Today’s headlines have focused on who hasn’t signed up to the government’s new front-of-pack labelling scheme. Labour has said they should be “named and shamed”. But do shoppers really care?
By not embracing the scheme, do the likes of Cadbury and MacVitie’s risk a consumer backlash? We worked with Grant Thornton this week to gauge public opinion via an omnibus survey of 1,000 consumers.
The surprising finding was that support for a government-backed scheme was far from universal.
Only a slim majority of 54.3% said they preferred a government-endorsed scheme to one chosen by food companies and retailers. A lot of people were simply indifferent – 38.3% said it made no difference.
Some companies may have shrewdly said ‘no, thank you’ to the Department of Health. Consumers are unlikely to stop buying products because they don’t have the standardised front-of-pack labelling. Most shoppers are probably blissfully unaware of the debate and even when quizzed about it they remain apathetic to the issue.
However, if they see red traffic light warning signs for sugar and fat, they could well think again before buying.
We asked whether clear and consistent nutritional labels on the front of packs would persuade people to switch to healthier products. For most product categories, just under 60% of consumers said they would be likely to switch. If your products are likely to be flashing with red traffic light warnings, that is a good reason not to sign up to the scheme.
It is easy to see why the government has failed to get everyone to support it. Only a mandatory scheme would create the level playing field that would spur all brands into action. Then there would be a lot to gain by making products healthier – if a product had more amber or green ratings than its rivals, a lot of consumers might be tempted to switch.
Can a universal labelling system succeed? Let us know in the comments below.
No comments yet