In the process of making decisions about purchasing specific food products, consumers pay attention to various factors characterizing the food itself, as well as the terms of sale, labelling, price (Kumar & Kapoor, 2017), taste, brand, product appearance or food quality (Gelici-Zeko et al., 2013; Eldesouky & Mesías, 2014). In developed countries, the influence of advertising campaigns on the choice of food products is also noted (Prowse et al., 2020). Research shows that consumers indicate food packaging as one of the primary sources of information about food (Gutkowska & Ozimek, 2005; Alibabić et al., 2011), and this information function of packaging is now becoming more and more critical for consumers.

The labelling of products placed on the market, including food, must include mandatory information, the presence of which on the packaging results from applicable legal provisions. In the EU countries, Regulation (EC) No. 178/2002 generally regulates issues related to the labelling, advertising and presentation of food. As emphasized in this legal act, the advertising and presentation of food and feed products, taking into account their appearance, shape, and packaging, as well as the arrangement and place of display and the information provided about them, may not provide consumers with incorrect information. In this respect, detailed rules for food labelling are set out in Regulation (EU) No. 1169/2011, which defines food information as “information about a food made available to the final consumer using a label, other accompanying materials or other means, including modern technological tools or oral communication’ (p. 3). Food labelling, in turn, includes “any inscriptions, particulars, trademarks, brand names, illustrations or symbols relating to a food and affixed to any packaging, document, leaflet, label, band or ring accompanying such food or relating to it’ (Regulation…, 2011, p. 4). Also important are the requirements regarding hygienic conditions related to the sale of products, which are regulated in particular by EU regulations such as: Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs; and Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin.

A product’s price should also be clearly displayed at the point of sale. This issue is regulated in Poland by the Act of May 9, 2014 on information on prices of goods and services (Act…, 2014), which implements Directive 98/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of February 16, 1998, on consumer protection by displaying the prices of products offered to consumers, together with the implementing act, i.e. the Regulation of the Minister of Development and Technology of December 19, 2022, on the visibility of prices of goods and services (Regulation…, 2022).

The modern consumer is becoming more and more open to trying different product categories at regional, national, European, and global levels (Angowski & Jarosz-Angowska, 2020). Research shows that food shopping habits are influenced, among other factors, by age, gender, place of residence, and education level (Aday & Yener, 2014; Grande Covián et al., 2014; de Lourdes Samaniego-Vaesken et al., 2018; Bassola et al., 2020; Lima et al., 2021). Moreover, the young generation, representing the future of society, seems to have a completely different approach and different ideas than the older generation (Kanchanapibul et al., 2014).

In this study, we resolved to concentrate on young buyers, who constitute an essential group for the development of Poland’s economy – given that people between 18 and 34 years of age constitute over 18% of the population (Statistics Poland, 2021). However, the definitions of ‘young consumers’ used in previous research vary. For example, Solomon (2017) identifies young consumers as individuals up to 24 years old, whereas other publications define them as individuals up to 35 years old, such as Bakewell & Mitchell (2003), Olejniczuk-Merta (2008), Nyrhinen et al. (2024). In his research, Arnett (2000) focused on young consumers aged 18–25. He emphasized that this period of life, which he termed ‘emerging adulthood,’ is neither adolescence nor early adulthood and differs both theoretically and empirically. This stage is characterized by intense identity exploration and experimentation with various social roles, translating into specific consumer behaviors. Following Arnett’s (2000) research, we focused on the 18–25 age group of young consumers.

The aim of the study was to investigate the influence of selected factors on the purchase of food by young consumers, using the CAWI method (computer-assisted Internet interview technique). The survey was created in Google Forms, an online survey collection tool.

2. Materials and method

The survey was conducted in October-November 2020, using purposive sampling. Participants were specifically selected based on two criteria: age (18–25 years) and their status as students. It was administered online via a publicly accessible Google Forms questionnaire, which included both the research questions and additional questions regarding the respondents’ demographic and socio-economic characteristics.

The study used a 5-point Likert scale to gauge the extent to which a given respondent pays attention to particular selected factors when purchasing food (a score of 1 indicating no attention to this factor at all, a score of 5 indicating high attention to this factor). We treat the ordinal scales as quasi-quantitative scales for analytical purposes, calculating means and standard deviations (SD) via descriptive analysis. The reliability of the scales was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha, which was 0.829 – indicating satisfactory reliability (as indicated by values above 0.7)

To investigate the complexity of factors determining consumers’ food choices, we examined the validity of selected 17 elements related to food product characteristics and conditions of food sales. The following factors were analysed: the food storage method at the store, the storage conditions, appropriate hygienic conditions at the point of sale, food price, the appearance, taste and smell of the product, the condition of the product packaging, and general information appearing on the food product packaging – country of origin, energy/nutritional value of the food product, product weight/volume, product composition, nutrient content (e.g. proteins, carbohydrates), shelf life/date of minimum durability, the ecological origin of the product, manufacturer, and brand.

A 5-point scale was likewise used in subsequent questions in the questionnaire: a score of 1 meant that the respondent “completely disagrees’ with a given statement, 2 – “generally disagrees’; 3 – “neither agrees nor disagrees’, 4 – “generally agrees’, and a score of 5 – “completely agrees’.

Factor and cluster analyses, common in consumer research, were applied to analyse the resulting data. First, factor analysis was used to identify the relationship between the factors, applying the varimax rotation method. The number of factors was determined based on the following criteria: a scree plot test, components with an eigenvalue of 1, and the interpretability of the factors. Factors with loadings above 0.40 were considered. Data factorability was confirmed with the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) (with a cut-off value of 0.60) measure of sampling adequacy and Bartlett’s test of sphericity (p ≤ 0.05).

In the second step of analysis, non-hierarchical clustering was performed to obtain segments of respondents, using the k-means clustering method. Clusters are formed by evaluating dissimilarities and similarities of intrinsic characteristics between different cases. We calculated the correlation ratio (CR) for each variable applied in our cluster analysis and conducted cross-tabulation with Chi2-statistics to profile the clusters. SPSS for Windows statistical software (9.0 version) was used for statistical analysis.

The questionnaire also included questions about the respondents’ demographic characteristics, such as gender, labour market status, number of people in the household, self-assessment of the household’s financial status, and place of residence. These detailed characteristics of the respondents are presented in Table 1.

The study involved 702 student participants, all between 18 and 25 years old, 63.4% women and 36.6% men. Most often, respondents lived in households of 4 or 3 people (31.5% and 21.5%, respectively). The respondents were least likely to declare that they lived in single-person households and those with 6 or more people (7.7% and 8.4%, respectively). Two-fifths of respondents (42.9%) were gainfully employed, 57.1% were not employed. At the same time, almost half of the respondents (48.1%) described the financial situation of their household as good, while one-third (34.9%) described it as average. The respondents represented places of residence of various sizes, most often declaring that they lived in a city with a population of over 100,000 inhabitants (36.9%) and rural areas (35.5%).

3. Results

The most respondents declared that when shopping for food, they pay attention primarily to the price (mean score 4.43) and the use-by date / date of minimum durability (mean 4.42). Factors such as the ‘taste and aroma’ of a food product (mean 4.37), ‘condition of packaging’ (mean 4.35), ‘appearance’ (4.34), and ‘hygienic conditions’ (4.24) also achieved an average above four (Table 2).

The factor ‘information on the packaging’ obtained a mean score of 3.86. The respondents least often indicated such factors as ‘organic origin’ (2.86) and ‘country of origin’ (2.76) (Table 2).

3.1. Factors influencing food choice

Exploratory factor analysis was performed to examine the relationship between the observed variables. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin value was 0.808. The result indicated that the choice of analysis and the number of factors were correct. The result of Bartlett’s test of sphericity x2 = 3985.855, p ≤ 0.01, indicated that correlations between items were high enough to perform the analysis.

