : 04 February 2019
                Categories
                Article

                Nutrition & Dietetics
                nutrition label,health claims,health symbols,consumer behavior,public health policy,communication,delphi method

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content162

                Cited by8

                Most referenced authors432