Using the Keyhole Label on Food Packaging to Increase the Consumption of Healthy Food

(1)

Page 1 of 198

Using the Keyhole Label on Food Packaging to Increase the

Consumption of Healthy Food

A study on consumer behavior in relation to the keyhole label and whether this label helps consumers make healthier food choices.

SUPERVISOR

HENRIK SELSØE SØRENSEN, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, MA

Department of International Culture and Communication Studies CBS - COPENHAGEN BUSINESS SCHOOL

STUDENT & AUTHOR FINE CHRISTENSEN,

Marketing Communications Management (MCM) Hand in date: October 23^rd 2012

Pages: 80, STU counts: 18,240

(2)

Page 2 of 198

Executive Summary

The motivation for this thesis is the increased prevalence of obesity in Denmark - over the past 20 years the prevalence of obese people has increased with 75%. The keyhole label is an initiative by the

Danish Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, with the purpose of helping Danes make healthy food choices.

This thesis focuses on consumer behavior and decision making in relation to the keyhole label. The keyhole label is a Nordic nutrition label, though this thesis will focus on the Danish market. The aim of the thesis is to investigate the knowledge consumers have of the keyhole label and whether or not the keyhole label affects consumers behavior and decision making while food shopping.

Several studies have been carried out by the Veterinary and Food Administration, who are behind the keyhole label, showing that awareness levels for the keyhole label are high. Further studies focusing on consumers’ knowledge of and opinions about the keyhole label are still needed. By analyzing consumer behavior in relation to the keyhole label, I wished to shed some light on whether consumers, who are aware of the keyhole label, actively use this label in their decision making, to identify healthier foods in a given category, as the label is intended for. This was done by carrying out quantitative research in terms of a survey, using an online questionnaire, combined with qualitative research using netnography and focus groups, and a single in-depth interview. This research indicates that although consumer awareness of the keyhole label is high, with 9 in 10 consumers having awareness of the keyhole label, only 2 in 10 consumers use this label when food shopping. This may be explained by consumers’ lack of knowledge about the keyhole label – 3 in 10 consumers can name at least one of the 4 attributes the keyhole label represents: less fat, sugar and salt and more dietary fibers.

This is a general issue with food labels – several studies have shown that a large part of consumers can understand and interpret food labels correctly, but still don’t use these when food shopping. For the keyhole label, this can be due to a lack of knowledge of what the label represents, though it can also be explained by a lack of motivation and interest in healthy eating.

(3)

Page 3 of 198

Chapter 1 Introduction

Five of six leading risk factors for ill health are linked to poor nutrition (Barreiro-Hurlé, Gracia, & de- Magistris, 2009) and the prevalence of overweight and obese people is increasing rapidly around the world. In 2010 1.6 billion people were overweight while another 400 million were obese (Campos, Doxey, & Hammond, 2011). In 2010, 5 in 10 people (47%) of the adult Danish population was overweight with a BMI ≥25, while 1 in 10 (13%) were obese, with a BMI ≥ 30 (Sundhedsstyrelsen, 2010; Sundhedsstyrelsen & Statens institut for Folkesundhed, 2010). This is equivalent to an increase in the prevalence of overweight and obese people by 30-40 times over the past 50 years

(Ernæringsrådet, 2003) and a doubling of the prevalence of obese people in the past 30 years (Roland

& Preisler, 2010). Still, a whopping 85% of Danes believe they are in good, very good or excellent health (Sundhedsstyrelsen & Statens institut for Folkesundhed, 2010). At the same time though, as the prevalence of obesity increases, so does their risk rate (RR) of getting health diseases, compared to people who are not obese; these health diseases include Type-2 diabetes (RR 5-10 times greater), Cardiovascular disease (RR 2), Apoplexy/stroke (RR 2-3s), High blood pressure (RR 3-5), Gallstones (RR 3-4), Osteoarthritis (RR 2-3), difficulty breathing, including sleep apnea (RR 3-4), hormone and fertility disorders for women (RR 2) and finally Cancer (RR 1.4) (Sundhedsstyrelsen, 2003; Campos, Doxey, & Hammond, 2011). Medical science has only effective means against 15-20% of these diseases (Roland & Preisler, 2010).

This has led to an increased focus on healthy lifestyles, and a so-called “health-wave” including focus on exercising, but mainly focusing on healthy eating habits. This newfound health consciousness has is roots back in the 70ies: “Since the 1970ies one can trace a gradual increase in activities and science focusing on health. A term that becomes fashionable is “unhealthy lifestyle”, which gradually puts focus on alcohol, tobacco, exercise and overweight. This term gradually becomes a national treasure, as one of the yardsticks, we measure ourselves and each other up against” (Roland & Preisler, 2010).

A recent trend is TV programs focusing on healthy diets and cooking shows. Increasing the

consumption of healthy food could prevent a further increase in obesity – ultimately increasing the health of society, saving lives and money spent on health care. Nutrition labeling is a tool for promoting healthy eating (Campos, Doxey, & Hammond, 2011) by enabling consumers to choose nutritionally appropriate food (Grunert & Wills, 2007), however, making changes to ones eating

(7)

Page 7 of 198 patterns often require a trade-off between nutrition and taste, price, convenience and cost (Barreiro- Hurlé, Gracia, & de-Magistris, 2009). Initiatives focusing on children and their families have often been the most successful in the fight against being overweight and obese, why it makes sense to focus future initiatives on families. Research indicates that changing cultural eating habits is necessary to increase the consumption of healthy food long term – consumers express it is difficult to eat healthily while everyone around them aren’t eating healthily (Ernæringsrådet, 2003). This could indicate that in order to truly change our habits, we need the people around us to get involved and support our decision to change, and possibly take part in it.

One initiative with the objective of increasing the consumption of healthy food, was the introduction of the keyhole label – a signpost nutrition label – in 2009. The keyhole was introduced to make it easier and less time-consuming for consumers to identify healthier food choices – in order to increase the consumption of healthy food. Foods labeled with the keyhole contain less fat and (when considered relevant), less sugar and salt and/or more dietary fibers, than similar foods not carrying this label (Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 2011; Fødevarestyrelsen, 2011).

There are a number of unified food labels on the market, which are put there to make it easier for consumers to make informed decisions. “Labels on the market now include eco-labels, fair trade labels, organic food labels, forest certification labels, marine certification labels, sweatshop-free labels and anti-slavery labels. Indeed, the range of labels seems to be increasing” (Connolly & Shaw, 2006) . In general these labels make it easier for consumers to make more informed choices - for consumers who know the labels and know what they stand for and labels are known for improving the overall quality of consumer diets (Barreiro-Hurlé, Gracia, & de-Magistris, 2009). I agree with Jacqueline Ottman when she says “An eco-label’s worth lies in how clearly it relates green qualities to what I call

“consumer-useful” information” (Ottman, 2011) and question how many unified labels actually provide useful information.