EFA was conducted using maximum likelihood extraction with varimax rotation (Table 3), extracting four factors. It was assumed that the components of the coefficient are those variables that, after rounding, obtain absolute values equal to 0.4 or greater. All factors were identified with an eigenvalue higher than the Kaiser criterion 1. The first factor’s eigenvalue is 4.665, which explains 27.44% of the variance. The second factor’s eigenvalue equals 2.343, which explains 13.78% of the variance. The third factor’s eigenvalue equals 1.630, which explains 9.59% of the variance. The fourth factor`s eigenvalue equals 1.214, which explains 7.14% of the variance. All four factors taken together explained 57.95% of the total variance.

The first factor, summarizing five variables, was positively correlated with the tendency of respondents to read food labels and pay attention to product composition, hence it was named ‘Information’. The second factor, summarizing four variables, was positively related to variables expressing interest in the conditions associated with storing food at the point of sale and paying attention to the use-by date/date of minimum durability on the food product packaging. For this reason, this factor was labelled ‘Hygiene and food safety’. The third factor explains four variables and was named ‘Product appearance and price’. Lastly, the fourth factor summarizes four variables, relating to respondents’ interest in the purchased food brand, its origin, and information about organic production, hence it was named ‘Origin’ (Table 3).

3.2. The influence of food choice factors on the respondents’ profile

For the whole surveyed population, 5 clusters were identified, each representing from 5.98% to 30.77% of the surveyed population (Table 4). Cluster 2 represents 27.92% of all respondents. In Cluster 2, the highest average value was obtained for 15 of the 17 variables. Only in the case of three factors, ‘price’, ‘appearance’, and ‘energy value’, were higher average values recorded in other clusters (‘price’ in Cluster 5; ‘appearance’ in Cluster 3; ‘energy value’ in Cluster 4). Cluster 1 had the lowest mean values for 14 factors out of 17. The reported averages range from 1.33 ‘storage conditions’ to 2.25 ‘nutrient content’. The largest spreads in average values were recorded for Cluster 5, representing 13.82% of all respondents. They ranged from 1.56 for the variable ‘energy value’ to 4.55 for the value ‘price’. Cluster 3 represents 30.77% of the surveyed population, and Cluster 4 represents 21.52%. In Cluster 3, the highest average value (4.54) was recorded for the factor ‘use-by date/date of minimum durability’. In turn, the lowest average value (2.29) was exhibited by the factor ‘nutrient content’. In Cluster 4, the lowest average was recorded for the factors ‘manufacturer’ and ‘organic origin’ (2.23) (Table 4).

Analysis of the socio-demographic characteristics showed that Cluster 1 consists most predominantly of females and unemployed people. Of all the clusters, the percentage of unemployed people was the highest in this cluster (Table 5).

None of the respondents in Cluster 1 described their financial situation as ‘very good’, and 16.7% stated that their financial situation was ‘bad’. The highest percentages of men and employed individuals are found in Cluster 4; the percentage of respondents living in the largest cities was also the highest in this cluster. The respondents in Cluster 3 most often declared that they lived in rural areas and had a very good financial situation. Cluster 2 includes mainly respondents living in households of 5 or more people. Compared to other clusters, we note the highest percentage of respondents declaring a very bad financial situation in this cluster. Cluster 5 consists predominantly of women, respondents with good financial situations and those living in four-person households (Table 5).

4. Discussion

Food selection is a complex process affecting food production systems and consumer nutrient intake, as it determines what foods consumers buy and eat (Furst et al., 1996). As such, understanding what motivates basic food choices is essential from the perspective of food development and marketing efforts. In our study, factors such as packaging information, hygiene, and food safety emerged as significant determinants of food purchasing decisions among young Polish consumers, giving some insight into what drives their food choices.

Su et al.’s (2019) study of Gen Z consumers in the United States found them to be much more knowledgeable about sustainable lifestyles than previous generations, typically prioritising their health when making food choices. Our findings similarly suggest that young Polish consumers are increasingly attentive to health-related aspects like hygiene and the nutritional content displayed on packaging, indicating a shift towards health consciousness in their purchasing behaviour. This moreover parallels Kumar & Kapoor’s (2017) findings that young consumers in India place considerable importance on food labels, mirroring the behaviour observed in our study where information on packaging plays a crucial role.

On the other hand, Allman-Farinelli et al. (2016) found that young people prefer and overconsume unhealthy foods because they are tastier than their healthier alternatives. The present study, on the contrary, suggests a more balanced consideration involving both health and sensory attributes like taste and appearance. This could indicate a cultural variation or an evolving trend among younger demographics who are seeking to balance taste with health considerations.

Moreover, such differences in the findings reported by studies on food choice priorities may reflect gender-related differences or broader regional consumer behaviour trends. Alibabić et al. (2011), for instance, found that product packaging, manufacturer, and product quality were the main determinants for Bosnian male consumers when deciding whether to buy food. Studies such as those by Lawlor et al. (2001) and Wardle & Griffith (2001) suggest that men may prioritize taste and convenience – a trend not strongly evidenced in our study’s young Polish demographic, which displayed a more balanced set of priorities encompassing price, hygiene, and information.

The place where consumers live also has an impact on their food choices. This factor may also be linked to economic status and affect food availability (Samaniego-Vaesken et al., 2018; Grande Covián et al., 2014). On the other hand, other studies show that a globalised market, which includes the distribution of a wide range of staple foods, regardless of their origin, reduces the gap in food purchases and consumption between urban and rural areas (Martín et al., 2014; Naska et al., 2006).

In our study, the origin of products was found to be the least important factor in food choices for young Polish consumers. This contrasts with findings from Turčínková and Kalábová (2011), who concluded that the origin of food plays a vital role in Czech consumers’ purchasing decisions. They found a moderately strong relationship between the age and education of respondents and their tendency to choose local food. Similarly, Brown (2003) noted that the attitude towards local food depends on the origin of the respondents. Additionally, Bimbo et al. (2021) showed that age, education, and professional status positively correlate with high frequency of local food purchases. These differences, again, may reflect varying cultural values or economic conditions that influence consumer priorities in different regions.

5. Conclusions

This study successfully identified several critical determinants influencing food choices among young Polish consumers, achieving the article’s aims as demonstrated by the results. The analyses revealed that consumer choices are influenced by a blend of economic, informational, and aesthetic factors including information on the packaging of food products, hygiene and food safety, the appearance of the product, and its price. Notably, the lessened importance of food origin and the high priority given to product appearance and hygiene suggest a unique profile of young Polish consumers that may differ from global trends. Significant differences were also observed based on gender and place of residence among the clusters identified in the study, emphasizing the complexity of decision-making processes in food purchases.

The selection of a sample consisting only of people aged 18–25 carries limitations regarding representativeness and generalization of research results to a broader population. People aged 18–25 are at a stage of life often related to higher education, the beginning of their professional career, greater mobility, and life changes. They usually have limited professional and financial experience, which may influence their economic decisions and attitudes. People of this age are also often heavy social media and technology users, which may also influence their behaviour. To obtain more universal conclusions, future studies should consider a broader demographic range, including different age groups, to better reflect society’s diversity.

Additionally, food marketers and producers should consider these preferences when designing and marketing their products to the young Polish market, potentially adjusting marketing strategies to emphasize the factors of highest consumer sensitivity, such as packaging information and hygienic conditions.

References

Act of May 9, 2014, on information on prices of goods and services. Single text OJ of 2023, item 168..

