Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa

Health labelling can influence taste perception and use of table salt for reduced-sodium products

  • Djin Gie Liem (a1), Fatemeh Miremadi (a1), Elizabeth H Zandstra (a2) and Russell SJ Keast (a1)
Abstract
AbstractObjective

To investigate the effect of front-of-pack labels on taste perception and use of table salt for currently available and sodium-reduced soups.

Design

Within-subject design.

Setting

Sensory laboratory.

Subjects

Participants (n 50, mean age 34·8 (sd 13·6) years) were randomly served nine soups (250 ml each) across 3 d. Servings differed in: (i) health label (i.e. no health label, reduced-salt label or Heart Foundation Tick); and (ii) sodium reduction (no reduction – benchmark, 15 % less sodium or 30 % less sodium). Before tasting, participants rated their expected salt intensity and liking. After tasting, participants rated their perceived salt intensity and liking, after which they could add salt to the soup to make it more palatable.

Results

Reduced-salt labels generated a negative taste expectation and actual taste experience in terms of liking (P < 0·05) and perceived saltiness (P < 0·05). Perceived saltiness of sodium-reduced soups decreased more (P < 0·05), and consumers added more salt (P < 0·05), when soups carried the reduced-salt label. The tick logo and soups without health labels had no such influence on taste perception.

Conclusions

Emphasizing salt reduction by means of a front-of-pack label can have a negative effect on taste perception and salt use, especially when consumers are able to taste differences between their regular soup and the sodium-reduced soup. Overall health logos which do not emphasize the reduction in salt are less likely to affect perceived salt intensity and therefore are viable solutions to indicate the healthiness of sodium-reduced products.

    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Health labelling can influence taste perception and use of table salt for reduced-sodium products
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Health labelling can influence taste perception and use of table salt for reduced-sodium products
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Health labelling can influence taste perception and use of table salt for reduced-sodium products
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
Corresponding author
*Corresponding author: Email Gie.liem@deakin.edu.au
References
Hide All
1.Worsley A & Scott V (2000) Consumer's concerns about food and health in Australia and New Zealand. Asia Pac J Clin Nutr 9, 2432.
2.Grimes C, Riddell L & Nowson C (2009) Consumer knowledge and attitudes to salt intake and labelled salt information. Appetite 53, 189194.
3.Williams P, Yeatman H, Zakrzewski S et al. (2003) Nutrition and related claims used on packaged Australian foods – implications for regulation. Asia Pac J Clin Nutr 12, 138150.
4.Chan C, Patch C & Williams P (2005) Australian consumers are sceptical about but influenced by claims about fat on food labels. Eur J Clin Nutr 59, 148151.
5.Food Standards Australia New Zealand (2011) Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code – Standard 1.2.8 – Nutrition Information Requirements. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
6.Feunekes GIJ, Gortemaker AI, Willems A et al. (2008) Front-of-pack nutrition labelling: testing effectiveness of different nutrition labelling formats front-of-pack in four European countries. Appetite 50, 5770.
7.Higginson CS, Rayner MJ, Draper S et al. (2002) How do consumers use nutrition label information. Nutr Food Sci 32, 145152.
8.Heart Foundation (2011) Heart Foundation Tick. http://www.heartfoundation.org.au/healthy-eating/heart-foundation-tick/pages/default.aspx (accessed February 2012).
9.Gander J & Harding S (1999) National Heart Foundation Pick the Tick Research. Aukland: Research International.
10.Vyth EL, Steenhuis IHM, Vlot JA et al. (2010) Actual use of front-of-pack nutrition logo in supermarket: consumers’ motives in food choice. Public Health Nutr 13, 18821889.
11.de Araujo IE, Rolls ET, Velazco MI et al. (2005) Cognitive modulation of olfactory processing. Neuron 19, 671679.
12.Aaron JI, Mela DJ & Evans RE (1994) The influence of attitudes, beliefs and label information on perception of reduced-fat spreads. Appetite 22, 2537.
13.Yeomans MR, Lartamo S, Procter EL et al. (2001) The actual, but not labelled, fat content of a soup preload alters short-term appetite in healthy men. Physiol Behav 73, 533540.
14.Liem DG, Toraman Aydin N et al. (2012) Effects of health labels on expected and actual taste perception of soup. Food Qual Pref (In the Press).
15.Kuenzel J, Zandstra EH, El-Deredy W et al. (2011) Expecting yoghurt drinks to taste sweet or pleasant increases liking. Appetite 56, 122127.
16.Cardello AV, MacFie HJH & Thomson DMH (1994) Consumer expectations and their role in food acceptance. In Measurement of Food Preferences, pp. 253297 [HJH MacFie and DMH Thomson, editors]. London: Blackie Academic.
17.Lange C, Rousseau F & Issanchou S (1999) Expectation, liking and purchase behaviour under economical constrains. Food Qual Pref 10, 3139.
18.Meilgaard MC, Civille GV & Carr BT (2007) Sensory Evaluation Technigues. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis Group.
19.Lawless HT & Heymann H (2010) Acceptance testing. In Sensory Evaluation of Food, pp. 327347 [D Heldmann, editor]. New York: Springer.
20.Beauchamp GK (1987) The human preference for excess salt. Am Sci 75, 2733.
21.Beauchamp GK (1997) Salt preference in humans. In Encyclopedia of Human Biology, pp. 669675 [R Dulbecco, editor]. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
22.Farleigh CA, Shepherd R & Wharf SG (1990) The effect of manipulation of salt pot hole size on table salt use. Food Qual Pref 2, 1320.
23.Lucas L, Riddell L, Liem G et al. (2010) The influence of sodium on liking and consumption of salty food. J Food Sci 76, issue 1, S72S76.
24.Shepherd R, Farleigh CA & Wharf SG (1989) Limited compensation by table salt for reduced salt within a meal. Appetite 13, 193200.
25.Beauchamp GK, Bertino M & Engelman K (1987) Failure to compensate decreased dietary sodium with increased table salt usage. JAMA 258, 32753278.
26.Shepherd R, Wharf SG & Farleigh CA (2007) The effect of a surface coating of table salt of varying grain size on perceived saltiness and liking for paté. Int J Food Sci Technol 24, 330340.
27.Vyth EL, Steenhuis IHM, Maillant SF et al. (2009) A front-of-pack nutrition logo: a quantitative and qualitative process evaluation in the Netherlands. J Health Commun 14, 631645.
28.Roininen K (2001) Evaluation of Food Choice Behavior Development and Validation of Health and Taste Attitude Scales. Helsinki: University of Helsinki.
29.Bialkova Sl & Van Trijp HC (2011) An efficient methodology for assessing attention to and effect of nutrition information displayed front-of-pack. Food Qual Pref 22, 592601.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Public Health Nutrition
  • ISSN: 1368-9800
  • EISSN: 1475-2727
  • URL: /core/journals/public-health-nutrition
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords:

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 39
Total number of PDF views: 317 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 663 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 23rd October 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.