The challenge with labels such as the keyhole label is that it is a signpost label and it doesn’t convey consumer-useful information, the keyhole label only portrays an image and the consumer must know what this image stands for, in order to understand the meaning of the label. This means the keyhole label potentially increases complexity instead of making it easier to make healthy food choices.

(8)

Page 8 of 198 Simultaneously, there are indications that consumers may not use nutrition labels even when they claim they do and that they may misunderstand the meaning of these (Grunert & Wills, 2007). It is unlikely that consumers will connect this label with healthier foods if they don’t already know the label.

Research has shown that 9 in 10 Danes are aware of the keyhole label – this thesis seeks to find out in how much detail people know the keyhole label and if they use it when food shopping. The question is if consumers with awareness of the keyhole label also have knowledge of what it is about and whether they use it. Without motivation, consumers won’t act on the knowledge they may have.

Personally I find it hard to keep track of all of the different labels, while remembering which qualities they convey and which criteria they must each live up to, in spite of my own interest in health and healthy eating as well as the knowledge I have of food labels due to studies on the use of food packaging in marketing. For this reason I found it would be interesting to take a closer look at the keyhole label, which I only became aware of myself in 2011, to find out if other consumers have awareness of this label and how well they now this label. I expected to find a lot of consumers

misunderstand the keyhole label and its intentions. I also wanted to learn if they use the keyhole label as a guideline for making healthy food choices and find it makes it easier for them to make healthy food choices – this can indicate if the keyhole label is useful to Danes and if further steps are needed to increase the use of the keyhole label.

1.1 Structure

This chapter briefly presents the structure of the thesis. In the introduction above the Keyhole label is introduced. In chapter 2 area of research, the research question will be presented as well as my

hypotheses surrounding the research question. The Keyhole label will then be discussed in more detail to give you a better idea of why this label exists and what it is about. In chapter 3 theoretical foundation I will introduce and discuss theories relating to consumer behavior in relation to food shopping and studying nutrition labels. In chapter 4 scientific framework I will continue by presenting the methods I will use to research my research question as well as hypotheses, followed by chapter 5 wherein I will present my research finding. In chapter 6 I will discuss my research findings in relation to the

theoretical framework presented in chapter 3. Finally in chapter 7 I will conclude on my findings of the thesis and go on to make recommendations based on this conclusion in chapter 8 perspective. Finally,

(9)

Page 9 of 198 chapter 9 includes my suggestions to further research based on my own findings and revelations from reading previous research.

(10)

Page 10 of 198

1. Introduction 2. Area of Research 3. Theoretical Framework

4. Scientific Framework 5. Research

6. Discussion 7. Conclusion 8. Perspective 9. Further Reasearch

Figure 1 Structure of the Thesis

(11)

Page 11 of 198

Chapter 2 Area of Research

This chapter gives an introduction to the area of research of the thesis. I will also introduce the

background for choosing this area of research and the motivations behind the research question as well as the actual research question for the thesis.

2.1 Problem Area

The background for this thesis is my interest in health and healthy food and the obvious need for people to eat more healthy food – increasingly more and more people around the world are becoming obese, Danes included. Obesity is an offset of a lifestyle and not simply healthy eating, but to narrow my focus, I considered initiatives brought to life to increase the consumption of healthy food and turned my attention to the keyhole label. The goal of the keyhole label is to make it easier to consumers to make healthier food choices, by selecting keyhole labeled foods when considering alternatives.

The keyhole label was introduced by the Veterinary and Food Administration (also known as the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries – in the following referred to as VFA), who set the requirements for this label. If companies’ products meet the specific requirements, they can choose to use this label on their packaging. Using the keyhole label is voluntary – as long as food products meet the criteria set for each product category, the retailers can choose to use the keyhole label on the food pack. Consumers can then look for keyhole labeled foods in stores, using the label as a guideline for healthier eating, since these products will contain less fat and when relevant less sugar and salt and more dietary fibers, as well as more whole wheat than other products in their category. 8 if 10

consumers recognize the keyhole label which was introduced in Denmark in 2009 (Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 2011; Fødevarestyrelsen, 2011). The challenge is how well consumers know this label, and if they find they know enough about is to use the keyhole label as guidance when wanting to shop for healthier food.

The intentions of the keyhole label are good, and this label could potentially increase the consumption of healthy food as intended. I would argue though, that if consumers don’t know what the label stands for, the label won´t be of any guidance. On the contrary, there is a risk that consumers will guess the meaning of the label when lacking information. In this thesis I will look into and analyze how useful the keyhole label is to consumers and which changes that could potentially make the label more useful.

(12)

Page 12 of 198 2.2 Research Question

Based on the above problem area, this thesis will deal with the following research question:

To what extent are the intentions of the keyhole label reflected in consumers behavior and decision making when food shopping?

2.2.1 Research Question Elaboration

In my quest to answer the research question, I will focus on unveiling how well consumers know the meaning of the keyhole label and if they attribute more to the keyhole label, than is intended – the keyhole label is to be associated with products containing less fat, sugar and salt and more fibers.

While answering the research question I will focus mainly on consumer behavior in relation to the keyhole label; how well do consumers know this label and does it play a part in consumers decision making when food shopping and does this label make it easier for consumers to make healthier food choices. Consumer behavior theory deals with decision making, and I will use these theories when analyzing whether consumers find the keyhole label useful.

Consumers are faced with so many options when food shopping, they often base decisions on mental markers, instead of analyzing each product separately before making a decision – this can explain why many consumers might not look at the product packaging nor notice the different labels on the package – this has me wondering if it is helpful to consumers when food products carry the keyhole label, if they find it confusing or if they even notice the keyhole label at all. How well do consumers know the keyhole label and do they use it when food shopping. By assessing consumers’ decision making I will seek to find out if the keyhole label helps consumers make healthy food choices and if the keyhole label is one of their choice criteria’s when they want to purchase healthy food. These findings will be the base of determining the next step for getting more consumers to purchase keyhole labeled food in the future.

2.3 Hypotheses

I have the following hypotheses:

H1: A majority of consumers have awareness of the keyhole label and while H2: a majority of

consumers have a positive attitude towards the keyhole label, H3: only a minority of consumers have

(13)

Page 13 of 198 knowledge about the keyhole label and can identify the 4 nutrients the keyhole label represents. If this is true and a majority of consumers lack knowledge about the keyhole label, I expect to find H4: some consumers will have misunderstood the keyhole label.

I will test these hypotheses using a combination of theory analysis and research, using a survey and focus groups, and based on this I will make recommendations for the keyhole label.

2.4 Delimitations

While this thesis is investigated through a Nordic as well as a western international perspective, the problem identification concerns Danish tendencies. This is intentionally, since the purpose of the thesis is to consider the keyhole label and its use in the Danish market. In order to do this research, literature and theories from a selection of western countries are used to analyze the Danish market, since these countries resemble Denmark the most – where possible research, literature and theories based on the Danish market are included. Due to limited resources the research I have done has been by use of my own network, why this research cannot be considered representative of the Danish population.