Aday, M. S., & Yener, U. (2014). Understanding the buying behaviour of young consumers regarding packaging attributes and labels. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 38(4), 385–393. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12105

Alibabić, V., Jokić, S., Mujić, I., Rudić, D., Bajramović, M., & Jukić, H. (2011). Attitudes, behaviors, and perception of consumers’ from northwestern Bosnia and Herzegovina toward food products on the market. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 2932–2937. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.04.217

Allman-Farinelli, M., Partridge, S. R., & Roy, R. (2016). Weight-Related dietary behaviors in young adults. Current Obesity Reports, 5(1), 23–29. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s13679-016-0189-8

Angowski, M., & Jarosz-Angowska, A. (2020). Importance of regional and traditional EU quality schemes in young consumer food purchasing decisions. European Research Studies Journal, XXIII(Special Issue 2), 916–927. https://doi.org/ 10.35808/ersj/1906

Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55(5), 469–480. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/0003-066x.55.5.469

Bakewell, C., & Mitchell, V. (2003). Generation Y female consumer decision-making styles. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 31(2), 95–106. https://doi.org/10.1108/09590550310461994

Bassola, B., Tommasi, V., Bonetti, L., Bauer, S., & Lusignani, M. (2020). Nurses’ knowledge about malnutrition in older people: A multicenter cross-sectional study. Nutrition, 78, 110947. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nut.2020.110947

Bimbo, F., Russo, C., Di Fonzo, A., & Nardone, G. (2020). Consumers’ environmental responsibility and their purchase of local food: Evidence from a large-scale survey. British Food Journal, 123(5), 1853–1874. https://doi.org/10.1108/bfj-05-2020-0398

Brown, C. (2003). Consumers’ preferences for locally produced food: A study in southeast Missouri. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture, 18(4), 213–224. https://doi.org/10.1079/ajaa200353

Eldesouky, A., & Mesias, F. (2014). An insight into the influence of packaging and presentation format on consumer purchasing attitudes towards cheese: A qualitative study. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research, 12(2), 305. https://doi.org/10.5424/sjar/2014122-5520

Furst, T., Connors, M., Bisogni, C. A., Sobal, J., & Falk, L. W. (1996). Food choice: A conceptual model of the process. Appetite, 26(3), 247–266. https://doi.org/ 10.1006/appe.1996.0019

Gelici-Zeko, M. M., Lutters, D., ten Klooster, R., & Weijzen, P. L. G. (2012). Studying the influence of packaging design on consumer perceptions (of dairy products) using categorizing and perceptual mapping. Packaging Technology and Science, 26(4), 215–228. https://doi.org/10.1002/pts.1977

Grande Covián, F., Rof Carballo, J., & Jiménez García, F. (2014). Alimentación y desarrollo infantil II; el desarrollo físico comparativo de dos grupos de niños en edad escolar y distinto nivel económico (Rev Clin Esp 1944;12:155-164) [Nutrition and child development II; a comparison of physical development in two school children groups with different income level]. Nutricion Hospitalaria, 30(3), 708–718. https://doi.org/10.3305/nh.2014.30.3.7709

Gutkowska, K., & Ozimek, I. (2005). Wybrane aspekty zachowań konsumentów na rynku żywności – kryteria zróżnicowania [Selected aspects of consumer behavior in the food market – differentiation criteria]. Warszawa, Poland. Wydawnictwo SGGW.

Kanchanapibul, M., Lacka, E., Wang, X., & Chan, H. K. (2014). An empirical investigation of green purchase behaviour among the young generation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 66, 528–536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.10.062

Kumar, N., & Kapoor, S. (2017). Do labels influence purchase decisions of food products? Study of young consumers of an emerging market. British Food Journal, 119(2), 218–229. https://doi.org/10.1108/bfj-06-2016-0249

Lawlor, D. A., Ebrahim, S., & Davey Smith, G. (2001). Sex matters: Secular and geographical trends in sex differences in coronary heart disease mortality. BMJ, 323(7312), 541–545. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.323.7312.541

Lima, J. P. M., Costa, S. A., Brandão, T. R. S., & Rocha, A. (2021). Food consumption determinants and barriers for healthy eating at the workplace—a university setting. Foods, 10(4), 695. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10040695

Martín, A., Cervero, M., González Rodríguez, A., Molinero, A., Magro, M., & Partearroyo, T. (2014). Quidad y desigualdad nutricional en dos centros escolares de la ciudad de Madrid (España) [Equity and nutritional inequalityin two school centers in Madrid (Spain)]. Nutricion Hospitalaria, 29(1), 128–135. https://doi.org/10.3305/nh.2014.29.1.6778

Naska, A., Fouskakis, D., Oikonomou, E., Almeida, M. D. V., Berg, M. A., Gedrich, K., Moreiras, O., Nelson, M., Trygg, K., Turrini, A., Remaut, A. M., Volatier, J. L., & Trichopoulou, A. (2005). Dietary patterns and their socio-demographic determinants in 10 European countries: Data from the DAFNE databank. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 60(2), 181–190. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602284

Nyrhinen, J., Sirola, A., Koskelainen, T., Munnukka, J., & Wilska, T.-A. (2023). Online antecedents for young consumers’ impulse buying behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 108129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.108129

Olejniczuk-Merta, A. (2008). Uwarunkowania rozwoju społeczno-zawodowej aktywności ludzi młodych.[Circumstances for the development of social and professional activity among young people]. Instytut Badań Rynku, Konsumpcji i Koniunktur.

Prowse, R. J. L., Naylor, P.-J., Olstad, D. L., Storey, K., Carson, V., Mâsse, L. C., Kirk, S. F. L., & Raine, K. D. (2020). Impact of a capacity-building intervention on food marketing features in recreation facilities. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 52(10), 935–943. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2020.03.009

Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on the provision of food information to consumers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1924/2006 and (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and the Council, and repealing Commission Directive 87/250/EEC, Council Directive 90/496/EEC, Commission Directive 1999/10/EC, 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and the Council, Commission Regulation (EC) No 608/2004. (EU No 1169/2011). (2011).

Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority, and laying down procedures in matters of food safety. (EC No 178/2002). (2002).

Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin. (EC No 853/2004). (2004).

Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs. (EC No 852/2004). (2004).

Regulation of the Minister of Development and Technology of December 19, 2022, on the visibility of prices of goods and services. OJ of 2022, item 2776.

Samaniego-Vaesken, M., Partearroyo, T., Ruiz, E., Aranceta-Bartrina, J., Gil, Á., González-Gross, M., Ortega, R., Serra-Majem, L., & Varela-Moreiras, G. (2018). The influence of place of residence, gender and age influence on food group choices in the spanish population: Findings from the ANIBES study. Nutrients, 10(4), 392. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu10040392

Solomon, M. R. (2017). Consumer behaviour: Buying, having, and being. Pearson.

Statistic Poland. (2021). Population. Size and structure and vital statistics in Poland by territorial division. As of December 31, 2020. https://stat.gov.pl/en/topics/ population/population/population-size-and-structure-and-vital-statistics-in-poland-by-territorial-division-as-of-december-31-2020,3,29.html

Su, Tsai, Chen, & Lv. (2019). U.S. sustainable food market generation Z consumer segments. Sustainability, 11(13), 3607. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11133607

Turčínková, J., & Kalábová, J. (2011). Preferences of Moravian consumers when buying food. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, 59(2), 371–376. https://doi.org/10.11118/actaun201159020371

Wardle, J. (2001). Socioeconomic status and weight control practices in British adults. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 55(3), 185–190. https://doi.org/ 10.1136/jech.55.3.185

The attitudes and behaviors of food consumers have changed significantly over the last decade or so, including a trend towards healthy eating and an interest in the influence of nutrients on general health, as well as in the prevention and treatment of existing diseases. As a consequence of these changes, foods with potentially beneficial effects on health and weight control have become more common (de Boer, 2021, pp.2).

