A new study comparing food nutrition labelling systems in Germany and Israel suggests that warning labels may help consumers identify less-healthy food products more easily than overall nutritional scores. Researchers found that participants in both countries considered Israel’s warning-label system easier to understand and more useful for making healthier food choices than Germany’s Nutri-Score system.
The study, published in Frontiers in Nutrition, was conducted by researchers from the University of Hohenheim and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Using eye-tracking technology, the team examined how consumers interacted with different front-of-package nutrition labels, what information attracted their attention and how they assessed the healthfulness of food products.
The research included 223 participants, comprising 112 people from Germany and 111 from Israel. Participants viewed food packages displaying either Nutri-Score or Israel’s warning and green label system. Researchers tracked their eye movements before asking them to evaluate the products based on healthfulness, expected taste and likelihood of purchase.
The findings revealed that both the design of nutrition labels and consumers’ familiarity with them influenced how quickly they noticed and interpreted the information. Participants generally spent more time examining unfamiliar labelling systems, while recognising familiar labels more quickly.
Israeli Warning Labels Receive Higher Ratings Than Nutri-Score
Germany and Israel follow different approaches to communicating nutritional information on packaged foods.
Germany uses Nutri-Score, a five-level rating system that assigns food products a grade ranging from green A to red E based on their overall nutritional profile. Israel, meanwhile, requires red warning labels on products containing high levels of sugar, sodium or saturated fat. The country also uses a voluntary green label to identify certain healthier food products.
The researchers found differences in how participants responded to these systems. German participants spent more time examining Israel’s warning labels, while Israeli participants devoted more attention to Nutri-Score. However, participants in both countries recognised their respective national labelling systems more quickly.
One of the most significant findings concerned how the labels influenced perceptions of less-healthy products. Food items carrying explicit red warnings generally received more critical evaluations than the same products displaying Nutri-Score, which tended to produce more moderate assessments.
Despite differences in familiarity, participants from both countries rated Israel’s warning-label system as easier to understand and more helpful when selecting healthier foods.
“Food labels are not just graphics on a package. They are public-health interventions,” said the researchers. “Whether a system gives a food an overall score or explicitly warns that it is high in sugar, sodium or saturated fat can change what consumers notice and what they understand. Decisions about these systems should therefore be based on evidence about how people actually respond to them.”
European Union and US Reconsider Front-of-Package Nutrition Labelling
The findings arrive as governments and policymakers reconsider how nutritional information should be presented on packaged foods.
The European Union has been considering the introduction of a harmonised mandatory front-of-package nutrition labelling system. However, disagreements remain over whether such a system should provide an overall nutritional score or highlight specific nutrients that exceed recommended levels.
A similar discussion is taking place in the United States. The Food and Drug Administration has proposed a front-of-package Nutrition Info box that would classify saturated fat, sodium and added sugars using three categories: Low, Med and High.
The debate highlights two different approaches to helping consumers make informed food choices. Overall nutritional scores allow shoppers to compare products based on their nutritional profiles, while warning labels draw direct attention to specific ingredients that may pose health concerns when consumed in excessive amounts.
The researchers caution that their findings do not establish one universally superior labelling system. Both approaches serve different purposes, and their effectiveness depends on the public-health objectives policymakers want to achieve.
“Different systems are designed to achieve different things,” said Prof. Aron M. Troen, one of the study’s researchers. “The question policymakers need to ask is not simply which label people prefer, but which system best achieves the public-health goal they are trying to accomplish.”
Researchers Call for Further Studies on Nutrition Labels
Although the study provides evidence about how consumers interpret different nutrition labels, the researchers acknowledged certain limitations. The experiment used controlled, fictional food packages and non-representative participant samples. Further research involving larger and more diverse populations will therefore be necessary to establish whether the findings apply more broadly.
Nevertheless, the international comparison demonstrates that the presentation of nutritional information can influence consumer attention and perceptions of food products.
As the European Union and the United States continue evaluating their front-of-package labelling policies, the study highlights the importance of designing systems that communicate nutritional information clearly, attract consumer attention and support informed food choices.
Read More :