There are many aspects potentially influencing consumer decision making when food shopping from the price of a product, the brand, in-store advertising and the semiotic cocktail on the package including the text, images and labels. For this thesis I will focus on aspects linked to the keyhole label, nutrition and food labels and health claims¹.

It would have been interesting to investigate the keyhole label from a company perspective and find out more about their motives for using the keyhole label, as well as from the perspective of the Veterinary and Food Administration, and how they work with the label as well as which ambitions they had when launching it and which ambitions they have now. However, this thesis focuses on the keyhole label in relation to consumers, and these other aspects have not been investigated. I will touch upon the

marketing activities for the keyhole label, shortly introducing previous marketing activities, though this is something that could be investigated in far more detail – for instance it would be interesting to investigate how consumers respond to the marketing activities as well as which objectives were set by the Veterinary and Food Administrations and whether these objectives are realized.

1Health claims is used synonymously with nutrition claims, meaning claims relating to a products nutrition attributes, which may affect whether a product is healthy or not, rather than the typical use of health claims, in relation to if a product has omega 3 which is good for preventing heart diseases and so on.

(14)

Page 14 of 198 2.5 The Keyhole Label

The following chapter gives an introduction to the Keyhole label, including the objectives behind this label, giving an overview of the marketing initiatives for the keyhole label in Denmark.

2.5.1 Introducing the Keyhole Label

Picture 1 The Keyhole Label

The keyhole label is an official unified Scandinavian nutrition label, which exists in Denmark, Norway and Sweden – the keyhole label was introduced in Denmark, June 17^th 2009 (Fødevarestyrelsen, 2009) by the Danish Veterinary and Food Administration. The fact that it is an official unified label helps build credibility (Smith, Søndergaard, Clement, Mølvang-Hansen, Gabrielsen, & Selsøe Sørensen, 2009).

Nutrition labels can be divided into two groups, back-of-pack (BOP) nutrition information and front-of- pack (FOP) nutrition information. Nutrition labels are most common for BOP and come in different formats, while FOP includes nutrition claims, GDA and unified labels (Wills, Grunert, Fernández, &

Bonsmann, 2009; Grunert & Wills, 2007). The keyhole label is a simplified FOP nutrition label, using signposting information (Grunert, Wills, & Ferbández-Celemín, Nutrition knowledge, and use and understanding of nutrition information on food labels among consumers in the UK, 2010) - all the information is conveyed through the logo. FOP labels may benefit consumers with low nutrition knowledge more, than consumers with more extensive nutrition knowledge (Campos, Doxey, &

Hammond, 2011). “Nutrition information on food labels is regarded as a major means for

encouraging consumers to make healthier choices when shopping food” (Grunert, Wills, & Ferbández- Celemín, Nutrition knowledge, and use and understanding of nutrition information on food labels among consumers in the UK, 2010)

(15)

Page 15 of 198 The keyhole label is a voluntary label, but the VFA does occasional tests to see if foods meet the

criteria they have set (Fødevarestyrelsen, 2009). The keyhole label is an assurance that the food product at hand lives up to sensible nutritional criteria concerning the content of fat, sugar, salt and dietary fibers. Keyhole labeled foods will almost always contain less fat, but only when considered relevant by the VFA, contain less sugar and salt and more dietary fibers. Although not mentioned in their

marketing, keyhole labeled foods, e.g. bread, also contains more whole wheat. When selecting a keyhole labeled food product you will get the nutritionally best choice within the given category (Selsøe Sørensen, 2010).

The keyhole label comes in a black and a green version and it is up to the retailer to decide which they want to use – in Denmark the most commonly used is the green keyhole label, why consumers are not familiar with the black label. Consumers often associate the color green with health (Orquin &

Scholderer, 2011c) - this explains why companies use the green keyhole label instead of the black. The keyhole label logo is made up from a combination of 2 components, the plate model and the food pyramid – together forming a keyhole (Fødevarestyrelsen, 2011). Most consumers however don’t make this connection, since it isn’t emphasized in marketing of the keyhole label.

2.5.2 Background

The background for introducing the keyhole label in Denmark was surveys on Danes eating habits carried out by DTU Food, the National Food Institute in 2008 (Fødevarestyrelsen, 2009). Surveys showed that Danes were consuming too much fat, including saturated fat, sugar and salt and too little dietary fibers, increasing the risk of cardiovascular disease, type 2-diabetes and other lifestyle diseases (DTU Fødevareinstituttet, 2008).

2.5.2.1 Obesity

Obesity is a world-wide problem. The number of overweight and obese Danes has increased almost 75% over the past 20 years. According to a nationwide study carried out by the Danish Health and Medicines Authority in 2010, 46.7% of the adult Danish population is overweight with a BMI ≥25, while 13.4% are obese, with a BMI ≥ 30 (Danish Health and Medicines Authority, 2010;

Sundhedsstyrelsen, 2010; Sundhedsstyrelsen & Statens institut for Folkesundhed, 2010).

(16)

Page 16 of 198 People who are obese have a decreased mobility; they become very isolated from society and even the most basic tasks as going to the bathroom becomes an enormous hassle. The lack of nutrition in their diets, combined with the physical inactivity, leads to a number of illnesses. For instance, type 2 diabetes is mostly caused by unhealthy eating habits and physical inactivity. In Denmark, 10 people die of type 2 diabetes every day (Diabetes Foreningen, 2011).

Increasing the consumption of healthy food could prevent a further increase in obesity – ultimately increasing the health of society, saving lives and money spent on health care.

There has been an increased attention to health and healthy eating in Denmark over the past few years and several initiatives have been introduced, which may be a result of the increased prevalence of obese and overweight Danes. In 2010 the sugar tax was increased (Dramshøj, 2010) and in 2012 so was the tax on fats (Olsen, 2011). A new initiative by the VFA was introduces in Denmark in 2009: the keyhole label. This label can be used on foods which are healthier than other foods in the same

category (Fødevarestyrelsen, 2011). The motivation behind this was to make it easier for consumers to make healthy food choices, potentially increasing the consumption of healthy food across Denmark – and long term decreasing the prevalence of obesity.

2.5.2.2 Danes Eating Habits

Food products are a large part of our lives as humans, being one of our basic needs. What we choose to eat affects not only our lifestyle, but also our individual health. When we shop for our family, we are responsible for what they eat and their health as well. There are many ways to purchase and eat food, some will spend time finding recipes and then writing out shopping lists, others will write shopping lists and create a meal from the food they purchase, yet other will shop spontaneously for what looks good in the store – or a combination. This all depends on the individual, their preferences, time and budget, the availability of different foods in stores and so on.