The information on food packaging can encourage consumers to make healthier food choices, facilitate selection of portions adequate for their actual nutrition needs, and support their education in healthy eating. Unfortunately, reaping such benefits makes it difficult for them to navigate the food market, the quantity and variety of food products and the abundance of information contained on their labels. As a consequence, consumers focus their attention on simple messages (e.g. health and nutrition claims) that will help them find a product that stands out for its health or nutrition values. This approach may unfortunately lead them to make the wrong purchasing decisions. Claims are increasingly used to increase the purchase attractiveness of a product by food producers, who in many cases do not act honestly and mislead consumers (Davidović, et al., 2021, 1–2).

Ensuring that consumers can safely rely on the information on food packaging, as well as the highest quality and appropriateness of this information, is particularly important in the face of increasing obesity rates. By creating a friendly environment for consumers to make the right food choices, the epidemic of obesity and related diseases can be prevented and claims and other information on food packaging are a key element in this regard. For most consumers, they are the primary source of nutrition knowledge. Their role should be primarily to raise consumer awareness of the composition and properties of food products, and thus encourage their interest in healthy foods. In practice, however, buyers do not use them sufficiently due to difficulties in understanding them and the limited amount of time to make purchasing decisions (Oostenbach, Slits, Robinson & Sacks, 2019, pp.2).

The impact of nutrition claims on consumer purchasing intentions and dietary choices has been the subject of research by many authors (e.g.
Steinhauser, Janssen & Hamm, 2019, pp. 4–14; Steinhauser & Hamm, 2018, pp. 1–33; Lynam, McKevitt & Gibney, 2011, pp. 2–6; Annunziata & Mariani, 2019, pp. 3–13). However, there are few studies in which conclusions about attitudes and behaviors towards participants’ statements are compared to their objectively verified knowledge about this form of marketing communication. There is also a dearth of studies that compare how consumers’ perception of claims differs depending on whether they are placed on a product or are separate information.

Therefore, the main purposes of this paper are:

1. Identifying factors related to food consumers and producers that determine the effective influencing of claims on the perception of food products bearing them.
2. Finding factors that negatively affect the purchase intentions of products with claims.
3. Determining how claims affect the perception of products by consumers.
4. Seeing whether there is a correlation between consumers’ knowledge of claims and their attitude towards them.
5. Understanding the determinants of effectively encouraging consumers to make healthier food choices through claims.

The use of health and nutrition claims in the light of European food law

Health claims describe or indicate the health-promoting effects of a given product or its ingredients. In turn, a nutrition claim is defined as any claim made on the label of a food product that relates to its nutritional value. The content of both health and nutrition claims must be comprehensible and transparent to consumers so that their interpretation will be truthful. One condition for making claims in accordance with European Food Law is that they must not imply that other foods are less healthy or less nutritious. It is also forbidden to use claims that imply that the consumption of a given product is necessary to cover the need for all essential nutrients. It is important that the regulations concerning claims also apply to symbols, trademarks or even product names, which should be supplemented by permitted statements (de Boer, 2021, p. 3). In addition, claims include not only health or nutrition messages placed on food packaging, but also those used in marketing campaigns and other promotional activities (OJEU, L 404, 30.12.2006, pp. 9).

Food law regulations regarding claims may vary depending on the laws and regulations issued in a given country. However, in the case of countries belonging to the European Union (EU), for example, they must meet certain standards and requirements. These conditions are primarily used to protect the health of consumers, as well as to minimize their being misled by the dishonest actions of producers (Szymura, 2012, pp. 1–3). The European Union has undertaken to achieve these objectives by issuing Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 on nutrition and health claims (OJEU, L 404, 30.12.2006). However, in 2008 it issued Regulation (EC) No 107/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods as regards the implementing powers conferred on the Commission (OJEU L 39, 13.2.2008, p. 8–10). In Europe, in addition to the regulations contained in this regulation, validation of claims by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is mandatory. Any claim that a given food producer wants to put on their product must indicate the nutrition or health properties supported by generally accepted, reliable scientific evidence (Szymecka-Wesołowska, 2011, pp. 21–22). Claims that pass EFSA verification are included in the publicly available list of approved claims. Currently, 30 nutrition claims listed in Regulation (EC) No. 1924/2006 are allowed on the food market. Any nutrition claim that a manufacturer wants to include on the packaging of their product must have the same meaning as any of the claims contained in the regulation and must meet the relevant nutrition criteria. For example, a product can be labeled „a source of protein” or a statement with the same wording may be used on its label only if at least 12 % of its energy value comes from protein.

In addition to indicating the source of the nutrient, nutrition claims can be formulated using the words (OJEU, L 404, 30.12.2006, pp. 9–25):

• Low/very low content/value…;
• High in…;
• Without, without additive, there is no, does not contain…;
• Contains…;
• With increased/reduced content…;
• Light;
• Natural/naturally…;

Moving on to health claims, 4 main types can be distinguished (de Boer, 2021, pp. 5):

I. Functional claims based on generally accepted scientific evidence;
II. Functional claims based on newly developed scientific insights;
III. Claims relating to the reduction of a risk factor in the development of the disease;
IV. Statements relating to the growth and development of children.

Although there are only 4 types of these claims, the number of claims that currently exist on the food market is 265. Examples of health claims include: Zinc helps to maintain a proper acid-base balance or magnesium contributes to the maintenance of proper energy metabolism (O. J. EU, L 136, 25.05.2012, pp. 4–40).

The conditions of use and the system for validating claims were checked during the European Commission’s Regulatory Fitness and Performance Program (REFIT) from 2013 to 2020. One of the results of REFIT was that health and nutrition claims currently do not fully perform their role and new regulations are required to take into account the problems identified (de Boer, 2021, p.2). In addition, there are frequent cases of fraud involving use of statements that are inconsistent with the actual nutritional value or health properties of a given product (Lorenzoni, et al., 2019, pp. 3–12).

Existing research on food consumers’ understanding and use of claims

In a study conducted on a group of 100 participants from five European countries — Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, Slovenia and the United Kingdom — it was examined whether and how food consumers understand selected health and nutrition claims. Out of these 100 participants, 51% declared that they use statements quite often or very often, on a daily basis.

Distinguishing between claims in terms of their types and meaning was not a problem for most participants in this study. The exceptions were statements with difficult vocabulary, such as, for example, one concerning homocysteine metabolism. Difficulties in understanding the statements also appeared when they referred to nutrients that are not very well known to participants or not very popular. Nutrition claims were rated more positively for affordability, but at the same time, the respondents believed that they should be supplemented with information on the health benefits of consuming the product. In addition, respondents expressed skepticism about nutrition claims indicating that the product is a meal replacement and those with reduced sugar and fat content. The statements were also considered by some respondents to be marketing tricks urging them to make larger purchases. The correct interpretation and positive perception of the claims in this study also depended on whether they related to health benefits or nutritional values that were important to the participants.

Another important finding of this work is that in several cases respondents over-interpreted the statements by assigning them meanings that they did not objectively indicate (Hodgkins, et al., 2019, pp. 7–24).

In another paper — a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies conducted in 2014–2017, the impact of food labeling on food purchases, consumer health and the activities of producers was examined. The overall conclusion of this paper is that food labeling has a beneficial effect on protecting the health of consumers. Food labels have been shown to reduce fat consumption and the overall energy value of the diet. In addition, they encourage more frequent consumption of vegetables. However, they still do not affect the consumption of salt, carbohydrates, protein, saturated fats, fruits or whole grains (Shangguan, et al., 2019, pp. 7–10).

However, there are also papers whose results indicate that claims induce consumers to consume excessively. This may be the case for individual nutrients when consumers mistakenly believe that the more they consume, the better for their health, or are unaware that they are already consuming the ingredient in excess. It also happens that statements are not precise, which leads them to be misunderstood. This is so, for example, in the case of the statement „provides energy”, which only states that the product is not calorie-free (and often that it is high-calorie), but for some consumers this message may mean that the consumption of the product will have a stimulating effect on them (Chandon & Wansink, 2012, pp. 8).

