Tanispdffinal

“A STUDY ON NUTRITIONAL LABELS”
A project submitted to St. Francis College for Women as part of the curriculum for the
Bachelor of Science
By
Ms. ANAKHA .P.NAIR (121319044004)
Ms. MAGGAM GLORIA (121319044038)
Ms. TANIA PHILMIN (121319044058)
UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF

Dr.CH. YUGANDHAR
(H.O.D Statistics Department)
St. Francis College for Women

(Autonomous and Affiliated to Osmania University)
Begumpet, Hyderabad
APRIL 2022
St. Francis College for Women
(Autonomous and Affiliated to Osmania University)
Begumpet, Hyderabad – 500 016
Ph: (040) 23418308, 23403200, 23400470. Fax: (040) 23418308
Email: info@sfc.ac.in Visit us at: www.sfc.ac.in
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that this bonafide project work titled “A STUDY ON NUTRITIONAL
LABELS”, has been carried out by
Ms. ANAKHA .P.NAIR (121319044004)

towards a partial fulfilment of requirements for the award of the Degree of Bachelor of Science
from St. Francis College for Women, Begumpet in the academic year 2021-2022.
Internal Examiner External Examiner
Head of the Department Controller of Examination

DECLARATION
The current study “A STUDY ON NUTRITIONAL LABELS ” has been carried out under
supervision of, Dr.Ch.Yugandhar, Head of the Department, Department of Statistics, St.
Francis College for Women. We hereby declare that the present study that has been carried out
by,
Ms. ANAKHA .P.NAIR (121319044004)

During February-April, 2021-2022 is original and no part of it has been carried out priorto this
date.
Date:
Signature of Candidate:
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We express our sincere thanks to St. Francis College for Women for giving us this wonderful
opportunity to take up this project. We are thankful to our beloved principal Sr. Sandra Horta
for allowing us to apply our knowledge to work upon this project
A heartfelt gratitude to our H.O.D, Dr.Ch.Yugandhar who was our guide for this project and
who was always available to clarify our doubts.
We would also like to thank all the respondents of our project who helped us to achieve
realistic results.
Ms. ANAKHA .P.NAIR

Ms. MAGGAM GLORIA
Ms. TANIA PHILMIN
INDEX
S.NO TOPIC PAGE NO
1 ABSTRACT
1
2 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 2
3 OBJECTIVES 5
4 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE AND REVIEW 6
5 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 8
CHAPTER 4: STATISTICAL ANALYSIS -

FREQUENCY TABLES, PIE CHARTS AND
6 11
BARCHARTS
7 CHAPTER 5: CHI-SQUARE TESTS 38
8 CHAPTER 6: INFERENCE 57
9 CHAPTER 7: PROJECT REPORT 62
10 CHAPTER 8: CONCLUSION 63
11 CHAPTER 9: QUESTIONNAIRE 64
12 CHAPTER 10: BIBILOGRAPHY 69

LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Title Page No.
4.1 Gender 12
4.2 Age 13
4.3 Education 14
4.4 Occupation 15
4.5 Annual Income 16
4.6 Marital status 17
4.7 How often do you read a nutrition label 18
4.8 Are you health conscious 19
4.9 How much influence does nutrition content have on your 20
buying decision
4.10 How understandable do you find the information about the 22
content on labels of food packages
4.11 What is your perspective on the amount of information on 23
the nutrition labels?
4.12 How important do you consider nutrition labelling to be? 24
4.13 Reason for not being able to refer the nutrition label 25
everytime you purchase a product
4.14 Which information on the label is very important 26
4.15 What is your order of preference when you purchase a 27
product
4.16 Reasons for reading nutrition information on food packages 28
4.17 Do you find nutritional information panels confusing 29
4.18 Do you believe nutritional labels would be used more often 30
if they were a simpler format
4.19 Will you avoid buying product if there is no nutrition label 31
4.20 Are you able to evaluate the quality of the product using 32
nutrition labels
4.21 Does a complex nutrition label deter you from buying the 33
product
4.22 How confident are you that the nutrition labelling 34
information provided is accurate
4.23 What are the most helpful characteristics of the nutrition 36
facts labelling when deciding to buy a food product
4.24 When you are comparing two similar product, on what 34
basis do you prefer to buy a product
LIST OF DIAGRAMS
Table No. Title Page No.
4.1 Gender 12
4.2 Age 13
4.3 Education 14
4.4 Occupation 15
4.5 Annual Income 16
4.6 Marital status 17
4.7 How often do you read a nutrition label 18
4.8 Are you health conscious 19
4.9 How much influence does nutrition content have on 20

your buying decision
4.10 How understandable do you find the information 22
about the content on labels of food packages
What is your perspective on the amount of
4.11 information on the nutrition labels? 23
4.12 How important do you consider nutrition labelling 24

to be?
4.17 Do you find nutritional information panels confusing 29
4.18 Do you believe nutritional labels would be used 30

more often if they were a simpler format
4.19 Will you avoid buying product if there is no 31
nutrition label
4.20 Are you able to evaluate the quality of the product 32
using nutrition labels
4.21 Does a complex nutrition label deter you from 33
buying the product
4.22 How confident are you that the nutrition labelling 34
4.24 When you are comparing two similar products, on 37
what basis do you prefer to buy a product
ABSTRACT
As consumers we always purchase pre-packaged foods for our needs. The food we eat will impact
us in various ways. So to choose which food we have to consume among the number of similar
food products available, we can take the help of nutrition label to choose correct products which
can help us to maintain a good diet, protect our health and for a healthy life style. So this study
focused on consumer knowledge of Nutrition label information among, their perception on the
importance of such information and difficulties encountered in reading and using pre packaged
nutrition labels. It was a survey design. This study was conducted from Decemeber, 2021 to March,
2022.Through this study ,it is recommended that deliberate efforts should be taken to improve
nutrition labelling, provide education to consumers to raise their awareness and use of nutrition
labelling information as well as develop a consumer guide on nutrition labelling .This can
definitely lead to healthy society.
1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Consumers in the past consumed mostly fresh farm produce with little or no processing. Today
eating habits and dietary intakes are changing rapidly in the urban and rural areas as a result of
development. The increase in the intake of fats, refined sugars and salt are leading to imbalanced
nutrition and over nutrition. The high urbanization rate, modern technology and industrialization of
the food chain in particular, under the influence of Westernization and globalization are increasing
the speed of these changes. Also the increased capacity to store food safely without the need for
drying or salting facilitated the extension of the food supply chain from the farm to the urban.
Chemical substances are now being added to foods in order to make them into the vast array of
processed foods available in the market. These chemical additives include colouring, preservative,
antioxidants, emulsifiers, stabilizers, anti-caking agents and flavour enhancers. These help to make
processed foods smaller in size and taste better, as well as improve their shelf life. Moreover,
industrialization of the food chain has changed the macronutrient composition of the diet, which is
now much energy dense. The type of carbohydrate in the diet has changed, with decreases in
complex carbohydrates such as starches and increase in refined sugar . However, It has been
observed that food affects the level of physical, mental and social well-being of individuals
According to Buttress et al. (2004), one of the major health challenges is to identify ways to help
consumers making the appropriate food choices. In 2004, World Health Organization (WHO) had
recommended that nutritional label was one of the strategies to assist the public in making healthier
food choice. As consumers have become increasingly concerned about what they eat and how it
affects their health, the food industry has responded by providing more detailed nutrition
information on their nutrition labels . In many parts of the world, food companies, consumers, and
governments are re-examining the provision of nutrition information on food labels. It is important
that the nutrition information provided be appropriate and understandable to the consumer and that
it impacts food-choice behaviors. Potentially, nutrition labeling represents a valuable tool to help
consumers make informed decisions about their diet and lifestyle. Nutrition information
organizations worldwide have been following consumer trends in the use of this information as well
as consumer attitudes about food, nutrition, and health.
Nutrition labels:
Nutrition label is the information written on the back of cans and packets of processed foods . It
contains the name of the products, contents, date marking, nutritional information and many more.
According to Codex Alimentarus Commission, (2002) nutrition labeling is a description intended to
inform the consumer of the nutritional properties of food, and includes a declaration of the nutrient
content of the food as well as supplementary nutrition information. Nutrition labels are perceived as
a highly credible source of information and many consumers use nutrition labels to guide their
selection of food products. However, the use of labels varies considerably across subgroups, with
lower use among children, adolescents and older adults who are obese. Research also highlights
challenges in terms of consumer understanding and appropriate use of labelling information.
Nutrition label information assists consumers to better understand the nutritional value of food and
2
enables them to compare the nutritional values of similar food products and to make healthy
informed food choices based on the relevant nutrition information . The ability to choose pre
packaged food based on information obtained on its label requires knowledge and ability to read
understand and interpret the information .
Types of Nutritional Labels :