Findings from a nationwide study have shown that 2 in 10 Danes (18.9%) wish to lose weight. The study also reveals that a whopping 4 in 10 consumers (43.1%) believe they eat healthily, when in fact only 2 in 10 (24.1%) eat healthily. At the same time 1 in 10 consumers (13.3%) eat unhealthily, while only 1 in 20 (4.9%) actually believe they eat unhealthy (Danish Health and Medicines Authority, 2010). This shows there is a gap between people’s perception of their eating behavior and their actual

(17)

Page 17 of 198 eating behavior, which may explain the increasing cases of obesity. This means there is a need for initiatives that can help further healthy food choices to increase the consumption of healthy food. 6 in 10 consumers (57.2%) attest a wish to eat healthier (Danish Health and Medicines Authority, 2010) supporting a potential for the keyhole label, if it manages to convey the message to consumers that choosing keyhole labeled products, you will get healthier food.

The VFA wanted to make it easier for Danes to live according to recommendations from the 8 dietary guidelines, in order to increase the consumption of healthy food and the overall health of Danes (Fødevarestyrelsen, 2009). However, even though consumers shopping behavior will differ in many ways, there is a common pattern in Denmark showing most Danes are not following the 8 dietary guidelines²:

 6 in 10 kids and 4 in 10 adults get too much sugar.

 It is recommended that a maximum in 10% of a person’s energy consumption comes from added sugar.

 80% of the sugar Danes consume comes from added sugar from soda water, cool aid, candy, cake and chocolate.

 The consumption of fruits and vegetables has stagnated.

 Adults are recommended eating 600 grams or 6 pieces a day.

 On average adults consume 398 grams or 4 pieces a day.

 The consumption of fats has stagnated or slightly increasing, though is still high.

 Adults are recommended a maximum of 25-35% of energy coming from fats.

 On average 35% of a person’s energy consumption comes from fats.

 3 of 4 adults don’t eat enough fish.

 It is recommended eating 200–300 grams of fish a week.

 On average adults consume 168 grams a week.

 Danes eat too much salt.

 It is recommended to keep salt consumption at less than 7 grams a day for men and 6 grams a day for women.

 On average men consume 9-11 grams a day and women 7-8 grams a day.

 Danes don’t get enough dietary fibers.

 Adults are recommended eating 25-30 grams of dietary fibers a day.

 Only 10% of men and 17% of women consume the recommended amount.

(DTU Fødevareinstituttet, 2008; Roland & Preisler, 2010)

2 See the 8 dietary guidelines in appendix IV

(18)

Page 18 of 198 2.5.2.3 Objective

The objective of the keyhole label is to help consumers make healthier food choices when buying food – by making it easier for consumers to locate healthier foods in supermarkets. The rationale was that many Danes don’t have the time nor the knowledge to study and understand the nutrition label on food products – making it difficult for them to determine whether a food products has the recommended nutritional value and if it is healthy or not. The keyhole label is meant for these Danes. The intention was that with the keyhole label, it should be possible for consumers to make healthy choices solely based on recognizing the keyhole label on the packaging (Fødevarestyrelsen, 2011).

Food products carrying the keyhole label contain less fat, sugar and salt and more dietary fibers and whole wheat than alternative food products in the same category not carrying the keyhole label – so when said that the keyhole label can help consumers make healthier food choices, it is implied that consumers by choosing keyhole labeled food will get healthier foods, in the sense that these foods contain less fat, and when considered relevant, less sugar and salt and more dietary fibers. Depending on the food category different conditions apply for a food to be qualified to get the keyhole label. Most contain less fat, while others may contain less sugar, sand salt and more dietary fibers and whole wheat, when considered relevant for the individual category, by the VFA.

The fact that keyhole labeled foods are healthier than non-labeled foods in their category, but not healthy in their own right can potentially mislead consumers, who might as an example start considering keyhole labeled Cheerios as healthy – Preben Vestergaard Hansen, Master in human nutrition and domestic science at Metropol, states that there is a risk some consumers might think Cheerios are just as healthy as Oats, because they both have the keyhole label, but this is not the case.

These two products are not even in the same category (Ritzau, 2011).

The keyhole label highlight the better food choice based on criteria for the content of fat and when relevant also the content of sugar, salt and dietary fibers (Fødevarestyrelsen, Fenger, & Larsen, 2012).

Some foods will have restrictions on the amount of sugar and salt allowed, while others might have restrictions for a maximum amount of fat allowed, as well as a minimum amount of dietary fibers and whole wheat (Fødevarestyrelsen, 2011). Though all keyhole labeled foods will be free of artificial sweeteners, including sweetening novelty foods. Oils and other fats in keyhole labeled foods can only

(19)

Page 19 of 198 contain a maximum of 2 grams of industrially manufactured trans fats per 100 grams

(Fødevarestyrelsen, Fenger, & Larsen, 2012).

2.5.2.4 Categories

There are 25 food categories eligible to acquire the keyhole label within the following 9 product groups (given that they meet the requirements):

 Bread and grain products

 Dairy products

 Fats

 Fish and shellfish

 Fruits and berries

 Meat and processed meat products

 Potatoes and vegetables

 Ready meals

 Vegetarian products

Each of these categories have separate requirements they must live up to (see these in appendix II), why consumers can potentially be misled by thinking all keyhole labeled products are low on fat, salt and sugar and high on dietary fibers and whole wheat. As an example for meat the requirements are max.10g fat per 100g to use the keyhole label, but there are no criteria for the amount of salt or sugar (and meat doesn’t have dietary fibers). For meat products the requirements are min. 50% meat, max.10g fat per 100g and max. 5g sugar per 100g – again there is no limit to the amount of salt, so a meat product can be high on salt and still carry the keyhole label. For 10 of 26 food groups there are no restrictions to the levels of salt allowed for these foods to carry the keyhole label (TV2 Basta, 2010). In addition to this there have also been cases of food products carrying the keyhole label which don’t live up to the requirements (Ritzau, 2011).

(20)

Page 20 of 198 2.5.2.5 Stakeholders

Figure 2 Actors in relation to the Keyhole Label

The stakeholders around the keyhole label is then the VFA, who administrates and markets the keyhole label, the food retailers who can use the keyhole label on their food products and potentially develop new and healthier food products meeting these criteria, the wholesalers who can sell and market the keyhole labeled products and finally consumers who can choose to buy or not to buy keyhole labeled food. While it would be interesting to look into these different stakeholders and their stake in the keyhole, for the purpose of this thesis I have focused on consumers.

2.5.2.5.1 Consumers

The background for introducing a keyhole label is to make it easier for consumers to make healthier food choices complying with the 8 dietary guidelines, while eating in accordance with the plate model and the food pyramid (Fødevarestyrelsen, 2011). Although the label is based on the plate model and the food pyramid, this isn’t conveyed to consumers and the keyhole label doesn’t convey the message that in order to truly eat healthily, it is important to eat a variety of foods from different food groups. The assumption is that consumers are well aware of this.

