Agentes Participantes del Sector en Colombia

Practical themes were ‘top of mind’ for respondents when they described the factors they believed influenced their choices when shopping in a supermarket. The most salient factor was price, which was typically one of the first three issues discussed. Those on lower incomes noted their limited budget restricted their choices and ability to buy healthier or better quality foods:

“...if we had the money, definitely we’d go for the higher priced, better quality food” (Heath, 25).

Although participants wished to feed their children well and encouraged them to try new foods, food neophobia was sometimes problematic. Many parents noted that their children’s taste preferences affected the options they considered.

37 _{This section was published in: Maubach, N. B., Hoek, J. A., & McCreanor, T. N. (2009). An} exploration of parents' food purchasing behaviours. Appetite, 53(3), 297-302.

138

“…and with two kids who are quite fussy, I tend to cook the things I know they’re going to like” (Ann, 35).

Only one parent stated explicitly that he and his wife persevered with foods their children resisted, because those foods were seen as vital for a healthy diet:

“Yeah, it is hard sometimes for the girls because there are some foods they don’t like eating…we just try and keep pushing those upon them” (Gary, 37). Accommodating taste preferences was closely linked to a more general desire to avoid conflict with children. As well as purchasing favoured foods, parents reduced in-store conflict by shopping without their children where possible, making sure children were not hungry if they were present, by avoiding certain aisles in the store, and moving through the store swiftly. These strategies helped them complete their shopping trip as quickly as possible, but inevitably meant they had less time available to consider their purchases or information that might assist these.

Given the desire to limit the time spent shopping with children, few participants reported referring to information on food packaging to inform their choices. Instead, they

preferred to rely on recommendations from friends and family, the media, or on their own prior knowledge. Even respondents who stated that good nutrition was very important commented that they rarely read information printed on product packaging. However, participants did make use of heuristics. Some reported using the Heart Foundation Tick to identify healthier choices, although they noted that tick-bearing products were often more expensive. Others relied on nutrient-content claims to support their choices, particularly when these promoted products’ vitamin and mineral content and when they felt their children did not eat enough fruit and vegetables. However, other participants were sceptical of health-related claims, which they saw as marketing tactics designed to increase sales.

Overall, although participants said they often or sometimes chose healthy options, they found it difficult to articulate how they identified ‘healthy’ products. One respondent’s reliance on personal ‘nutrition intuition’, a vaguely specified belief that she ‘just knew’ what was suitable for her daughter to eat, typified these reactions:

“I don’t really get it [information about foods] from anywhere, I just sort of decide that it’s not good … or whatever my partner and I decided that was going to be good for her” (Jane, 26).

139

As this quotation suggests, participants stereotyped food categories as healthy or unhealthy as part of a ‘common sense’ strategy that helped them classify their food choices. For example, fresh fruits and vegetables, unrefined grains, and fresh meat were frequently cited healthy choices, while carbonated drinks, biscuits, chippies, and highly coloured foods were viewed as unhealthy, though still desirable.

“The main things that I’ve learnt is, yeah, that we should be eating healthy foods like heaps of vegetables and fruit and stuff and stay away from things that I know that I like [laughing]” (Nikki, 38).

These simple heuristics may be useful guiding principles as they are often correct; however, they may also discourage comparison of competing packaged foods, which often have different nutritional profiles.

While nutrition was the most frequently occurring theme, it was not usually a highly salient factor and was often mentioned after more immediate concerns had been raised, or after participants had been prompted to list additional factors that influenced their choices. Although some participants had developed rules, these did not always guide their choices and their technical knowledge was limited. For example, those who considered nutrition did so in relation to only one or two macronutrients, primarily sugar and fat, and although participants were aware that nutritious food was important, few explicitly linked diet with health outcomes.

Instead, grocery shopping choices were typically habitual and relied on set routines of where to go and what to buy, and repeat purchases of familiar brands. As one respondent noted:

“I’ve got a routine of where I go all the time… I get the same things each week pretty much” (Beth, 36).

Years of consumption and purchase experience leads to habitual patterns and reduces the burden of making new decisions on each shopping occasion. Past experiences also contributed to participants’ sense that they instinctively knew which foods were better than others and thus more appropriate for their families.

140 Use of the Nutrition Information Panel

Respondents who reported using the Nutrition Information Panel (NIP) did so only when buying from specific product categories (e.g., muesli bars) or purchasing foods for particular family members (often themselves, and in relation to personal weight management goals). Participants with a family member who had special dietary requirements (such as a food allergy) were more likely to use product labels, although their focus was on allergens and the ingredients list rather than general nutritional value. Respondents used labels to identify the presence of additives, which appeared more important than products’ overall nutritional profile. They avoided products they felt were too processed, and viewed these as unhealthy; minimal processing indicated a healthier choice, even though processing may not always result in a poorer nutritional profile. Overall, although participants had stated that good nutrition influenced their grocery choices, most did not use NIPs to gain information about a product’s nutritional value.

Those who did use NIPs to gain nutritional information used this to compare brands, particularly new products or items their children had requested. However, they referred primarily to sugar and total fat levels and did not review other nutrients as they did not understand what these were or why they might be important. Terms such as energy, saturated fat, sodium and protein were seen as confusing by those who had no framework for interpreting the information provided.

“…if you don’t know the information then you’re pretty much going ‘oh yeah, that’s nice, but what does that mean?’ Yeah so you’ve got really no clue unless you’ve got something or a gauge to go off, or you’ve learnt it previously through studies or whatever” (Erin, 29).

Others were discouraged from evaluating nutrition information because they thought nutritional advice often changed, as the popularity of different diets waxed and waned:

“I find it really hard because it seems, it feels like it changes all the time… you know too much salt is bad, and saturated fat is worse than other fats, and um, we apparently do need a certain amount of fat. But, I mean, at the moment the big phase is to lower your carbohydrates as well. Um, you know, that’s always a tricky one because we sort of brought up thinking you know just have no fat and you just eat carbohydrates till you’re absolutely

141

full, and now they’ve found that’s wrong, so it’s all a bit up in the air” (Diane, 35).

Participants who referred to NIPs generally selected the product with the lowest values on selected ‘important’ nutrients and few used nutrient thresholds to assess a product’s overall acceptability. While they could assess whether one brand had less fat than another, they were not sure whether either met criteria required of low-fat products. Difficulties in using NIPs to make absolute judgments about a product reflect wider problems participants experienced, and many found NIPs difficult to read and interpret:

“…unless somebody had an understanding of nutrition and what each of those values represent and what each of the elements represent, people don’t understand it” (Gary, 37).

Problems interpreting NIPs were also evident in inconsistencies between reported use of these and subsequent food choices. While one respondent stated she used the NIP to help her avoid high-sugar foods for her son, she also reported buying her son Kellogg’s Coco Pops®_{, which contain more than 35g of sugar per 100g. Discrepancies between}

what participants said and did also raise questions about the role of NIPs in communicating information about product attributes.