There are two types of nutritional label formats.
1. Back-of-Package nutritional label (BOP)
2. Front-of-package nutritional label (FOP)
Nutrition label formats fall into two general categories: the back of package or BOP labels and the
front of package or FOP labels. In 2014, BOP is the most prevalent label format worldwide and at
least 75% of the global population lives in countries with BOP labelling regulations . These
regulations stipulate either mandatory labelling on all products or voluntary labelling for those
foods that make certain health or nutritional claims. In 2012, the Codex Alimentarius Commission
3
recommended mandatory nutrition guidelines even when health claims are not made on a product.
The European Union Food Information Council shows that at least 44 countries outside the global
North have mandatory or voluntary regulations .
FOP labels augment the BOP label information and provide consumers with interpretive symbols or
logos to assess a product's overall nutrition. Label formats may include the Multiple Traffic Light
system (MTL), Guideline Daily Amounts (GDAs), or nationally-endorsed health symbols, such as
the ‘Choices’ logo system that meet certain nutritional criteria, providing a summary or ‘seal of
approval’ on products . The majority of FOP labelling regulations that exist in the North are
voluntary. Seven countries, Chile, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea,
and Thailand, in the global South are in the process of adopting some form of FOP labelling
regulations .
In the USA, the Nutrition Labelling and Education Act of 1990 mandates that prepackaged foods
carry a nutrition label, with exceptions for foods intended for immediate consumption . Label users
are also more likely to eat healthier varieties of foods, and to have reduced Na, cholesterol and
energy intakes, coupled with increased fibre, Fe and vitamin C intakes. Cross-sectional associations
between label use and healthier diets are also related to socio-economic status, education, age
gender and ethnicity/race.
Currently, many governments are trying to educate their nations and testing a variety of
approaches in order to let their consumers to be more aware of nutrition in food and more cognisant
on nutritional labelling. When the governments take action to tackle the increasing health problem,
other parties will also follow their leaders. Moreover, the application of secure labelling and
contents of food products from manufacturers can be empowered by government. The government
can use its authority to ensure the usage of the nutrition label to be compulsory for every product.
Advantages of nutrition label:

• Information about the nutrition values
• May raise the awareness of people regarding their diet
• May motivate people to eat healthier
Disadvantages of nutrition label:

• May mislead people
• People may not be able to read food labels properly
• People may get a bad conscience regarding their diet
4
The objectives of the present study are:
➢ To identify the nutritional labelling awareness among different groups of consumers

➢ To explore the importance of nutritional labelling among consumers in purchasing the
product
➢ To evaluate the merits and demerits of nutritional labelling
➢ To determine factors associated with reading pre packaged food labels among consumers.
➢ To identify the difficulties encountered while referring a nutrition label
5
1) Ares et al. (2012) states that the background of a nutrition label does not affect the time
consumers need to find the information and to classify the labels.
2) To assess whether the colour in the label itself has any effect, Antúnez et al. (2015) looked at
response times and Becker et al. (2016) at attentional prioritization with a change detection method.
3) Méjean et al., (2013) says that the consumers with less nutrition knowledge pay more attention to
price and marketing aspects during purchasing decisions
5) (Ares et al., 2014) Not only knowledge, which can be obtained, but also thinking style
influences the search for information. Consumers with an analytic/rational thinking style, compared
to intuitive-experimental, went on a more in-depth search for information
6) Hansen et al. (2011) argues that situational and choice-based anxiety increases the search for
information as critical consumers with a less positive attitude towards nutrition claims are more
likely to search for more information.
7) When a government approval is placed with the label, participants of the study rated the label
more believable and more likely to change their choice of product (Acton et al., 2018)
8) Hodgkins et al. (2012) asked participants to describe nutrition labels in their own words. When
describing nutrition labels, consumers tend to use terms such as information content,
understanding/confusion, healthfulness of food, impact/attractiveness and clarity. The more
‘directive’ a label is, the less detailed information it contains (Hodgkins et al., 2012)
9) Schuldt (2013) concluded that, despite keeping the exact number of calories the same, the colour
of the nutrition label changed the consumer healthiness perception. A green label increases the
healthiness perception of the product. This effect did not change for any personal factors.
10) Sánchez-García et al. (2018) found that the colours red, green and yellow have a significant
effect on the guilt and fear consumers experience when purchasing a product. However, the colours
have a different effect for low-income versus high-income consumers. High-income consumers
have a stronger positive reaction to green and low-income consumers have a stronger negative
reaction to red (Sánchez-García et al., 2018)
11) Van Herpen et al. (2012) found that familiarity with a nutrition label only affects the self-
reported understanding of the label, the use of the label is not affected
6
12) Egnell et al. (2018) found that personal characteristics are outweighed by the effect of the
Nutri-Score label, eventhough they may affect the objective understanding of a label.
13) Lundeberg et al. (2018) found that consumers with a higher health concern, show a lower
purchase intention for the products perceived as least healthy compared to consumers with a lower
health concern
14) Berning et al. (2010) looked at an alternative for placing the label on the packaging, instead
they proposed to display them on the shelves. Consumers showed a positive preference for nutrition
labels displayed on shelves, which are easy to read and well presented. Taking an even broader
perspective than just looking at packaging or shelves, Gregori et al. (2014) asked Europeans what
they think is the best government instrument to promote healthy eating. The biggest group, 28.7%
of the respondents, said advertising is the best instrument
7
Both primary and secondary research has been carried out for this project.
• Sample design: Random samples of 150 respondents were chosen for the research through
the questionnaires developed to find out the activities in which present day people are
more interested and are involved.
• Tools and Technique of Analysis: The analysis done for the data obtained by the
technique of random sampling is primarily descriptive in nature.
• Source of data:
1. Primary Data: The data, which has been collected for the first time and is original,
is primary data. In this project the primary data is in the form of structured
questionnaire.
2. Secondary Data: The secondary information is mostly taken from websites, books,
journals, and magazines.
DIAGRAMATIC REPRESENTATAION:
Bar Diagram: A bar graph is a chart that uses bars to show comparisons between categories of
data. The bars can be either horizontal or vertical. Bar graphs with vertical bars are sometimes
called vertical bar graphs.
8
Pie chart: A pie chart is a circular chart divided into sectors; each sector shows the relative size
of each value.
DATA TYPE:
Data:
The data used in the study is primary data. The primary data for the research project was acquired
by questionnaires and the secondary source of information was through magazines, publications
and internet. The primary data was further studied using chi-square test of independence between
the attributes in the questionnaires.
Mode of data collection:
Data is collected through the questionnaire method.
Questionnaire:
The questionnaire was formed with care ensuring that it is clear, brief and with non-ambiguous
and with non-offending statements.
Population:
Population considered for study is the population using the products of all categories (both online
and offline).
Sample:
Sample of 150 people was taken from various consumers who were found purchasing pre-
packaged foods in selected supermarkets, friends, acquaintances, students from various schools
and colleges.
Data tabulation:
The questionnaire was serially numbered, and data was coded and tabulated using SPSS
9
Statistical analysis:
Analysis was done using the SPSS Statistics 28th version.
STATISTICAL TECHNIQUES USED FOR DATA ANALYSIS
Frequency distribution:
The most important part of organizing and summarizing statistical data is by constructing a
frequency distribution table. In this method, classification is done according to quantitative
magnitude.
Chi-square test for independence of attributes:
The chi-square test is used to test the independence of attributes. With the help of this test it is
possible to assess the significance of difference between the observed and expected frequencies.
Test statistic:
(O − E )
2
 2 = 
E
P-level:
The p-level represents the probability of error that is involved in accepting our observed result as
valid, that is as representative of the population. The p-level of 0.05 is customarily treated as border
line accepted at a level.
Decision rule:
If p<0.05, then p is significant, and we reject H0 i.e., the attributes are independent at 5%level of
significance.
Coefficient of contingency:
When H0 is rejected the amount of association between two attributes is given by Coefficient of
contingency.
C=
Where N=total frequency, χ2=calculated.