Veterinary &

Food Administration

Food Retailers

Wholesalers

Consumers

Awareness Attitude Knowledge Purchase Intention

(21)

Page 21 of 198 The keyhole label can mislead consumers to think that as long as all the foods they eat are keyhole labeled, they are eating healthily, even if all they are eating is strawberries and milk – or bread and cream cheese, or if they are eating keyhole labeled meet products high on salt. For these consumers the keyhole label won’t help them to make healthier food choices. This would require an increase in their knowledge of nutrition and healthy eating.

2.6 Communication Campaigns

Since the introduction in 2009 the VFA have done a number of marketing campaign to inform Danes of the keyhole label. The main focus has been to create awareness of the keyhole label, but also

knowledge of what lies behind the label, mainly “less fat, sugar and salt and more dietary fibers”. The ads are kept very simple and don’t inform consumers that keyhole labeled foods have less fat and only when considered relevant less salt and sugar and more dietary fibers – instead it seems that keyhole labeled foods always contain less fat, sugar and salt and more dietary fibers.

2.6.1 “What’s in your Bag?” – 2009

The first campaign the VFA did for they keyhole label was the “what’s in your bag?” campaign, launched October 21^st 2009. The main objective of this campaign was to increase awareness of the keyhole label as well as knowledge of what this label represents - “less fat, sugar and salt and more dietary fibers”. The campaign started with a TV spot which was put on YouTube from October 5^th. More could be done to promote the video on YouTube as well as the YouTube channel – the video has

(22)

Page 22 of 198 only been liked by 3 and viewed by 3.004 people³ (Fødevarestyrelsen, 2009). The TV spot was also aired on TV2 and TV2 Charlie for 2 weeks, starting October 21^st and a printed ad was run in magazines and newspapers (Fødevarestyrelsen, 2009-2012)⁴.

2.6.2 “Easy to make Healthier Choices” – 2010

On February 3^rd 2010 the VFA launched the campaign “easy to make healthier choices”. The main objective was once again to increase awareness and knowledge of the keyhole label amongst

consumers, as well as encouraging supermarkets to make keyhole labeled food products more visible in stores. This campaign was an attempt to get supermarkets and consumers more involved with the keyhole label. In order to engage consumers, they were invited to nominate supermarkets across Denmark, making healthy choices more accessible. After nominating a supermarket consumers would participate in a competition to win various prizes. More than 10.000 consumers’ participated and 90 supermarkets across 9 areas were nominated, while 9 supermarkets got the title “Easy to make

Healthier Choices Supermarket 2010” (Fødevarestyrelsen, 2009-2012). As a part of this campaign, the VFA launched a Facebook page, Facebook.com/nemtatvaelgesundere February 2^nd 2010 – and this month a few pictures from in-store activities, comments and articles were shared – though none of these truly engaged consumers. More could have been done to promote the Facebook page and to engage with the current fans. Today the group has 928 likes or fans, however there hasn’t been any activity on the page since November 7^th 2011⁵.

2.6.3 “What is hiding behind the Keyhole Label?” – 2011

In 2011 the campaign “what is hiding behind the keyhole label?” was launched. The objective of this campaign which stretched throughout the year, was to increase the knowledge of the keyhole label (Fødevarestyrelsen, 2009-2012). The campaign started with a TV spot which was put on

noeglehullet.dk from February 1^st. This video was never shared on the YouTube channel. The TV spot was also aired on TV3 channels, on screens in DSB S-trains and on Arriva busses (Fødevarestyrelsen, 2009-2012). From March 7^th-27^th this campaign repeated the 2010 competition, inviting consumers to

“Vote for the keyholestore of the year, 2011” cross Denmark. This time more than 43.000 consumers and 9 supermarkets got the title “Keyholestores of the year, 2011” (Fødevarestyrelsen, 2009-2012).

3Figures from July 10^th 2012

4Which media outlets hasn’t been specified

5Figures from July 10^th 2012

(23)

Page 23 of 198 November 8^th 2011 a new Facebook page was launched Facebook.com/noeglehullet. There hasn’t been done much to move fans from the old Facebook page Facebook.com/nemtatvaelgesundere or get new fans, why today the new group only has 746 likes or fans. Although the VFA have been better at using this new page to engage with fans by sharing recipes and news about competitions, still more can be done to promote the Facebook page and engage with fans. On November 4^th an event was held on Copenhagen Central Station, with quizzes, tastings of keyhole labeled foods and handing out information folders about the keyhole label (Fødevarestyrelsen, 2009-2012).

In the beginning of 2011 Politiken Lørdagsliv went shopping to test keyhole labeled foods. They selected regular foods and keyhole labeled alternative. The result of the test showed that by choosing the keyhole label, not only do one lower the amount of fat, salt and sugar in one’s diet, while including fibers, one will also save calories, and get healthier food altogether. In this test case 453 calories were saved, leading to the conclusion that choosing keyhole labeled foods, you can lose up to 2 kg. a month (Politiken, TJEK, 2011).

2.6.4 “The Keyhole Label, now also on Recipes” – 2012

The VFA introduced the keyhole label on recipes April 2012 and a new mobile site. This was supported by the campaign “the keyhole label, now also on recipes” launched April 25^th 2012. The main objective of this campaign was to create awareness of these keyhole labeled recipes, while introducing the new mobile site. For this campaign a mobile site was introduced, m.noeglehullet.dk, allowing consumers to see the recipes when food shopping, doing their shopping lists or when cooking in the kitchen etc. The mobile site can be used on various mobile devices, including smartphones and tablets. In the campaign duration the site also had competitions for consumers entering the site. To promote the new mobile site, users of mobile devices were targeted through mobile banner ads, leading consumers to the site. The VFA also introduced a keyhole newspaper, with facts and articles about the keyhole label and ads for keyhole labeled products – it was placed in Politiken, JP and Ekstra Bladet and on noeglehullet.dk (Fødevarestyrelsen, 2009-2012).

Chapter 3 Theoretical Framework

In this chapter I will introduce the theoretical framework of the thesis, based on other people’s research and scientific papers. This theoretical framework is used as a basis for understanding, analyzing and

(24)

Page 24 of 198 discussing consumer behavior and decision making in relation to the keyhole label and more general food shopping.

3.1 Consumer Decision Making Process When Food Shopping

Food consumption is driven by convenience, habit, value for money, hedonism, as well as personal health concerns and is influenced by social norms (Vermeir & Verbeke, 2006). When consumers purchase keyhole labeled foods, often this is because they want to eat healthy food as part of a healthy lifestyle, in which case buying keyhole labeled foods can be seen as a dedication to a healthy lifestyle (Ahuvia, Caroll, & Yang, 2006).