Misinterpretation is also common in the case of claims regarding the content of a particular nutrient. This is mainly the case when the consumer judges the product based on the claim itself without analyzing the nutrition table or ingredient list. This is a particularly harmful approach, as the claims only draw attention to healthy ingredients, thereby diverting it from those that are dangerous to health. The same is true when the claim concerns the reduction of the risk of disease by consuming a particular product, while this product at the same time contains ingredients that increase this risk. An equally important problem for consumers is the so-called „Halo effect”, which in relation to products with claims refers to the phenomenon of attributing qualities to them that they do not have.

However, there is no doubt that not only consumers are to blame, but also producers who are fully aware of the presence and operation of these mechanisms (Talati, et al., 2017, pp.2).

Survey methodology — examining awareness and perception of claims among consumers

In the period from 20.04.2021 to 04.05.2021, a questionnaire with elements of experimental measurement was carried out. The study used the CAWI method using Google’s web forms. The selection of the sample was purposive and was performed using the „snowball sampling” method.

The sample consisted of 200 respondents of Polish nationality. The individual characteristics of the respondents are presented in Table 1.

In the initial questions in the survey, participants rated a food product presented to them in pictures, which contained various configurations of claims on their packaging. This section of the form was the only one that varied for individual participants. By sending the appropriate versions of the form, the respondents were divided into 4 groups of 50 people. Group 1 received a form with pictures of products bearing nutrition claims (NC), group 2 with health claims (HC), group 3 with both types of claims (NHC), and group 4 with pictures of products without claims, as the control group (C). The other packaging elements of the products presented in the pictures for all groups were identical and did not contain any advertising slogans, trademarks or names of manufacturers.

The evaluation criteria were:

• Health;
• Caloric value;
• Taste;
• The reliability of the information on the label;
• Willingness to purchase;
• Willingness to consume.

The rating scale was from 1 to 5. The ratings in each group were added up and then the average was drawn from them.

The next questions concerned the degree of interest in healthy eating and the information on food labels, as well as the level of respondents’
practical and theoretical knowledge about claims. This made it possible to explore the standard of knowledge concerning food law among the respondents, as well as to discover how this translates into the ability to interpret claims.

The study also examined the interpretation of claims as separate messages not appearing on a specific product. Participants were asked to choose answers in the form of sentences that most accurately describe their feelings about a specific health or nutrition claim presented to them. For statements, any number of responses could be selected from:

1. It is worth buying this product;
2. The information is reliable for me;
3. The information is understandable to me;
4. This product is healthy;
5. This product does not taste good;
6. The information encourages the consumption of the product.

The survey form was completed by collecting basic data on respondents, such as age, education, financial situation and health status, which are of great importance for making food choices and purchasing decisions.

To ensure the reliability of the results, the collected data were subjected to statistical tests. Statistical analysis was based, inter alia, on the Pearson correlation test or Student’s t test for two averages.

Results

The findings of the study are listed in the Tables and Charts below. The differences in the assessment of the products depending on the claims made on them were statistically insignificant. However, for some products, the impact of the claims on the participants’ product assessment was particularly evident:

83% of the sample rated their level of interest in healthy eating as medium and 20% as very high. The most important information for the respondents on food labels turned out to be: use-by date, the price of the product and nutrition information on the back of the packaging, such as the nutrition table or composition. Right behind them were: markings and information contained on the front of the pack.

29% of respondents stated they always pay attention to the detailed information presented on the packaging of food products, 41% that they do so usually, while only 4% that they never do so.

Slightly more than half of the participants could not point out the difference between a nutrition claim and a health claim, while the vast majority did not know what the real meaning of individual nutrition claims was.

It was also noted that respondents were skeptical of health-related information on food packaging. 36%, which is the largest proportion, believed that placing such information on the label is regulated by law, but the rules are often violated by manufacturers.
Statements presented as separate messages were most often associated by respondents with a healthy product, and the least often indicated to them that the product does not taste good.

Conclusions

The results of this study show that the impact of the claim on the perception of the health benefits of the product by consumers is strongly dependent on the specific product being assessed. The credibility and significance of the statement for the consumer may be limited by their previous prejudices. Therefore, the inclusion of a claim on a product should be preceded by promotional activities aimed at increasing the perception of its attractiveness by consumers.

The study also showed that the presence of claims affects the deterioration of the perception of the palatability of products considered to be the least healthy.

A significant percentage of the respondents declared that when shopping they pay attention not only to the front of the product packaging, but also to the back. Taking into account the fact that nutrition claims are usually found on the front of the packaging, while health claims on the back, it can be concluded that using both types of claims on labels may be more effective in promoting health than using only one type. Furthermore, based on the results of this work, it can be concluded that consumers now clearly expect information on labels detailing the health effects of a nutrient, so using nutrition claims alone will become increasingly unsatisfactory for them.

Consumers are actually more likely to analyze food labels. This is an important result for food producers, which suggests that they should pay particular attention to the appropriateness of the information provided on the product packaging. Clarifying the content of labels for a thorough analysis may be related to another phenomenon that has been demonstrated in this paper, namely that consumers show a low level of confidence in the credibility of statements. The study did not show that consumer distrust of the credibility of claims was correlated with low levels of knowledge about them.

Based on the respondents’ answers, it cannot be concluded that the presence of the claims meant that the product was seen as less caloric. It seems, therefore, that consumers’ awareness of the processes of maintaining and achieving a healthy body weight has increased significantly. However, it is important that participants reported a relatively high level of knowledge of healthy eating in this study.

Another conclusion is that greater interest in healthy eating does not translate into the ability to correctly interpret statements. The respondents had severe problems in indicating what specific and actually existing health and nutrition claims mean. Therefore, it can be concluded that educating consumers on healthy eating does not increase their ability to use claims and solutions are needed to help raise public awareness of the legal aspects of food labeling.

Limitations and future research

Only Polish food consumers took part in the study, most of whom were healthy women with higher education and declaring a good financial situation. The majority of respondents declared a high level of interest in healthy eating, as well as rating the quality of their diet as good or average.

Therefore, the results may have been significantly different if the survey had been conducted on respondents with other individual characteristics.

Moreover, it also unclear how the results of this study translate into food purchases in real-world shop conditions. There is a need for research involving larger and more diverse groups of consumers that reflect the real circumstances of food shopping to a greater extent.