10
CHAPTER: 4
11
Q1. Gender
1)Male 2) Female
Table 4.1
GENDER FREQUENCY PERCENT
MALE 74 49.3
76 50.7
TOTAL 150 100.0
Figure 4.1
Gender
100%
80%
Frequency
60%
40%
20%
0%
Male
Female
Gender
Conclusion:
From the above table and diagram, it is observed that
• 49.3% (74) of the respondents are males.
• 50.7% (76) of the respondents are females.
12
Q2. Age
1) Below 18 2) 18-35 3) 36-55 4) Above 55
Table 4.2
AGE FREQUENCY PERCENT
Below 18 29 19
18-35 56 38
36-55 35 23
Above 55 30 20
TOTAL 150 100.0
Figure 4.2
Age
20% 19%
Below 18
18-35
36-55
above 55
23%
38%
Conclusion:-
From the above table and diagram, it is observed that:
• 20% (29) respondents are less than 18 years of age .
• 37.3% (56) respondents are of the age group 18-35 .
• 22.7% (35) respondents are of the age group 36-55.
• 20% (30) respondents are above the age of 55.
13
Q3.Education
1) Master’s degree or higher 2) Bachelor’s degree 3) High school degree or equivalent 4)
Less than a high school degree
Table 4.3
FREQUENCY PERCENT
Master’s degree or higher 52 34.7

Bachelor’s degree 52 34.7
High school degree or 33 22.0

equivalent
Less than a high school 13 8.7
degree
TOTAL 150 100.0
Figure 4.3
EDUCATION
60
50
40
FREQUENCY
30
20
10
0
Masters degree or higher Bachelors degree High school degree or Less than a high school
equivalent degree
EDUCATION
Conclusion:
• 34.7% (47) respondents hold a Master’s degree or higher.
• 34.7% (65) respondents hold a Bachelor’s degree .
• 22.7% (29) respondents hold a High school degree or equivalent .
• 8.7% (9) respondents hold Less than a high school degree.
14
Q4. Occupation
1)Student 2) Self-employed 3) Private employee 4) Government employee 5) Other
Table 4.4
OCCUPATION FREQUENCY PERCENT
Student 40 26.7
Self-employed 28 18.7
Private employee 30 20
Government employee 26 17.3
Other 26 17.3
TOTAL 150 100.0
Figure 4.4
Occupation
45
40
35
30
25
FREQUENCY
20
15
10
5
0
Student Self Employed Private Employee Govt Employee Other
Conclusion:
• 26.7% (40) respondents are students .
• 18.7% (28) respondents are self-employed.
• 20% (30) respondents are private-employees.
• 17.3% (26) respondents are government employees.
• 17.3% (26) respondents do not belong to any of the above 4 categories of occupation .
15
.Q5. Annual Income
1)Less than 1,00,000 2) 1,00,000-2,50,000 3) 2,50,000-5,00,000 4) 5,00,00 and
above 5) Not applicable
Table 4.5
ANNUAL INCOME FREQUENCY PERCENT
Less than 1,00,000 22 15
2,50,000-5,00,000 d 35 23
5,00,00 and above 25 16
Not applicable 39 26
TOTAL 150 100
Figure 4.5
Annual Income
15% Less than 1,00,000

26%
1,00,000-2,50,000
19% 2,50,000-5,00,000
5,00,000 and above
17%
Not applicable
23%
Conclusion:
• 15% (22) respondents have an annual income of less than Rs. 1,00,000 .
• 19% (29) respondents have an annual income in the range of Rs. 1,00,000 – Rs.
2,50,000.
• 23% (35) respondents have an annual income in the range of Rs. 2,50,000 – Rs.
5,00,000.
• 17% (25) respondents have an annual income in the range of Rs. 5,00,000 and above.
• 26% (39) respondents do not have an annual income.
16
Q6.Marital status
1)Married 2)Unmarried
Table 4.6
MARTIAL STATUS FREQUENCY PERCENT
MARRIED 63 42.0
UNMARRIED 87 58.0
TOTAL 150 100.0
Figure 4.6
MARITAL STATUS
Married Unmarried
Conclusion:
• 42% (63) respondents are married .
• 58% (87) respondents are unmarried .
17
Q7.How often do you read a nutrition label?
1)Always 2)Often 3)Sometimes 4)Rarely
5)Never
Table 4.7
FREQUENCY PERCENT
ALWAYS 21 14.0
OFTEN 36 24.0
SOMETIMES 44 29.3
RARELY 32 21.3
NEVER 17 11.3
TOTAL 150 100.0
Figure 4.7
HOW OFTEN DO YOU READ A

NUTRITION LABEL
50
40
Frequency
30
20
10
0
Always Often Sometimes Rarely Never
How often do you read a nutrition label
Conclusion:
• 14% (21) respondents always read nutrition label .
• 24% (36) respondents often read nutrition label .
• 29.3% (44) respondents sometimes read nutrition label .
• 21.3% (32) respondents rarely read nutrition label .
• 11.3.% (17) respondents read never nutrition labe
18
Q8.Are you health conscious?
1)Extreme 2)Moderate 3)Not at all
Table 4.8
HEALTH CONSCIOUS FREQUENCY PERCENT
EXTREME 40 26.7
MODERATE 90 60.0
NOT AT ALL 20 13.3
TOTAL 150 100.0
Figure 4.8
Extreme
Moderate
Not at all
Conclusion:
• 26.7% (40) of the respondents are extremely health conscious.
• 60% (90) of the respondents are moderately health conscious.
• 13.3% (20) of the respondents are not health conscious.
19
Q9.How much influence does nutrition content have on your buying decision?
1) A great deal of influence 2)A fair amount of influence
3)Some influence 4)Little influence
5)No influence
Table 4.9
FREQUENCY PERCENT
A great deal of influence 32 21.3
A fair amount of influence 49 32.7
Some influence 37 24.7
Little influence 20 13.3
No influence 12 8.0
TOTAL 150 100.0
Figure 4.9
How much influence does nutrition content have
on your buying decision
8%
21%
13%
25%
33%
A great deal of influence A fair amount of influence Some influence Little influence No influence
20
Conclusion:
• 21.3% (32) respondents have great influence with the nutrition labels.
• 32.7% (49) respondents have a fair amount of influence with the nutrition labels.
• 24.7% (37) of the respondents have some influence with the nutrition labels
• 13.3% (20) respondents have little influence with the nutrition labels.
• 8% (12) respondents have no influence with the nutrition labels.
21
Q10.How understandable do you find the information about the content on labels of
food packages?
1)Easy 2) Moderate 3) Hard
Table 4.10
FREQUENCY PERCENT
EASY 60 40.0
MODERATE 72 48.0
HARD 18 12.0
TOTAL 150 100.0
Figure 4.10
How understandable do you find the