All of the aspects surrounding the purchasing decision are relevant, though for the purpose of this thesis I will focus on the aspects relating to the packaging on the food products, including the keyhole label and nutrition labeling.

(25)

Page 25 of 198

Figure 3 Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework above is adapted from (Grunert, Wills, & Ferbández-Celemín, Nutrition knowledge, and use and understanding of nutrition information on food labels among consumers in the UK, 2010) and (Smith, Søndergaard, Clement, Mølvang-Hansen, Gabrielsen, & Selsøe Sørensen, 2009), and shows the decision making process and the effects of nutrition labels.

3.1.2 Exposure

As visualized in figure 3 above, exposure is the first step in the consumer decision making process when food shopping, and the first meeting between a consumer and a food product. When food

shopping, the consumer is exposed to a variety of food products and brands as well as labels and claims (Bialkova & Trijp, 2010) – including the entire semiotic cocktail on the food product packaging. The semiotic cocktail is the cocktail of words, text and images, appearing on the package (Smith,

Søndergaard, Clement, Mølvang-Hansen, Gabrielsen, & Selsøe Sørensen, 2009). Part of the semiotic cocktail is food labels, which I will focus on for the purpose of this thesis, highlighting the keyhole label. In order to be influenced by the keyhole label consumers must first have been exposed to it on the packaging (Smith, Søndergaard, Clement, Mølvang-Hansen, Gabrielsen, & Selsøe Sørensen, 2009;

Grunert, Wills, & Ferbández-Celemín, 2010; Grunert & Wills, 2007).

3.1.3 Attention

Though it is not enough for consumers to be exposed to for instance the keyhole label, in order for this label to potentially have any effect, the consumer must first pay attention to it (Smith, Søndergaard, Clement, Mølvang-Hansen, Gabrielsen, & Selsøe Sørensen, 2009; Grunert, Wills, & Ferbández-

(26)

Page 26 of 198 Celemín, 2010; Grunert & Wills, 2007). This means that all the different food products, brands, labels and claims, in fact the whole semiotic cocktail of a product, are competing for the consumers’ attention (Bialkova & Trijp, 2010). Key determinants of attention and salience include label characteristics such as size, color and location on the pack as well as how well the consumer knows the label (Bialkova &

Trijp, 2010).

3.1.4 Perception

Once a food product and part of its semiotic cocktail has the attention of the consumer, this will potentially influence the consumer’s perception of the food product. Only when the label is perceived by consumers can it lead to affect the person purchasing behavior (Orquin, 2011b). One study found that consumers’ attention to nutrition labels in a purchase situation is limited to about one fixation⁶ per product, which is no way near enough to read a full nutrition label (Orquin, 2011b). This means that most consumers will not pay enough attention to labels, to use it to form a perception of the food product.

3.1.5 Understanding

Once consumers are exposed to a food product and have gained awareness, they then form their own perception of this product, which determines how they understand the food product (Grunert, Wills, &

Ferbández-Celemín, 2010; Smith, Søndergaard, Clement, Mølvang-Hansen, Gabrielsen, & Selsøe Sørensen, 2009) - as visualized in figure 3 above. The perception consumers form about a food product, together with their previous knowledge on nutrition and health, will determine their understanding of the keyhole label as well as the food product the label is on. The keyhole label is supposedly the only nutrition information consumers’ process correctly (Orquin, 2011b). Based on this the keyhole label can potentially affect how consumers understand the food product.

3.1.6 Inference of Healthiness

Together with their understanding of the keyhole label and the food product at hand as well as their previous health and nutritional knowledge, consumers will make health inferences of a product, in order to evaluate the products healthiness – health inferences deals with whether consumers can use label information to distinguish products based on their nutritional healthiness (Grunert, Wills, &

Ferbández-Celemín, 2010; Smith, Søndergaard, Clement, Mølvang-Hansen, Gabrielsen, & Selsøe

6This means that the consumer only looks at one place on the product package

(27)

Page 27 of 198 Sørensen, 2009). Health inferences can be based on any number of attributes relating to the food

product, including processing of raw materials, the category, origin, production date, conservation method, packaging, use of additives, nutrients, labels etc. ( Bech-Larsen & Grunert, 2003).

Contrary to the common perception of society, consumers are capable of reading health and nutrition claims⁷ (Orquin, 2011a). Though research has shown that although the keyhole label is typically

processed correctly, the effect on healthfulness evaluation is often insignificant (Orquin, 2011b; Orquin

& Scholderer, 2011a). Other nutrition information such as the percentage of fat or carbohydrate apparently doesn't have an effect on perceived healthfulness either (Orquin, 2011b). In relation to figure 3, this means that the probability of consumer going through the steps of interpreting nutrition knowledge is very low. An explanation for this is that during product healthfulness evaluation, instead of relying on nutrition labels and nutrient information, consumers make use of the nutrition label and product category as health cues (Orquin, 2011a).

The likelihood of looking for nutrition information is greater when health and nutrition is the primary choice reason, which is rarely the case (Grunert, Wills, & Ferbández-Celemín, 2010; Grunert,

Fernández-Celemín, Wills, Bonsmann, & Nureeva, 2010; Campos, Doxey, & Hammond, 2011). Since health and nutrition is rarely the primary choice reason, this reduces the likelihood of nutrition

information affecting healthfulness evaluation. Also, motivation to read and consider nutrition labels influence the evaluation of a products healthiness (Grunert, Wills, & Ferbández-Celemín, 2010;

Grunert, Fernández-Celemín, Wills, Bonsmann, & Nureeva, 2010; Campos, Doxey, & Hammond, 2011), since if consumers aren’t interested in labels, they will pay less attention to these and not take them into consideration.

Research has revealed that consumers are most likely to look for nutrition information (including labels) when looking at products within categories they consider healthy. Consumers often look more closely at nutrients they want to avoid, why label users are more likely to choose the healthier food alternatives (Campos, Doxey, & Hammond, 2011). As a result of this, when consumers study the nutrition label, they most often look at the content of calories and fat (Wills, Grunert, Fernández, &

Bonsmann, 2009; Grunert, Wills, & Ferbández-Celemín, 2010; Campos, Doxey, & Hammond, 2011).

7Nutrition and health claims include all nutrition and health related signpost labels and statements on a food product

(28)

Page 28 of 198 This means health inferences are most often based on the products content of fat and calories (Grunert, Wills, & Ferbández-Celemín, 2010; Smith, Søndergaard, Clement, Mølvang-Hansen, Gabrielsen, &

Selsøe Sørensen, 2009).

As discussed above, several studies have shown that nutrition and health information effects

consumers’ healthfulness evaluation. Further studies indicate that labels using symbols have a greater effectiveness in affecting a products perceived healthfulness, than other nutrition and health

information (Campos, Doxey, & Hammond, 2011). Research by Orquin and Scholderer goes against this theory – according to them consumers don’t use nutrition information when making health inferences, but rely instead on heuristics such as the food category and their own familiarity with the product (Orquin, 2011a; Orquin, 2011b) – this means consumers process health related information but do not use it to make health inferences about a product (Orquin & Scholderer, 2011c).