References

1. Annunziata, A., & Mariani, A. (2019). Do Consumers Care about Nutrition and Health Claims? Some Evidence from Italy. Nutrients, 11(11), 2735. https://doi.org/
   10.3390/nu11112735
2. Chandon, P., & Wansink, B.(2012). Does food marketing need to make us fat? A review and solutions. Nutrition Reviews, 70(10), 571–593. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.17534887.2012.00518.x
3. Davidović, D., Paunović, K., Zarić, D., Jovanović, A., Vasiljević, N., Stošović, D., & Tomanić, M. (2021). Nutrition and Health Claims Spectra of Pre-Packaged Foods on Serbian Supermarket Shelves: A Repeated Cross-Sectional Study. Nutrients, 13(8), 2832.
   doi:10.3390/nu13082832
4. De Boer, A. (2021). Fifteen Years of Regulating Nutrition and Health Claims in Europe: The Past, the Present and the Future. Nutrients, 13(5), 1725. doi:10.3390/nu13051725
5. Hodgkins, C., E., Egan, B., Peacock, M., Klepacz, N., Miklavec, K., Pravst, I., … Raats, M., M. (2019). Understanding How Consumers Categorise Health Related Claims on Foods: A Consumer-Derived Typology of Health-Related Claims. Nutrients, 11(3), 539.
   https://doi.org/10.3390/nu11030539
6. Lorenzoni, G., Minto, C., Temporin, M., Fusca, E., Bolzon, A., Piras, G., … Gregori, D. (2019). (Ab)use of Health Claims in Websites: The Case of Italian Bottled Waters. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(17), 3077. doi:10.3390/ijerph16173077
7. Lynam, A., McKevitt, A., & Gibney, M. (2011). Irish consumers’ use and perception of nutrition and health claims. Public Health Nutrition, 14(12), 2213–2219. doi:10.1017/S1368980011000723
8. Oostenbach, L. H., Slits, E., Robinson, E., & Sacks, G. (2019). Systematic review of the impact of nutrition claims related to fat, sugar and energy content on food choices and energy intake. BMC Public Health, 19(1), 1296. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-7622-3
9. Regulation (EC) No 107/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 amending Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods as regards the implementing powers conferred on the Commission.
   h t t p s : / / e u r – l e x . e u r o p a . e u / l e g a l – c o n t e n t / E N / T X T / H T M L / ?uri=CELEX:32008R0107&from=EN
10. Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods. https://eurlex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32006R1924&from=en
11. Shangguan, S., Afshin, A., Shulkin, M., Ma, W., Marsden, D., Smith, J., … Food PRICE (Policy Review and Intervention Cost-Effectiveness) Project (2019). A Meta-Analysis of Food Labeling Effects on Consumer Diet Behaviors and Industry Practices. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 56(2), 300–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2018.09.024
12. Steinhauser, J., & Hamm, U. (2018). Consumer and product-specific characteristics influencing the effect of nutrition, health and risk reduction claims on preferences and purchase behavior — A systematic review. Appetite, 127, 303–323. doi: 10.1016/ j.appet.2018.05.012.
13. Steinhauser, J., Janssen, M., & Hamm, U. (2019). Who Buys Products with Nutrition and Health Claims? A Purchase Simulation with Eye Tracking on the Influence of Consumers’ Nutrition Knowledge and Health Motivation. Nutrients, 11(9), 2199.
    https://doi.org/10.3390/nu11092199
14. Szymecka-Wesołowska, A. (2011). Regulacja oświadczeń żywieniowych i zdrowotnych w Stanach Zjednoczonych [Regulation of Nutrition and Health Claims in the United States]. Przegląd Prawa Rolnego 2(9). Accessed from: https://repozytorium.amu.edu.pl/ bitstream/10593/2326/1/AGNIESZKA_SZYMECKA-WESOLOWSKA_199-223.pdf
15. Szymura, M. (2012). Oświadczenia żywieniowe i zdrowotne — aspekty prawne [Nutrition and Health Claims — Legal Aspects]. Logistyka, 4(2), 1308–1314. Accessed from https://www.logistyka.net.pl/bank-wiedzy/item/download/78499_1119627c77618e 158a60e3ca3ceef5f5
16. Talati, Z., Pettigrew, S., Neal, B., Dixon, H., Hughes, C., Kelly, B., & Miller, C. (2017). Consumers’ responses to health claims in the context of other on-pack nutrition information: a systematic review. Nutrition Reviews, 75(4), 260–273. https://doi.org/10.1093/nutrit/nuw070

Integralnym elementem produktów żywnościowych są opakowania jednostkowe — znakomita większość produktów nie może zostać wprowadzona do obrotu towarowego bez opakowania (Jamal, Khan i Tsesmetzi, 2012).

Opakowania jednostkowe żywności spełniają wiele zazębiających się funkcji — ochronną, transportową, informacyjną (funkcje podstawowe), a także marketingową, użytkową, ekologiczną czy ekonomiczną (funkcje wtórne) (Soroka, 2002; Robertson, 2013; Shah, Ahmed i Ahmad, 2013). Ogromny potencjał opakowań produktów żywnościowych (generowany takimi elementami jak forma konstrukcyjna, kształt, materiał opakowaniowy, kolorystyka i grafika, etykieta) sprawia, że stają się one skutecznym narzędziem działań marketingowych: wyróżnikiem wartości produktu/marki, narzędziem budowania przewagi konkurencyjnej, kreatorem wizerunku marki (Silayoi i Speece, 2004, 2007; Grundey, 2010; Hota i Charry, 2014; Fenko, Kersten i Bialkova, 2016; Ankiel i Sojkin, 2018; Nura, 2018). Warto również zaznaczyć, iż z punktu widzenia konsumenta opakowanie jednostkowe jest źródłem rozlicznych, kluczowych informacji o produkcie żywnościowym oraz jedną z istotnych determinant nabywczych (Butkeviciene, Stavinskiene i Rutelione, 2008, Wang, Chou i Wen Lan, 2010; Wang, 2013, Manijeh i Azadeh, 2017; Bigoin-Gagnan i Lacoste-Badie, 2017).

Dynamicznie rozwijający się sektor produktów spożywczych nierozerwalnie wiąże się z rozwojem sektora opakowań adresowanych do żywności, które obecnie muszą spełniać coraz większe wymagania (zarówno w przypadku producentów, pośredników handlowych, jak i ostatecznych nabywców). Opakowania powinny cechować się maksymalnym bezpieczeństwem wobec opakowanej żywności, nowoczesnym designem, innowacyjnymi rozwiązaniami konstrukcyjno-graficznymi, dużą użytecznością dla konsumentów, przyjaznością dla środowiska oraz wysokimi walorami komunikacyjnymi (Lee, Yam i Piergiovanni, 2008; Grundey, 2010; Ankiel-Homa, Czaja-Jagielska i Korzeniowski, 2011, Auttarapong, 2012; Jamal, Khan i Tsesmetzi, 2012; Casillas, 2013; Barska i Wyrwa, 2017).

Analizując kanały dystrybucji żywności w Polsce, można zauważyć, iż podstawowym kanałem dystrybucji stały się sklepy o samoobsługowej formie sprzedaży (hiper- i supermarkety, dyskonty, sklepy typu convenience).

Należy również zwrócić uwagę, iż dynamicznie rozwija się sprzedaż internetowa żywności (www.wiadomościhandlowe, 15.01.2020). Przywołane kanały dystrybucji wymagają od opakowań żywności (poza funkcją ochronną, logistyczną czy marketingową) wysoce rozbudowanej funkcji informacyjnej — oczywiste jest bowiem, iż w sklepach o samoobsługowej formie sprzedaży opakowanie jest głównym źródłem informacji o produkcie i pełni rolę „niemego sprzedawcy” w relacji produkt–nabywca (Ankiel i Walenciak, 2016; Magnier i Crie, 2015; Bininnger, 2017). W tym kontekście funkcja informacyjna (generowana przez wartość informacyjną opakowań) nabiera szczególnego znaczenia zarówno w procesie zakupu, jak i konsumpcji produktów spożywczych. Istota funkcji informacyjnej opakowań jednostkowych produktów odnosi się do relacji zachodzących w następującym układzie: opakowanie — produkt — konsument — środowisko (Ankiel-Homa, 2012). W powyższym układzie celem funkcji informacyjnej opakowań jest dostarczenie konsumentowi rzetelnej, fachowej i zrozumiałej informacji o produkcie (jego cechach, właściwościach, atrybutach, możliwościach wykorzystania) (Dörnyei i Gyulavári, 2016; Fenko, Kersten i Bialkova, 2016).

Informacje umieszczone na opakowaniach żywności (lub na etykiecie stanowiącej integralną część opakowania) mogą być zakodowane w postaci znaków językowych (jak wyrazy, wyrażenia) oraz ideograficznych (jak cyfry, kombinacje liter i cyfr) oraz/lub ikonicznych (fotografie, rysunki i inne znaki graficzne) (Ankiel-Homa, 2012, s. 178).