information about the content on
labels of food packages
80 72
60
60
FREQUENCY
40
18
20
0
Easy Moderate Hard
HOW UNDERSTANDABLE DO YOU FIND THE INFORMATION ABOUT THE
CONTENT ON LABELS OF FOOD PACKAGES
Conclusion:
• 40% (60) respondents find the nutrition labels easy
• 48% (70) respondents find the nutrition labels moderate.
• 12% (18) of the respondent find the nutritional labels hard
22
Q11.What is your perspective on the amount of information on the nutrition labels?
1)Too much 2) Right amount 3) Not enough
4)No opinion
Table 4.11
FREQUENCY PERCENT
TOO MUCH 16 10.7
RIGHT AMOUNT 68 45.3
NOT ENOUGH 28 18.7
NO OPINION 38 25.3
TOTAL 150 100.0
Figure 4.11
Conclusion:
• 10.7% (16) respondents find the perspective on the amount of information on the nutrition
labels as too much
labels as right amount
labels as not enough
labels as no opinion
23
Q12.How important do you consider nutrition labelling to be?
1)Very important 2)Somewhat important
3)Minimally important 4)Not important
Table 4.12
FREQUENCY PERCENT
Very important 90 60.0
Somewhat important 37 24.7
Minimally important 16 10.7
Not important 7 4.7
TOTAL 150 100.0
Figure 4.12
How important do you consider

nutrition labelling to be
4%0%
11%
25%
60%
Very important Somewhat important Minimally important Not important
Conclusion:
• 60.0% (90) respondents consider nutrition labelling as very important.
24
Q13. Can you possibly let us know the reason for not being able to refer the nutrition
label every time you purchase a product?
1) Time consuming 2) I don`t understand it 3) Cannot find where the label is
4) Labels are too small 5) Don’t have this habit 6) There is no need to do so 7) Others
Table 4.13
OPTIONS NOT SELECTED SELECTED

FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE
Time 89 59.3 60 40
consuming
I don`t 123 82 27 18
understand it
Cannot find 134 89.3 16 10.7
where the label
is
Labels are too 85 56.7 65 43.3
small
Don’t have this 115 76.7 35 23.3
habit
There is no 140 93.3 10 6.7
need to do so
Others 125 83.3 25 16.7
Conclusion:
According to the study, 40% of the respondents have selected time consuming,
• 18% I don’t understand it, 10.7% cannot find where the label is,
• 43.3% labels are too small
• 23.3% don’t have this habit,
• 7% there is no need to do so and 16.7% others
25
Q14.Which information on the label is very important?
1) Fat content (trans fat &saturated fat) 2) Cholesterol content 3)Sodium content(salt)
4) Carbohydrate content(including sugar) 5)Protein content
Table 4.14

Fat content(trans 65 43.3 85 56.7
fat &saturated
fat)
Cholesterol 80 53.3 70 46.7
content
Sodium 104 69.3 46 30.7
content(salt)
Carbohydrate 87 58 63 42
content(including
sugar)
Protein content 84 56 66 44
Conclusion:
According to the study,
• 56.7% of the respondents have selected fat content(trans fat &saturated fat).
• 46.7% cholesterol content
• 30.7% sodium content(salt).
• 42% carbohydrate content(including sugar)
• 44% protein content
26
Q15. What is your order of preference when you purchase a product? (where 4 is the
most important and 1 is least important)
1)Low calorie 2)High protein 3)Low fat 4)Low carbohydrate
Table 4.15.1:
Attrbutes 1 2 3 4 Total
1.Low calorie 62 33 38 17 150
2.High protein 19 36 54 41 150
3.Low fat 20 38 37 55 150
4.Low carbohydrate 49 45 19 37 150
Table 4.15.2:
Attributes Total
1.Low calorie [62*1] [33*2] [38*3] [17*4] 310
2.High protein [19*1] [36*2] [54*3] [41*4] 417
3.Low fat [20*1] [38*2] [37*3] [55*4] 427
4.Low carbohydrate [49*1] [45*2] [19*3] [37*4] 344
Conclusion: The highest total number will get the first preference ranking. The results show
the following rank order: 4. Low Fat 3. High protein 2. Low carbohydrate 1. Low calorie
27
Q16. Reasons for reading nutrition information on food packages?
1)Percent product comparisons 2)Curiosity 3)Advice from nutrition counselling
4) Family member habits 5)Special dietary needs
Table 4.16
Percent product 96 64 53 35.3
comparisons
Curiosity 82 54.7 68 45.3
Advice from 114 76.0 36 24
nutrition
counselling
Family member 126 84 24 16
habits
Special dietary 113 75.3 37 24.7
needs
Conclusion:
According to the study, 35.3% of the respondents have selected percentage product
comparisons, 45.3% curiosity, 24% advice from nutrition counselling, 16% family member
habits and 24.7% special dietary needs.
28
Q17.Do you find nutritional information panels confusing?
1)Yes 2)No 3)Sometimes 4)Not sure
Table 4.17
FREQUENCY PERCENT
YES 33 22.0
NO 41 27.3
SOMETIMES 60 40.0
NOT SURE 16 10.7
TOTAL 150 100.0
Figure 4.17
DO YOU FIND NUTRITIONAL

INFORMATION PANELS
CONFUSING
60
Frequency
40
20
0
Yes No Sometimes Not sure
Do you find nutritional information panels confusing
Conclusion:
• 22.0% (33) respondents finds nutritional information panels as confusing
• 27.3% (41) respondents doesnot find nutritional information panels as confusing
• 40.0% (60) respondents sometimes finds nutritional information panels as confusing
• 10.0% (16) respondents are not sure about finding 77nutritional information panels as
confusing
29
Q18.Do you believe nutritional labels would be used more often if they were a simpler
format?
1)Yes 2) No 3) Maybe
Table 4.18
FREQUENCY PERCENT
YES 74 49.3
NO 22 14.7
MAYBE 54 36.0
TOTAL 150 100.0
Figure 4.18
Do you believe nutritional labels would be used

more often if they were a simpler format
would be used more often if they were
Do you believe nutritional labels
Maybe 54
a simpler format
)No 22
Yes 74
0 20 40 60 80
Frequency
Conclusion:
• 49.3% (74) respondents believes that nutritional labels can be used more often if they were
a simpler format?
• 14.7% (22) respondents do not believe that nutritional labels can be used more often if
they were a simpler format.
• 36% (54) respondents thinks that maybe the nutritional labels can be used more often if
they were a simpler format
30
Q19.Will you avoid buying product if there is no nutrition label?
1)Yes 2)No 3) Sometimes
Table 4.19
FREQUENCY PERCENT
YES 55 36.7
NO 38 25.3
SOMETIMES 57 38.0
TOTAL 150 100.0
Figure 4.19
Will you avoid buying product if there

is no nutrition label
38% 37%
Yes
No
25% Sometimes
Conclusion:
• 36.7% (55) respondents will avoid buying product if there is no nutrition label
• 25.3% (38) respondents will not avoid buying product if there is no nutrition label
• 38.0% (57) respondents sometimes avoid buying product if there is no nutrition label.
31
Q20.Are you able to evaluate the quality of the product using nutrition labels?
1)Yes 2) No 3) Sometimes
Table 4.20
FREQUENCY PERCENT
YES 64 42.7
NO 40 26.7
SOMETIMES 46 30.7
TOTAL 150 100.0
Figure 4.20
Are you able to evaluate the quality of the product

using nutrition labels
80
Frequency
60
40
20
0
Yes
No
Sometimes
Are you able to evaluate the quality of the product using nutrition labels
(style)
Conclusion:
• 42.7% (64) respondents are able to evaluate the quality of the product using nutrition labels.
• 26.7% (40) respondents are not able to evaluate the quality of the product using nutrition
labels.
• 30.7% (46) respondents are sometimes able to evaluate the quality of the product using
nutrition labels.
32
Q21.Does a complex nutrition label deter you from buying the product?
1)Yes 2)No
Table 4.21
FREQUENCY PERCENT
YES 61 40.7
NO 89 59.3
TOTAL 150 100.0
Figure 4.21
Does a complex nutrition label deter you from