In many cases consumers rely only on the food category as a health cue and the perceived healthiness of a category is transferred directly to products in this category (Orquin, Unpublished data, 2011). As an example milk and yoghurt are categories which are considered healthy. The result of this is that consumers are likely to consider all milk and yoghurts healthy (Orquin, Unpublished data, 2011). As a result consumers fail to notice differences in healthfulness a cross each food category (Orquin &

Scholderer, 2011c). Furthermore, consumers are more likely to look for nutrition information within categories they find healthy, such as milk and yoghurts, but also breakfast cereals and ready meals (Orquin, Unpublished data, 2011; Grunert, Fernández-Celemín, Wills, Bonsmann, & Nureeva, 2010).

Based on this, the keyhole label is potentially more useful for promoting the healthfulness of an entire food category, because when seeing a product with the keyhole label, consumers may infer that the whole category is healthy. The reason for this is that, in theory, the keyhole label may result in consumers inferring which products and product categories are healthy (Grunert & Wills, 2007).

3.1.7 Evaluation

The evaluation is affected by the previous steps – what gains consumers’ awareness and attention, how consumers perceive a food product and based on this and their own knowledge, how they

understanding the keyhole label and the food product it is used on. Research by Orquin has shown that limited attention is devoted to nutrition labels during consumers purchase evaluation and that the probability of a consumer reading and understanding the nutrition label during a purchase decision is

(29)

Page 29 of 198 associated with the gender, body mass index and health motivation of the consumer (Orquin, 2011a) – the health motivation is determined by consumers’ knowledge of nutrition and interest in healthy eating (Wills, Grunert, Fernández, & Bonsmann, 2009). This means that consumers only look at few package cues during health and purchase evaluation.

3.1.8 Purchase Decision

The keyhole label and other nutrition claims only have a very small effect on the consumers purchase intention (Orquin, 2011a). As a consequence, only the nutrition label and product category have a considerable impact on purchase likelihood (Orquin & Scholderer, 2011a). As discussed above, consumers rarely take nutrition information into consideration during healthfulness evaluation. The same goes during purchase evaluation – consumers only rarely consider the keyhole label during

purchase evaluation (Orquin & Scholderer, 2011a), however when they do, the keyhole label influences their expectations of the products taste (Orquin, 2011a) and not as intended, to make health inferences.

Typically health and nutrition claims decrease consumers’ expectations to taste – consumers expect keyhole labeled food to be less palatable - making these foods less desirable and reducing purchase intentions, without changing consumers’ health inferences (Orquin & Scholderer, 2011c). This means the keyhole label is not very likely of influencing the purchase decision.

This can explain why creating preference for healthy food is a difficult task, since healthy foods, including keyhole labeled foods, contain less fat, sugar and salt – and consumer generally expect foods

(30)

Page 30 of 198 high on fat, sugar and salt, to taste better (Orquin & Scholderer, 2011a). For this reason consumers often associate healthy food i.e. keyhole labeled foods, with lower palatability⁸ (Orquin & Scholderer, 2011c). This, together with the consumers additional knowledge about product taste and other product aspects, will affect how the food product is evaluated, ultimately influencing the purchasing decision (Grunert, Wills, & Ferbández-Celemín, 2010; Grunert, Fernández-Celemín, Wills, Bonsmann, &

Nureeva, 2010; Campos, Doxey, & Hammond, 2011).

3.2 Complexity in Consumer Decision Making

In this chapter I will present the theoretical framework on Supra-Complex Decision Making by Hansen

& Thomsen, which deals with how consumers are faced with increased complexity when food shopping in the modern food market and how this affects their information processing. There are so many different foods to choose from in the supermarkets and an increasing number of variants of each product are available. On top of this are all the attributes of each food product, including the different labels and with more than 100 different labels, rather than guiding consumers to make an informed decision, these labels are more likely to contribute to confusion, increasing the complexity and making these labels nothing more than a visual distraction (Roland & Preisler, 2010). As a result of this “Many consumers now seem almost incapable of determining and comparing salient attributes as a basis for their choice as they face sever difficulties in maintaining knowledge of the available attributes”

(Hansen & Thomsen, Supra-Complex decision making, 2006). Consumers have limited processing capability, so they don’t consider every option and rarely do they assess product attributes in order to determine the value. Instead consumers use mental markers in order to justify purchasing and

consuming a certain product.

As a consequence consumers rarely consider food attributes and nutritional and health attributes when selecting foods – this can possible be explained by choice complexity, which arises due to consumers limited processing capacity. Still consumers manage to buy food products daily without ending up dissonant or stressed. “Supra-complex decision making occurs when the perceived difficulty of transforming product information into knowledge exceeds the expected benefits of doing so” (Hansen

& Thomsen, Supra-Complex decision making, 2006).

8Lower palatability means less taste

(31)

Page 31 of 198 For whichever reason, consumers today rarely have the time or the mental capacity to analyze each product separately and determine which is better for her. An example: a consumer is food shopping and for each food on her shopping list, she has let’s say 10 alternatives to choose from. Some foods might be new to her and she doesn’t know much about them. She might not be able to read the nutrition label and really understand the content of the food product. She might not be able to tell the food products a part and distinguish which is better. Or she might not have time to consider all 10 alternatives. The more information and attributes each food product has, the more complex the situation is perceived as.

Depending on the individuals level of knowledge, competencies and experience, the perceived complexity of the situation will vary.

According to Halkier only few consumers take an interest in food shopping when shopping for the general household - food shopping and consumption often isn’t given much thought, but is instead predominantly habitual and done by routine (Halkier, 2001). Hansen supports this, when he says: “In other incidents where the decision process may be routine or habitual, the consumer simply may choose a well-known brand. It can even be argued that some proportion of consumer choice does not involve consumer decision making” (Hansen, 2005). The result of food shopping being habitual, is that the likelihood of consumers considering nutrition labels decreases (Campos, Doxey, & Hammond, 2011). The reason for this is that consumers select products by routine.

On the other hand, figures from a European study indicate that food purchases are not always habitual (Grunert, Fernández-Celemín, Wills, Bonsmann, & Nureeva, 2010). In this study consumers on average looked 35 seconds at the package of a product purchased. Overall 6 in 10 consumers (62,6%) looked at the front of the package and 1 in 10 (7,7%) looked at it in other places (Grunert, Fernández- Celemín, Wills, Bonsmann, & Nureeva, 2010). Research has shown that 8 in 10 consumers study the nutrition label on food packaging, and more than 7 in 10 understand labels enough to use them in their decision making (Grunert, Fernández-Celemín, Wills, Bonsmann, & Nureeva, 2010; Grunert & Wills, 2007; Grunert, Wills, & Ferbández-Celemín, 2010). This means that even though consumers don’t know what a label represents, as long as they recognize it, they might use it as a choice criterion, or a mental marker if you will, in their decision making (CBS: Spin eller fair snak, 2011).