Zasady znakowania opakowań żywności w Unii Europejskiej zawarte są w Rozporządzeniu Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady (UE) nr 1169/2011 z 25 października 2011 r. Rozporządzenie powyższe precyzuje wykaz obligatoryjnych informacji zamieszczanych na opakowaniach żywności, do których należą:

• informacje o tożsamości i składzie, właściwościach lub innych cechach danego środka spożywczego,
• informacje o ochronie zdrowia konsumentów, stosowaniu środka spożywczego, trwałości produktu, sposobie przechowywania i bezpieczeństwie użycia,
• informacje o charakterystyce żywieniowej, które umożliwiają konsumentom podejmowanie świadomych wyborów zakupowych i konsumpcyjnych,
• informacje o występowaniu składników alergennych (bez względu na ich ilość),
• informacje o wartości odżywczej produktu (wartości energetycznej oraz zawartości tłuszczu, kwasów tłuszczowych nasyconych, węglowodanów, cukrów, białka i soli).

Poza informacjami obowiązkowymi producent/wprowadzający produkt do obrotu może umieścić fakultatywne informacje, głównie o charakterze marketingowym i edukacyjnym, do których należą zwłaszcza:

• podkreślające szczególne, wyróżniające cechy i atrybuty produktu (np. certyfikaty produktowe, rekomendacje instytutów rynkowych),
• kreujące pożądany wizerunek produktu i marki produktu żywnościowego (np. zdobienia, ornamenty i inne znaki językowo-graficzne),
• informujące o działaniach promocyjnych związanych z produktem żywnościowym (np. kod QR przekierowujący do reklamy produktu, fanpage).

W zależności od kategorii żywności, marki, pilności potrzeb czy też miejsca sprzedaży produktu konsument w procesie zakupu postrzega w różnym zakresie i analizuje wybrane elementy składowe stanowiące o wartości informacyjnej opakowań. Przez pryzmat postrzeganych i analizowanych informacji zakodowanych w postaci znaków na opakowaniach konsument identyfikuje cechy i atrybuty produktu oraz ocenia jego wartość, co wpływa na wybór i decyzję zakupu danego produktu żywnościowego.

Cel, zakres i metodyka badawcza

Głównym celem przeprowadzonego badania była identyfikacja zachowań nabywczych konsumentów w zakresie wybranych kategorii produktów żywnościowych w Polsce. Jednym z kluczowych aspektów badawczych była diagnoza postrzegania przez konsumentów informacji zawartych na opakowaniach żywności, w tym zarówno informacji obligatoryjnych, jak i fakultatywnych, które są analizowane w procesie zakupu. Ponadto przeprowadzona procedura badawcza pozwoliła na wyodrębnienie i ocenę kluczowych informacji zawartych na opakowaniach żywności wpływających na decyzję zakupu tych produktów. Przedmiotem badania były opakowania produktów żywnościowych, a ściślej mówiąc informacje zawarte na opakowaniach bądź na etykietach stanowiących ich integralną część. Badanie zostało przeprowadzone metodą wywiadu bezpośredniego skategoryzowanego na terenie całej Polski w okresie od kwietnia do maja 2019 r. Narzędziem badawczym był przygotowany i zweryfikowany w pilotażu kwestionariusz wywiadu. Populację badawczą stanowiły gospodynie domowe deklarujące systematyczne dokonywanie zakupu produktów żywnościowych. Dobór próby badawczej (N = 900) został przeprowadzony metodą kwotową (kryteria doboru: wiek i miejsce zamieszkania), co spełniało postulat zachowania względnej reprezentatywności populacji badawczej¹.

Identyfikacja informacji na opakowaniach wpływających na decyzję zakupu żywności

Jak już wspominano, jednym z zasadniczych celów przeprowadzonego badania była identyfikacja i ocena informacji umieszczonych na opakowaniach jednostkowych w kontekście ich wpływu na decyzje zakupu produktów żywnościowych. Opakowania jednostkowe produktów żywnościowych są nośnikiem rozlicznych informacji (obligatoryjnych i fakultatywnych) i oczywiste jest, że kontekst zakupowy sprawia, iż nie wszystkie są poddawane analizie w procesie wyboru produktów i nie wszystkie wpływają na decyzje nabywcze konsumenta (głównie ze względu na presję czasu). Zatem zasadne jest zidentyfikowanie tych informacji, które są znaczące dla konsumenta, czyli postrzegane i analizowane przez niego w procesie zakupu żywności. Jest to szczególnie istotne w kontekście „nadmiaru” informacji fakultatywnych na opakowaniach. A zatem ważne jest ustalenie, które z nich są istotne dla konsumenta. Będzie to stanowić cenną wskazówkę dla producentów/podmiotów wprowadzających produkt do obrodu towarowego w zakresie doboru fakultatywnych elementów informacyjnych oraz niwelowania asymetrii informacji w relacji producent-konsument.

W badaniu ocenie poddano 26 kategorii informacji zawartych na opakowaniach żywności, których pomiaru ważności dla konsumentki(-ta) dokonano za pomocą skali Likerta 2 . Wyniki oceny znaczenia poszczególnych informacji na opakowaniach żywności w procesie nabywczym konsumenta zaprezentowano w tabeli 1.

Jak wynika z danych zaprezentowanych w tabeli 1, najistotniejsze dla konsumenta (gospodyni domowej) informacje umieszczone na opakowaniach żywności wpływające na proces zakupowy to informacje dotyczące trwałości produktu (data minimalnej trwałości, termin przydatności do spożycia) — średnia 4,49 oraz skład produktu — średnia 4,34. Informacje powyższe należą do kategorii obligatoryjnych i są kluczowe w procesie konsumpcji żywności głównie ze względu na minimalizację ryzyka zdrowotnego (związanego m.in. z konsumpcją produktu przeterminowanego lub konsumpcją produktu, który w składzie zawiera silny dla konsumenta alergen).

Co ciekawe, poza powyższymi informacjami, żadna inna poddana ocenie kategoria nie uzyskała średniej powyżej 4,0. Badane gospodynie domowe wskazały, iż istotne dla nich w procesie wyboru i zakupu produktów żywnościowych są również takie informacje, jak: warunki przechowywania produktu — średnia 3,98, wartości odżywcze produktu — średnia 3,93 oraz sugerowana cena produktu — średnia 3,92. Analizując powyższe dane, można zauważyć, iż zarówno warunki przechowywania produktu, jak i wartości odżywcze produktu są również kluczowymi informacjami w procesie konsumpcji produktu i, podobnie jak w przypadku najwyżej ocenionych informacji, wpływają na minimalizację ryzyka zdrowotnego. Natomiast sugerowana cena produktu (jeśli jest umieszczona na opakowaniu) to kluczowa ekonomiczna determinanta zakupu.

Z kolei zdaniem badanych do kategorii informacji umieszczonych na opakowaniu w najmniejszym stopniu wpływających na wybór oraz decyzję nabywczą należą: kody QR — średnia 2,47, rysunki i zdobienia — średnia 2,55, kody kreskowe — średnia 2,59 oraz strona internetowa producenta — średnia 2,64. Wszystkie te kategorie znakowania opakowań należą do nieobowiązkowych i umieszczanie ich jest arbitralną decyzją podmiotu wprowadzającego produkt do obrotu towarowego. Warto jednak zauważyć, iż o ile kody QR i strona internetowa producenta, jako informacje o typowo marketingowym przesłaniu, nie mają większego znaczenia w procesie wyboru i zakupu produktów żywnościowych, o tyle mogą mieć znaczenie w procesie konsumpcji, np. w sytuacji, gdy konsument byłby zainteresowany wzięciem udziału w kampanii reklamowej angażującej klienta (przekierowanie kodem QR do regulaminu promocji lub na stronę producenta).

Zatem w kontekście natłoku znaków i kodów umieszczanych na opakowaniu produktów żywnościowych istotny jest odpowiedni dobór informacji fakultatywnych, tak aby umieszczane były informacje ważne dla konsumenta i niezaburzające wartości i czystości komunikacyjnej opakowania czy etykiety produktu żywnościowego.