buying the product
100
80
Frequency
60
40
20
0
Yes
No
Does a complex nutrition label deter you from buying the product
Conclusion:
• 40.7% (61) respondent says that a complex nutrition label deter them from buying the
product.
• 59.3% (89) respondents says that a complex nutrition label doesn’t deter them from buying
the product.
33
Q22.How confident are you that the nutrition labelling information provided is
accurate?
1)Not at all 2)a little bit 3)Somewhat
4)quite a lot 5)Very much
Table 4.22
FREQUENCY PERCENT
NOT AT ALL 21 14.0
A LITTLE BIT 36 24.0
SOMEWHAT 60 40.0
QUITE A LOT 21 14.0
VERY MUCH 12 8.0
TOTAL 150 100.0
Figure 4.22
How confident are you that the nutrition

labelling information provided is accurate
Not at all
a little bit
Somewhat
quite a lot
Very much
34
Conclusion:
• 21% (14) respondents says that they are not confident about the content in the nutrition
label.
• 24% (36) respondents says that they are little confident about the content in the nutrition
label
• 40% (60) respondents says that they are somewhat confident about the content in the
nutrition label
• 14% (21) respondents says that they are quite a lot confident about the content in the
nutrition label
• 8% (25) respondents says that they very much confident about the content in the nutrition
label
35
Q23. What are the most helpful characteristics of the nutrition facts labelling when
deciding to buy a food product? (where 6 is the most important and 1 is least important)
1)Font 2)color of label 3)size of label 4)visibility 5)Front of packet 6)Front of
back of packets.
Table 4.23.1:
Attributes 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total
1.Font 53 11 15 20 28 23 150
2.Color of 21 49 11 18 27 24 150
label
3.Size of 13 22 51 26 19 19 150
label
4.Visibility 12 15 41 27 19 36 150
5.Front of 10 39 18 29 37 17 150
packet
6.Front and 41 15 15 30 20 29 150
back of
packet
Table 4.23.2:
Attributes Total
1.Font [53*1] [11*2] [15*3] [20*4] [28*5] [23*6] 478
2.Color of [21*1] [49*2] [11*3] [18*4] [27*5] [24*6] 503
label
3.Size of [13*1] [22*2] [51*3] [26*4] [19*5] [19*6] 523
label
4.Visibility [12*1] [15*2] [41*3] [27*4] [19*5] [36*6] 584
5.Front of [10*1] [39*2] [18*3] [29*4] [37*5] [17*6] 545
packet
6.Front [41*1] [15*2] [15*3] [30*4] [20*5] [29*6] 510
and back
of packet
Conclusion: The highest total number will get the first preference ranking. The results show
the following rank order:6. Visibility 5. Front of packet 4. Size of label 3. Front and back of
packet 2. Color of label 1. Font
36
24. When you are comparing two similar product, on what basis do you prefer to buy a
product?
1)low fat 2)low calories 3)low carbohydrates
4)high protein 5)other
Table 4.24
FREQUENCY PERCENT
LOW FAT 48 32.0
LOW CALORIES 19 12.7
LOW CARBOHYDRATES 22 14.7
HIGH PROTEIN 43 28.7
OTHER 18 12.0
TOTAL 150 100.0
Figure 4.24
When you are comparing two similar

product, on what basis do you prefer to
buy a product
48
Frequency
43
19 22
18
LOW FAT LOW CALORIES LOW HIGH PROTEIN OTHER

CARBOHYDRATES
Conclusion:
• 48% of them prefer to buy a product on basis of low fat.
• 48% of them prefer to buy a product on basis of low calories.
• 48% of them prefer to buy a product on basis of low carbohydrate.
• 48% of them prefer to buy a product on basis of high protein.
• 48% of them prefer to buy a product on basis of other.
37
CHAPTER 5: CHI-
SQUARE TESTS
38
Age * What is your perspective on the amount of information
on the nutrition labels
Null Hypothesis (H0) : There is no association between age of people

and the amount of information on the nutritional labels
Alternative Hypothesis (H1) : There is association difference between
age of people and the amount of information on the nutritional labels.
Age * What is your perspective on the amount of information on

the nutrition labels
What is your perspective on the amount of

information on the nutrition labels
Too Right
much amount Not enough No opinion Total
Age Below Count 0 13 3 13 29
18 Expected 3.1 13.1 5.4 7.3 29.0
Count
18-35 Count 6 32 11 7 56
Expected 6.0 25.4 10.5 14.2 56.0
Count
36-55 Count 6 9 9 11 35
Expected 3.7 15.9 6.5 8.9 35.0
Count
above Count 4 14 5 7 30
55 Expected 3.2 13.6 5.6 7.6 30.0
Count
Total Count 16 68 28 38 150
Expected 16.0 68.0 28.0 38.0 150.0
Count
39
Chi-Square Tests
Asymptotic
Significance
Value df (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 20.029a 9 .018
Likelihood Ratio 23.416 9 .005
Linear-by-Linear 1.078 1 .299
Association
N of Valid Cases 150
Conclusion:- From the above table, we observe that the value of p < 0.05 i.e.,( 0.018< 0.05).
Therefore, we reject
the Null Hypothesis and conclude that there is a association between age of people and the
amount of information on the nutritional labels.
C= = 0.343. Hence there is 34.3 % weak association.
40
Education * How understandable do you find the information about the
content on labels of food packages
Null Hypothesis (H0) : There is no association between education of people and

their perspective about the content on the labels of food packages.
Alternative Hypothesis (H1) : There is association difference between education of
people and their perspective about the content on the labels of food packages.
Education * How understandable do you find the information about

the content on labels of food packages
How understandable do you find the information about the content on labels of
food packages
Easy Moderate Hard Total
Education Masters Count 29 19 4 52
degree or Expected 20.8 25.0 6.2 52.0
higher Count
Bachelors Count 20 28 4 52
degree Expected 20.8 25.0 6.2 52.0
Count
High Count 5 21 7 33
school Expected 13.2 15.8 .0 33.0
degree or Count
equivalen
t
Less than Count 6 4 3 13
a high Expected 5.2 6.2 1.6 13.0
school Count
degree
Total Count 60 72 18 150
Expected 60.0 72.0 18.0 150.0
Count
41
Chi-Square Tests
Asymptotic
Significance
Value df (2-sided)
Association
Conclusion: From the above table, we observe that the value of p < 0.05 i.e.,( 0.006 < 0.05).
Therefore, we reject the Null Hypothesis and conclude there is association between education of
people and their perspective about the content on the labels of food packages.
C= = 0.328. Hence there is 32.8 % weak association.
42
Education * How important do you consider nutrition labelling
Null Hypothesis (H0) : There is no association between education of people and their
perspective on the importance of nutrition labelling.
Alternative Hypothesis (H1) : There is association difference between education of
people and their perspective on the importance of nutrition labelling.
Education * How important do you consider nutrition labelling
How important do you consider nutrition

labelling to be
Minimal
Somewha ly
Very t importa Not
important important nt important Total
Educati Masters Count 33 15 3 0 51
on degree or Expected 30.5 12.7 5.5 2.4 51.0
higher Count
Bachelors Count 34 8 8 2 52
degree Expected 31.1 12.9 5.6 2.4 52.0
Count
High school Count 12 12 4 5 33

degree or Expected 19.7 8.2 3.5 1.6 33.0
equivalent Count
Less than a Count 10 2 1 0 13

high school Expected 7.8 3.2 1.4 .6 13.0
degree Count
Total Count 89 37 16 7 149
43
Chi-Square Tests
Asymptotic
Significance (2-
Value df sided)
Association
No of Valid Cases 149
Conclusion:- : From the above table, we observe that the value of p < 0.05 i.e.,( 0.010< 0.05).
Therefore, we reject the Null Hypothesis and conclude that there is association between education
of people and their perspective on the importance of nutrition labelling
C= = 0.356 .
Hence there is 35.6 % weak association
44
Gender * Are you health conscious
Null Hypothesis (H0) : There is no association between gender of people and their health
consciousness.
.Alternative Hypothesis (H1) : There is association difference between gender of people and
their health consciousness.
Gender * Are you health conscious
Are you health conscious