(32)

Page 32 of 198 3.2.1 Complexity due to Planned vs. Non-planned Food Shopping

When food shopping is planned, it is either planned with regards to the specific brand or general

category or it is un-planned. More than 2/3 of food shopping involves in-store decision making (Inman, Winer, & Ferraro, 2009). Food shopping will be influenced by in-store stimuli, such as advertisement on the floor, on shelves, on screens or on the products pack, which can be very effective since it is at the point of purchase (Inman, Winer, & Ferraro, 2009). In particular hedonic products are more susceptible to in-store decision making than functional products which the keyhole label appear on (Inman, Winer, & Ferraro, 2009). For this reason, the correct positioning of keyhole labeled food products, which are typically functional, is crucial. If the keyhole label is positioned correctly, consumers can use the keyhole label to regulate and limit their in-store decision making by making it easier to focus on long-term goal of selecting products that are nutritionally healthy – assuming they know what the label represents.

3.2.2.1 Complexity due to Long-term Health Goals

There are many factors influencing consumers’ long term health goals. One example is using a shopping list, which is another way to achieve this long-term health goal, limiting unplanned purchasing (Inman, Winer, & Ferraro, 2009).

Consumers will also have families, which have their own goals, and will intentionally as well as unintentionally, affect the consumers own health goals. Consumers will aim for consistency between their goals for themselves or their families and their behavior – e.g. “when a consumer seeks to buy healthy food products for her family members obviously its consequences can be serious in relation to food products due to their impact on the human body: (1) they may lead to the consumption of

unhealthy food which would not have been brought upon thorough cognitive considerations; (2) they may seriously limit health authorities' and the marketers' ability to educate the consumer by

information campaigns” (Hansen & Thomsen, Supra-Complex decision making, 2006).

3.2.3 Complexity leading to Ambivalence and Dissonance

When the consumer does not achieve their health goals, this not only potentially impacts the consumers family, as stressed by Hansen & Thomsen in the quote above, it can also cause the consumer to

experience ambivalence and in some cases lead to dissonance. This results from them not meeting their own health goals when food shopping; as an example a consumer may be faced with choosing between

(33)

Page 33 of 198 having fresh fruit as a snack, or buying a cupcake or an ice-cream. The dilemma here is whether to choose the ice-cream, which tastes better, even though it is unhealthy. Consumers will often buy the ice-cream, when they feel like it, and justify it to themselves with “I don’t buy ice-cream that often” or

“I have been working hard I deserve it” or “Everyone else is having a sweet snack why shouldn’t I”

and so on (Hansen & Thomsen, 2006; Festinger, 1957; Halkier, 2001).

Theory on consuming ambivalences by Halkier, explains how consumers are faced with ambivalences in their decision making; “handling risk in food consumption becomes a part of the ambivalence of modern everyday life” (Halkier, 2001). There are different types of ambivalence, though the type of ambivalence relating to buying healthy keyhole labeled foods, versus buying unhealthy non-keyhole labeled foods is ambivalence as normal: consumers have learned to live with certain conditions although they are conscious that the things they buy have an impact on us, our families, the people producing the goods and the environment (Halkier, 2001). For instance an example could be buying food products, knowing these were grown using pesticides or containing toxic additives, e.g. artificial sweeteners, or buying unhealthy foods filled with saturated fat. Consumers know their foods contain these additives or nutrients, though consumers have learned to live with this. As an example, many consumers live with eating unhealthy foods by avoiding information about unhealthy foods and the consequences of eating unhealthy food. A possible explanation is that this has its roots in the culture of the Danish society where eating unhealthy food is accepted behavior (as is the case in any other

western society); we live to eat, we don’t eat to live – consumers eat what they want to eat, rather than eating what their body needs to get the necessary nutrition.

Supra-complex decision making is closely linked to cognitive dissonance; due to the complexity of choice today, consumers will have many options, which are against their long-term health goals.

Consumers will not always make the rational decision, and when faced with decisions that are

misaligned with these goals, this can cause dissonance. Consumers will seek to justify their decisions mentally to avoid dissonance (Festinger, 1957; Hansen & Thomsen, Supra-Complex decision making, 2006). For the most part dissonance it is an everyday condition consumers have learned to live with and found a way to ignore (Halkier, 2001; Hansen & Thomsen, 2006). According to Festinger, people’s decision-making is determined by the magnitude of their dissonance. When a dissonance exists, people will try whatever is in their power to eliminate the dissonance, or at least make it bearable. Dissonance

(34)

Page 34 of 198 can be eliminated by justifying decisions using different arguments – usually not rational arguments (Festinger, 1957). Dissonance can result from an inconsistency between a person’s knowledge and behavior, as a result of cultural mores and due to past experiences and can be reduced by changing beliefs, acquiring new information and changing behavior to increase consonance (Festinger, 1957).

Consumers will try to avoid cognitive dissonance by creating a mental balance between their attitudes and beliefs and the actual environment they face (Hansen, 2005). A person may resist reducing dissonance through change, if change is considered too painful and potentially involves loss, or for some reason isn’t possible. For instance healthier food might be too expensive, or the consumer may lack knowledge of nutritious food and healthy eating, or they may not know how to prepare a healthy meal. It is also possible that consumers find present behaviors too satisfying and are therefore unwilling to change. As an example the pleasure of unhealthy food may be considered too great to give it up (Festinger, 1957).

3.2.4 Complexity and Consumers Ability to Process Information

Initiatives focusing on increasing the consumption of healthy food typically rest on the assumption that consumer’s process health and nutrition information systematically - FOP nutrition labels require several systematic processing steps before they can influence the food choice, instead most consumers make fast decisions based on heuristics when it comes to making food choices (Orquin, 2011b).

Consumers have limited capacity for processing information, why when faced with a complex decision or time pressure, consumers will likely use mental markers, such as food labels to evaluate food

products and justify purchasing these (Hansen & Thomsen, 2006; Hansen, 2005). Unless consumers are highly involved in an issue, they are more likely to process information using heuristic processing when time, motivation or knowledge is lacking – heuristics, a simple rule of thumb or mental markers are used to provide information and quickly jump to a decision (Leathwood, Richardson, Sträter, Todd,

& van Trijp, 2007).

The consumer perception of the keyhole label can be both conscious and subconscious, while a conscious perception will have a stronger effect on subsequent purchasing behavior (Grunert & Wills, 2007). Whether consumers are informed, misled or neither, will depend on their knowledge and the frameworks they have for understanding these (Smith, Søndergaard, Clement, Mølvang-Hansen,

Using the Keyhole Label on Food Packaging to Increase the Consumption of Healthy Food