These studies aimed to assess the effect of concurrent nutrition (Nutri-Score) and ecolabels (Eco-Score) on the evaluation of branded (Study 1) and generic (Study 2) food items. Both studies employed a so-called 2 (Nutri-Score valence: positive, negative) x 2 (Eco-Score valence: positive, negative) between subject design. This means that participants were randomly assigned to one of four groups: they saw snacks with either a positive Nutri-Score and a positive Eco-Score, a positive Nutri-Score but a negative Eco-Score, a negative Nutri-Score but a positive Eco-Score, or a negative Nutri-Score and a negative Eco-Score. Participants evaluated snacks food items in terms of perceived healthiness, sustainability, liking, wanting, and willingness to purchase.
Results indicated that positive Nutri- and Eco-Scores enhanced perceived healthiness and sustainability of both branded and generic snacks. Nutri-Score also influenced sustainability ratings in both studies, suggesting that its effects extend beyond health evaluations. Interestingly, for branded foods, items with two negative labels were liked more than those with two positive labels—a result not replicated with generic foods. These findings suggest that while label effects on perceived healthiness and sustainability appear consistent, their effects on liking, wanting, and willingness to purchase are limited and likely modulated by other factors.
This research reveals the complex and nuanced impact of food labeling on consumer behavior. It highlights both the potential and limitations of nutrition and ecolabels, providing valuable insights for policymakers, food manufacturers, and health professionals. A deeper understanding of how labels influence food choices is needed to inform effective strategies for promoting healthier and more sustainable food decisions.