Not at
Extreme Moderate all Total
Gender Male Count 22 45 6 73
Expected 19.6 43.6 9.8 73.0
Count
Female Count 18 44 14 76
Expected 20.4 45.4 10.2 76.0
Count
Expected 40.0 89.0 20.0 149.0
Count
Chi-Square Tests
Asymptotic
Significance (2-
Value df sided)
Pearson Chi- 3.552a 2 .169
Square
Association
45
Conclusion: From the above table, we observe that the value of p > 0.05 i.e.,(
0.169 > 0.05). Therefore, we accept the null hypothesis and conclude that there is
no association between gender of people and their health consciousness.
46
Occupation * Can you possibly let us know the reason
for not being able to refer the nutrition label every time
you purchase a product_Time consuming
Null Hypothesis (H0) : There is no association between occupation of people and

time consumed for not being able to refer the nutrition label every time when a
product is purchased.
Alternative Hypothesis (H1) : There is association difference between occupation of
people time consumed for not being able to refer the nutrition label every time
when a product is purchased.
Can you possibly let us know

the reason for not being able to
refer the nutrition label
everytime you purchase a
product_Time consuming
Not
Selected selected 3 Total
Occupa Student Count 16 24 0 40
tion Expected 16.0 23.7 .3 40.0
Count
Self Count 13 14 1 28
Employed Expected 11.2 16.6 .2 28.0
Count
Private Count 9 21 0 30
Employee Expected 12.0 17.8 .2 30.0
Count
Govt Count 11 15 0 26
Employee Expected 10.4 15.4 .2 26.0
Count
Other Count 11 15 0 26
Expected 10.4 15.4 .2 26.0
Count
Expected 60.0 89.0 1.0 150.0
Count
47
Chi-Square Tests
Asymptotic
Significance
Value df (2-sided)
Linear-by-Linear .008 1 .928
Association
Conclusion:- From the above table, we observe that the value of p > 0.05 i.e.,( 0.594> 0.05).
Therefore, we accept the Null Hypothesis and conclude that there is no association between
occupation of people and time consumed for not being able to refer the nutrition label every time
when a product is purchased
48
How much influence does nutrition content have on your
buying decision * Do you believe nutritional labels would be
used more often if they were a simpler format .
Null Hypothesis (H0) : There is no association between simpler format of nutrition labels and
buying decisions as one who is health conscious will definitely refer to the nutrition label
irrespective of its format.
Alternative Hypothesis (H1) : There is association difference between simpler format of
nutrition labels and buying decisions as one who is health conscious will definitely refer to the
nutrition label irrespective of its format.
Do you believe nutritional

labels would be used more
often if they were a simpler
format
Yes )No Maybe Total
How much A great deal Count 22 6 4 32
influence does of influence Expecte 15.8 4.7 11.5 32.0
nutrition d Count
content have A fair amount Count 29 6 14 49
on your buying of influence Expecte 24.2 7.2 17.6 49.0
decision d Count
Some Count 13 5 19 37
influence Expecte 18.3 5.4 13.3 37.0
d Count
Little influence Count 7 1 12 20
Expecte 9.9 2.9 7.2 20.0
d Count
No influence Count 3 4 5 12
Expecte 5.9 1.8 4.3 12.0
d Count
Expecte 74.0 22.0 54.0 150.0
d Count
.
49
Chi-Square Tests
Asymptotic
Significance
Value df (2-sided)
Linear-by-Linear 14.386 1 <.001
Association
Conclusion:- : From the above table, we observe that the value of p < 0.05 i.e.,( 0.003< 0.05).
Therefore, we reject the Null Hypothesis and conclude that there is association between simpler
format of nutrition labels and buying decisions as one who is health conscious will definitely refer
to the nutrition label irrespective of its format
C= = 0.367 % .
Hence there is 36.7 % .weak association.
50
How often do you read a nutrition label * Are you health
conscious
Null Hypothesis (H0) : There is no association between people who read nutrition labels often and
their health consciousness .
Alternative Hypothesis (H1) : There is association difference between people who read nutrition
labels often and their health consciousness .
Are you health conscious

Moderat Not at
Extreme e all Total
How often do you Always Count 15 6 0 21
read a nutrition Expected 5.6 12.5 2.8 21.0
label Count
Often Count 11 24 0 35
Expected 9.4 20.9 4.7 35.0
Count
Sometim Count 9 30 5 44
es Expected 11.8 26.3 5.9 44.0
Count
Rarely Count 5 21 6 32
Expected 8.6 19.1 4.3 32.0
Count
Never Count 0 8 9 17
Expected 4.6 10.2 2.3 17.0
Count
Expected 40.0 89.0 20.0 149.0
Count
51
Chi-Square Tests
Asymptotic
Significance
Value df (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 55.708a 8 <.001
Likelihood Ratio 55.415 8 <.001
Linear-by-Linear 40.534 1 <.001
Association
Conclusion: : From the above table, we observe that the value of p < 0.05 i.e.,( 0.001< 0.05).
Therefore, we reject the Null Hypothesis and conclude that there is association between people
who read nutrition labels often and their health consciousness
C= = 0.52 .
Hence there is 52 % moderate association.
52
How often do you read a nutrition label * Reading the nutrition
labels can help you make informed food choices
Null Hypothesis (H0) : There is no association between people who read nutrition labels often
and their food choices.
Alternative Hypothesis (H1) : There is association difference between people who read
nutrition
labels often and their food choices.
How often do you read a nutrition label * Reading the nutrition

labels can help you make informed food choices
Reading the nutrition labels can help

you make informed food choices
Strongl
y
disagre Disagr Neutr Strongl
e ee al Agree y agree Total
How often Always Count 1 1 1 6 12 21
do you read Expecte 2.2 2.1 4.1 5.7 6.9 21.0
a nutrition d Count
label Often Count 1 3 9 7 16 36
Expecte 3.8 3.6 7.0 9.8 11.8 36.0
d Count
Sometim Count 3 2 7 18 14 44
es Expecte 4.7 4.4 8.5 12.0 14.4 44.0
d Count
Rarely Count 3 7 9 7 6 32
Expecte 3.4 3.2 6.2 8.7 10.5 32.0
d Count
Never Count 8 2 3 3 1 17
Expecte 1.8 1.7 3.3 4.6 5.6 17.0
d Count
Total Count 16 15 29 41 49 150
Expecte 16.0 15.0 29.0 41.0 49.0 150.
d Count 0
53
Chi-Square Tests
Asymptotic
Significance
Value df (2-sided)
Association
education of people and their thinking is that the information provided in the nutrition labels are
accurate.
54
Education * How confident are you that the nutrition labelling
Null Hypothesis (H0) : There is no association between education of people and their thinking
is that the information provided in the nutrition labels are accurate.
Alternative Hypothesis (H1) : There is association difference between education of people and
their thinking is that the information provided in the nutrition labels are accurate.
How confident are you that the nutrition

