Table 3 Interpretation of labels by the grade 12 adolescents for their selection of healthier snacks
Option selected based on each pair of hypothetical labelsa | Reasons for selection |
|---|---|
Pair 1 (Fig. 1a) | |
Healthier option - 85 % (n = 453) | • Natural ingredients (32 %) |
 (Natural fruit drink—local product with a picture of oranges, a true claim on ‘no added sugar’) | • High nutritive value (23 %) |
• Local product (ethical claim) (6 %) | |
• Fruits showing ‘healthiness’ (4 %) | |
Less healthy option - 15 % (n = 80) | • Imported product (26 %) |
 (Fizzy drink—imported product with an eye-catching picture, a false claim on ‘empty calories’) | • Attractive label (16 %) |
Pair 2 (Fig. 1b) | |
Healthier option - 70.5 % (n = 376) | • Medical recommendation (73 %) |
 (Ordinary label—same nutrients, low price, a claim on ‘Certified by the Medical Association’) | • Reasonable price (15 %) |
Less healthy option-29.5 % (n = 157) | • Attractive label (63 %) |
 (Attractive label—same nutrients, high price, no claims) | • Costly, so better quality (2.5 %) |
Pair 3 (Fig. 1c) | |
Healthier option - 64.5 % (n = 344) | • Taste of chocolate (35 %) |
 (High-energy product—high calories and all major nutrients included in the nutrition panel, no claims) | • High calories (21 %) |
• Nutritive value (16 %) | |
• Attractive label (11 %) | |
Less healthy option -35.5 % (n = 189) | • Zero cholesterol (65 %) |
 (Less energy product—false claim on ‘zero cholesterol’ despite saturated fatty acids in the nutrition panel) | • Pizza like taste (15 %) |
• Quick snack (7 %) | |