labelling information provided is accurate
a little Some quite a Very
Not at all bit what lot much Total
Educati Masters Count 8 15 21 5 3 52
on degree or Expec 7.3 12.8 20.5 7.3 4.2 52.0
higher ted
Count
Bachelors Count 5 15 21 7 4 52
degree Expec 7.3 12.8 20.5 7.3 4.2 52.0
ted
Count
High Count 7 5 13 5 3 33
school Expec 4.6 8.1 13.0 4.6 2.6 33.0
degree or ted
equivalent Count
Less than Count 1 2 4 4 2 13
a high Expec 1.8 3.2 5.1 1.8 1.0 13.0
school ted
degree Count
Total Count 21 37 59 21 12 150
Expec 21.0 37.0 59.0 21.0 12.0 150.
ted 0
Count
55
Chi-Square Tests
Asymptotic
Significance
Value df (2-sided)
Association
education of people and their thinking is that the information provided in the nutrition labels are
accurate.
56
CHAPTER 6: INFERENCE
➢ 49.3% (74) of the respondents are males; 50.7% (76) of the respondents are females.
➢ 20% (29) respondents are less than 18 years of age; 37.3% (56) respondents are of the age
group 18-35; 22.7% (35) respondents are of the age group 36-55; 20% (30) respondents
are above the age of 55.
➢ 34.7% (47) respondents hold a Master’s degree or higher; 34.7% (65) respondents hold a
Bachelor’s degree; 22.7% (29) respondents hold a High school degree or equivalent;
8.7% (9) respondents hold Less than a high school degree.
➢ 26.7% (40) respondents are students; 18.7% (28) respondents are self-employed; 20%
(30) respondents are private-employees; 8% (12) respondents are government employees;
17.3% (26) respondents do not belong to any of the above 4 categories of occupation.
➢ 11.3% (17) respondents have an annual income of less than Rs. 1,00,000;
15% (22) respondents have an annual income in the range of Rs. 1,00,000 – Rs. 2,50,000;
19% (29) respondents have an annual income in the range of Rs. 2,50,000 – Rs. 5,00,000;
23% (35) respondents have an annual income in the range of Rs. 5,00,000 and above;
17% (25) respondents do not have an annual income.
➢ 42% (63) respondents are married; 58% (87) respondents are unmarried.
➢ 14% (21) respondents always read nutrition label; 24% (36) respondents often read
nutrition label: 29.3% (44) respondents sometimes read nutrition label; 21.3% (32)
respondents rarely read nutrition label; 11.3.% (17) respondents read never nutrition label
.
➢ 26.7% (40) of the respondents are extremely health conscious; 60% (90) of the
respondents are moderately health conscious; 13.3% (20) of the respondents are not
health conscious.
➢ 21.3% (32) respondents have great influence with the nutrition labels; 32.7% (49)
respondents have a fair amount of influence with the nutrition labels; 24.7% (37) of the
respondents have some influence with the nutrition labels; 13.3% (20) respondents have
little influence with the nutrition labels; 8% (12) respondents have no influence with the
nutrition labels.
➢ 40% (60) respondents find the nutrition labels easy; 48% (70) respondents find the
nutrition labels moderate ;12% (18) of the respondent find the nutritional labels hard.
57
➢ 10.7% (16) respondents find the perspective on the amount of information on the
nutrition labels as too much; 45.3% (68) respondents find the perspective on the amount
of information on the nutrition labels as right amount; 18.7% (28) respondents find the
perspective on the amount of information on the nutrition labels as not enough; 25.3%
(38) respondents find the perspective on the amount of information on the nutrition labels
as no opinion.
➢ 60.0% (90) respondents consider nutrition labelling as very important; 24.7% (37)
respondents consider nutrition labelling as very important; 10.7% (16) respondents
consider nutrition labelling as very important; 4.7% (7) respondents consider nutrition
labelling as very important.
➢ 22.0% (33) respondents finds nutritional information panels as confusing; 27.3% (41)
respondents does not find nutritional information panels as confusing; 40.0% (60)
respondents sometimes finds nutritional information panels as confusing; 10.0% (16)
respondents are not sure about finding the nutritional information panels as confusing.
➢ 49.3% (74) respondents believes that nutritional labels can be used more often if they
were a simpler format; 14.7% (22) respondents do not believe that nutritional labels can
be used more often if they were a simpler format; 36% (54) respondents thinks that
maybe the nutritional labels can be used more often if they were a simpler format.
➢ 36.7% (55) respondents will avoid buying product if there is no nutrition label; 25.3%
(38) respondents will not avoid buying product if there is no nutrition label; 38.0% (57)
respondents will sometimes avoid buying product if there is no nutrition label.
➢ 42.7% (64) respondents Are able to evaluate the quality of the product using nutrition
labels; 26.7% (40) respondents Are not able to evaluate the quality of the product using
nutrition labels; 0.7% (46) respondents are sometimes able to evaluate the quality of the
product using nutrition labels.
➢ 40.7% (61) respondent says that a complex nutrition label deters them from buying the
product; 59.3% (89) respondents says that a complex nutrition label doesn’t deter them
from buying the product.
➢ 21% (14) respondents says that they are not confident about the content in the nutrition
label; 24% (36) respondents says that they are little confident about the content in the
nutrition label; 40% (60) respondents says that they are somewhat confident about the
content in the nutrition label; 14% (21) respondents says that they are quite a lot
confident about the content in the nutrition label; 8% (25) respondents says that they
very much confident about the content in the nutrition label.
58
CHI-SQUARE RESULTS:
➢ There is a association between age and the amount of information on nutrition label.
➢ There is a association between education of people and their perspective about the
content on the labels of food packages.
➢ There is a association between education of people and their perspective on the
importance of nutrition labelling.
➢ There is a association between education of people and checking the nutrition label
as it is just a matter of literacy and also not all educated people would check the
nutrition labels.
➢ There is no association between gender of people and their health consciousness.
➢ There is no association between occupation of people and time consumed for not
being able to refer the nutrition label every time when a product is purchased.
➢ There is a association between simpler format of nutrition labels and buying
decisions as one who is health conscious will definitely refer to the nutrition label
irrespective of its format.
➢ There is a association between people who read nutrition labels often and their health
consciousness .
➢ There is a association between people who read nutrition labels often and their food
choices.
➢ There is no association between education of people and their thinking is that the
information provided in the nutrition labels are accurate.
59
NULL HYPOTHESIS
1) Age * What is your perspective on the amount of information on the nutrition labels
• Null Hypothesis (H0) : There is no association between age of people and the
amount of information on the nutritional labels.
2)Education * How understandable do you find the information about the content on labels
of food packages
• Null Hypothesis (H0) : There is no association between education of people and

their perspective about the content on the labels of food packages.
3)Education * How important do you consider nutrition labelling

their perspective on the importance of nutrition labelling
4)Education * How often do you read a nutrition label

checking the nutrition label as it is just a matter of literacy and also not all
educated people would check the nutrition labels.
5)Gender * Are you health conscious
• Null Hypothesis (H0) : There is no association between gender of people and their
health consciousness
6)Occupation * Can you possibly let us know the reason for not being able to refer the nutrition
label everytime you purchase a product_Time consuming
• Null Hypothesis (H0) : There is no association between occupation of people

and time consumed for not being able to refer the nutrition label every time when
a product is purchased.
7)How much influence does nutrition content have on your buying decision * Do you
believe nutritional labels would be used more often if they were a simpler format
• Null Hypothesis (H0) : There is no association between simpler format of

nutrition labels and buying decisions as one who is health conscious will
definitely refer to the nutrition label irrespective of its format.
8)How often do you read a nutrition label * Are you health conscious
• Null Hypothesis (H0) : There is no association between people who read

nutrition labels often and their health consciousness .
60
9)How often do you read a nutrition label * Reading the nutrition labels can help you make
informed food choices
• Null Hypothesis (H0) : There is no association between people who read

nutrition labels often and their food choices.
61
CHAPTER 7:PROJECT REPORT
❖ It can be conclude that 24% respondents read nutritional labels often

❖ It can be concluded, from the response obtained, that 26% of respondents are
extremely health conscious while 60% of respondents are moderately health
conscious
❖ 32.7% of the respondents have a fair amount of influence on nutrition content on
their buying decision.
❖ Majority of the respondents found nutritional labels moderate.
❖ It can be concluded that(45.3%) respondents thinks that nutrition labels have right
amount of information.
❖ (60%)of the respondents consider nutritional labelling to be very important.
❖ From the response, it evident that 43.3% of the respondents respond that the labels
are to small in the nutritional label.
❖ According to 56.7% of the respondents, fat content is the most important content in
the nutrition label.
❖ Majority of the respondents (45.3%) read the nutrition label out of curiosity.
❖ 22% of the respondents found the nutrition panel confusing.
❖ Almost 50% of the respondents believe that nutrition label could have been in
simpler format.
❖ Nearly 40% of the respondents will avoid buying product if there is no nutrition
label.
❖ 42.7% are able to evaluate the quality of the product using nutrition label.
❖ Majority of the respondents (60%) will not avoid buying complex nutrition label.
❖ From the response, it evident that visibility is the most important characteristics of
the nutrition facts labelling when deciding to buy a food product.
❖ 40% of the respondents are somewhat confident that the nutrition labelling
information is accurate.
❖ There is weak association between age of the respondents and their perspective on
the amount of information on the nutritional labels.
❖ There is no association between education of people and their perspective on the
importance of nutrition labelling.
❖ There is weak association between education of people and checking the nutrition
label as it is just a matter of literacy and also not all educated people would check
nutritional.
❖ There is a moderate association between occupation of people and time consumed
for not being able to refer the nutrition labels every time when product is purchased.
62
CHAPTER :8 CONCLUSION
150 respondents have been taken into consideration to a fill a questionnaire on our survey
related to digital payments.
The main aim of this survey was to understand people’s perception about nutrition labels.
The respondents are distributed over all age groups and gender.
The following observations have been made from our survey:
➢ It can be concluded that nutritional labelling is very crucial in influencing consumers

to purchase a product.
➢ It has been shown that a different group possesses different level of awareness
regarding the nutritional labelling
➢ Fat content(trans fat &saturated fat) on the nutrition label is the most important
among the respondents
➢ Majority of the respondents purchase pre-packaged food without consulting the
respective labels because of the time constraint.
➢ Majority of the respondents says that they are somewhat confident about the content
in the nutrition label
➢ It can be concluded that nutritional labels can be used more often if they were a
simpler format
➢ Majority of the respondents are able to evaluate the quality of the product using
nutrition labels.
63
CHAPTER: 9
A STUDY ON NUTRITION LABELS
64
1.Gender
1)Male 2)Female
2.Age
1)Below 18 2)18-35 3)36-55 4)above 55
3.Education
1)Masters degree or higher 2)Bachelors degree
3)High school degree or equivalent 4)Less than a high school degree
4.Occupation
1)Student 2)Self Employed 3)Private Employee
4)Govt employee 5)Other
5.Annual Income
1)Less than 1,00,000 2)1,00,000-2,50,000
3)2,50,000-5,00,000 4)5,00,000 and above
5)Not applicable
6.Marital status
1)Married 2)Unmarried
7.How often do you read a nutrition label?
1)Always 2)Often 3)Sometimes 4)Rarely
5)Never
8.Are you health conscious?
1)Extreme 2)Moderate 3)Not at all
9.How much influence does nutrition content have on your buying decision?
1)A great deal of influence 2)A fair amount of influence
3)Some influence 4)Little influence
5)No influence
10.How understandable do you find the information about the content on labels of food
packages?
1)Easy 2) Moderate 3)Hard
11.What is your perspective on the amount of information on the nutrition labels?
1)Too much 2) Right amount 3) Not enough
4)No opinion
65
12.How important do you consider nutrition labelling to be?
1)Very important 2)Somewhat important
3)Minimally important 4)Not important
13Can you possibly let us know the reason for not being able to refer the nutrition label
everytime you purchase a product?(Multiple select)
1)Time consuming 2)I don`t understand it 3)Cannot find where the
label is 4)Labels are too small
5)Don’t have this habit 6)There is no need to do so
7)Others
14.Which information on the label is very important?(Multiple select)
1)Fat content(trans fat &saturated fat) 2) Cholesterol content
3)Sodium content(salt) 4)Carbohydrate content(including sugar)
5)Protein content
15.Rank the following in order of preference when you purchase a product (where 4 is the
most important and 1 is least important)
1)Low calorie
2)High protein
3)Low fat
4)Low carbohydrate
16.Reasons for reading nutrition information on food packages?(Multiple choice)
1)Percent product comparisons 2)Curiosity
3)Advice from nutrition counselling 4)Family member habits
5)Special dietary needs
17.Do you find nutritional information panels confusing?
1)Yes 2)No 3)Sometimes 4)Not sure
18.Do you believe nutritional labels would be used more often if they were a simpler format?
1)Yes 2)No 3)Maybe
19.Will you avoid buying product if there is no nutrition label?
1)Yes 2)No 3) Sometimes
20.Are you able to evaluate the quality of the product using nutrition labels?
66
1)Yes 2)No
21.Does a complex nutrition label deter you from buying the product?
1)Yes 2)No
22.How confident are you that the nutrition labelling information provided is accurate?
1)Not at all 2)a little bit 3)Somewhat
4)quite a lot 5)Very much
23.Please rank in order of importance, the most helpful characteristics of the nutrition facts
labelling when deciding to buy a food product from 1 to 6 where 6 is the most important and
1 is least important
1)Font
2)Colour of label
3)Size of label
4)Visibility
5)Front of packet
6)Front and back of packet
24. When you are comparing two similar product, on what basis do you prefer to buy a
product?
1)low fat 2)low calories 3)low carbohydrates
4)high protein 5)other
25.How often do you read the nutrition label for the following products?
Frequently Occasionally Rarely Not at all
Dairy
Products
Processed
Meat
Pulses
Beverages
Snacks
Other
67
26.Select the appropriate option for the following
Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
agree disagree
There is a lack of
awareness on the
importance of nutrition
labels
A low carbohydrate,
high protein diet is a
healthy way to lose
weight
There are so many
different
recommendations about
nutrition that it’s hard to
know which ones to
follow
Reading the nutrition

labels can help you
make informed food
choices
Serving size and
number of servings will
influence the buying
decision
68
❖ https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305814563_Nutritional_Labelling_
Awareness_and_Its_Effects_towards_Consumer_Behaviour_in_Purchasing_P
roduct
❖ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/food-label-guide/
❖ https://environmental-conscience.com/food-labels-pros-cons/
❖ file:///C:/Users/GLORIA/Downloads/J.Appl.Environ.Biol.Sci.56S62-
682015.pdf
❖ https://edepot.wur.nl/495930
69

Tanispdffinal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Tanispdffinal

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tanispdffinal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

“A STUDY ON NUTRITIONAL LABELS”

UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF

St. Francis College for Women

Ms. ANAKHA .P.NAIR (121319044004)

Internal Examiner External Examiner

Head of the Department Controller of Examination

Ms. ANAKHA .P.NAIR (121319044004)

Ms. ANAKHA .P.NAIR

S.NO TOPIC PAGE NO

4 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE AND REVIEW 6

CHAPTER 4: STATISTICAL ANALYSIS -

7 CHAPTER 5: CHI-SQUARE TESTS 38

9 CHAPTER 7: PROJECT REPORT 62

12 CHAPTER 10: BIBILOGRAPHY 69

Table No. Title Page No.

Table No. Title Page No.

4.7 How often do you read a nutrition label 18

4.8 Are you health conscious 19

4.9 How much influence does nutrition content have on 20

4.12 How important do you consider nutrition labelling 24

4.18 Do you believe nutritional labels would be used 30

Types of Nutritional Labels :

Advantages of nutrition label:

Disadvantages of nutrition label:

➢ To identify the nutritional labelling awareness among different groups of consumers

Mode of data collection:

Data is collected through the questionnaire method.

Analysis was done using the SPSS Statistics 28th version.

STATISTICAL TECHNIQUES USED FOR DATA ANALYSIS

Chi-square test for independence of attributes:

Where N=total frequency, χ2=calculated.

TOTAL 150 100.0

1) Below 18 2) 18-35 3) 36-55 4) Above 55

TOTAL 150 100.0

Master’s degree or higher 52 34.7

High school degree or 33 22.0

TOTAL 150 100.0

TOTAL 150 100.0

Less than 1,00,000 22 15

5,00,00 and above 25 16

TOTAL 150 100

15% Less than 1,00,000

TOTAL 150 100.0

HOW OFTEN DO YOU READ A

NOT AT ALL 20 13.3

TOTAL 150 100.0

TOTAL 150 100.0

TOTAL 150 100.0

How understandable do you find the

TOO MUCH 16 10.7

RIGHT AMOUNT 68 45.3

NOT ENOUGH 28 18.7

TOTAL 150 100.0

Very important 90 60.0

Somewhat important 37 24.7

Minimally important 16 10.7

Not important 7 4.7