Identyfikacja kluczowych wyznaczników wartości informacyjnej opakowań żywności

W celu redukcji wieloelementowego zbioru badanych kategorii informacji umieszczonych na opakowaniach żywności (zmiennych mierzalnych) oraz wyodrębnienia najistotniejszych informacji stanowiących o wartości informacyjnej opakowań posłużono się metodą analizy głównych składowych (metoda analizy czynnikowej). W celu weryfikacji poprawności zastosowania analizy głównych składowych przeprowadzono testy sferyczności Bartletta oraz wyliczono wskaźnik Kaisera–Meyera–Olkina (Gatnar i Walesiak, 2007), a uzyskana wartość KMO powyżej 0,9 potwierdziła zasadność przeprowadzenia analizy.

Na potrzeby badania zastosowano metodę głównych składowych z rotacją ładunków czynnikowych Varimax. W badaniu wyodrębniono główne czynniki odnoszące się do informacji zakodowanych na opakowaniach produktów żywnościowych i wpływające na decyzje zakupu (przy wykorzystaniu kryterium Kaisera). Następnie, korzystając z metody głównych składowych z rotacją Varimax, dokonano obliczenia ładunków czynnikowych.

Ostatecznie w celu poddania interpretacji czynników wspólnych wydzielono zmienne, które są skorelowane z poszczególnymi czynnikami.

Jak wynika z przeprowadzonej analizy, najistotniejsze dla gospodyń domowych informacje umieszczone na opakowaniach jednostkowych, które wpływają na zakup, to głównie informacje o produkcie, marce i producencie, czyli ważne, obligatoryjne informacje charakteryzujące produkt, producenta oraz informujące o warunkach przechowywania i terminie przydatności produktu do spożycia. Drugie w kolejności to informacje, które szczegółowo charakteryzują wartość odżywczą produktu (wartość energetyczną, zawartość tłuszczu, kwasów tłuszczowych nasyconych, węglowodanów, cukrów, białka i soli) — od stycznia 2016 r. są one obowiązkowe. Do kluczowych informacji na opakowaniach żywności zalicza się również informacje o charakterze marketingowym, np. certyfikaty jakościowe produktu/producenta i inne komunikaty poświadczające jakość produktu oraz sugerowaną cenę detaliczną.

Można zatem przyjąć, iż kluczowe wyznaczniki wartości informacyjnej opakowań jednostkowych żywności determinujące proces nabywczy konsumentów są następujące:

• czynnik 1. — identyfikacja produktu (nazwa, marka, producent),
• czynnik 2. — jakościowe i marketingowe wyróżniki produktu (certyfikaty i deklaracje jakościowe, informacje o produkcji, informacje na stronie internetowej producenta),
• czynnik 3. — przechowywanie produktu (warunki przechowywania, okres trwałości produktu),
• czynnik 4. — wartość odżywcza produktu (w tym zawartości tłuszczu, kwasów tłuszczowych nasyconych, węglowodanów, cukrów, białka i soli),
• czynnik 5. — sugerowana cena.

Oceniając wyodrębnione wyznaczniki wartości informacyjnej opakowań produktów żywnościowych, można stwierdzić, iż kluczowe dla konsumentów informacje należą do kategorii obligatoryjnych znaków i kodów, a wyniki badania potwierdzają zasadność ich umieszczania na opakowaniach produktów żywnościowych. Składowe wartości informacyjnej opakowań żywności mają poprzez swój przekaz komunikacyjny umożliwić identyfikację produktu, wskazać, jak odpowiednio i jak długo można przechowywać produkt, oraz uświadomić konsumentowi, jaka jest wartość odżywcza produktu i zawartość poszczególnych składników odżywczych (pokarmowych).

Powyższe informacje są kluczowe w procesie zakupu i wpływają na ograniczenie ryzyka zdrowotnego w procesie konsumpcji żywności. Jak już wspominano, oprócz informacji obligatoryjnych na opakowaniach żywności znajdują się również informacje fakultatywne, z których kluczowe dla wartości informacyjnej okazały się komunikaty o jakościowych i marketingowych wyróżnikach produktów oraz sugerowana cena detaliczna.

Podsumowanie

Podsumowując zaprezentowane wyniki badań, których celem była identyfikacja kluczowych informacji zamieszczonych na opakowaniach jednostkowych produktów żywnościowych (inaczej: wyznaczników wartości informacyjnej), można stwierdzić, iż w procesie zakupu istotne dla konsumenta są głównie informacje, których umieszczanie wynika z obowiązujących w Unii Europejskiej przepisów prawa. Zalicza się do nich: nazwę produktu, nazwę producenta oraz markę (czyli podstawowe informacje identyfikujące produkt), termin trwałości produktu oraz warunki przechowywania, a także szczegółowe dane dotyczące wartości odżywczej produktu, w tym zawartości poszczególnych składników odżywczych (białka, węglowodany, kwasy tłuszczowe nasycone i sól). Ponadto w procesie nabywczym ważne dla konsumenta są również informacje o charakterze promocyjnym, wskazujące na dodatkowe korzyści, które otrzyma, kupując wybrany produkt (certyfikaty i deklaracje jakościowe, szczególne, wyróżniające sposoby produkcji, np. przy użyciu tradycyjnych metod).

Warto podkreślić, iż obserwując opakowania produktów żywnościowych, nadal można zauważyć skłonność producentów do umieszczania wielu (być może zbędnych) informacji i infografik (aczkolwiek powoli zaczyna być zauważalny trend „czystej etykiety”, zgodnie z którym produkt ma prosty skład, a etykieta tylko wymagane prawem elementy). Ponadto, biorąc pod uwagę ograniczone zasoby czasowe konsumenta w toku dokonywania zakupów, nadmiar informacji (fakultatywnych) może zniechęcać do wyboru danej marki zamiast stanowić bodziec prozakupowy. Dlatego też zasadne jest identyfikowanie kluczowych informacji umieszczanych na opakowaniach żywności z punktu widzenia nabywców/konsumentów i projektowanie wartości informacyjnej opakowań w taki sposób, aby niwelować asymetrię informacji na linii producent-konsument.

Przypisy

¹ Badanie objęło kobiety/gospodynie domowe w 8 miastach w Polsce: Warszawie, Wrocławiu, Poznaniu, Szczecinie, Krakowie, Katowicach, Olsztynie i Zielonej Górze. Struktura wg wieku próby w każdym z miast odpowiadała strukturze wiekowej w każdym z miast w przedziale 20–60+ lat.

² Wartości na skali Likerta: (1) zdecydowanie nieważna, (2) raczej nieważna, (3) ani tak, ani nie, (4) raczej ważna oraz (5) zdecydowanie ważna.

Referencje

1. Ankiel, M., Sojkin, B. (2018). Wartość informacyjna opakowań kosmetyków jako determinanta decyzji nabywczych konsumentów. Handel Wewnętrzny, (4/375), t. II, 296–306.
2. Ankiel, M., Walenciak, M. (2016). Determinanty wartości informacyjnej opakowań jednostkowych produktów kosmetycznych. Opakowanie, (10).
3. Ankiel-Homa, M. (2012). Wartość komunikacyjna opakowań jednostkowych. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Poznaniu.
4. Ankiel-Homa, M., Czaja-Jagielska, N., Korzeniowski, A. (2011). Innowacje w opakowalnictwie. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Poznaniu.
5. Auttarapong, D. (2012). Packaging design expert system based on relation between packaging and perception on consumer. Procedia Engineering, (32).
6. Barska, A., Wyrwa, J. (2017). Innovations in the food packaging market — intelligent packaging — a review. Czech Journal Food Science, (35), 1–6.
7. Bigoin-Gagnan, A., Lacoste-Badie, S. (2017). Symmetry influences packaging aesthetic evaluation and purchase intention. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 46(11/12), 1026–1040.
8. Bininnger, A. S. (2017). Perception of naturalness of food packaging and its role in consumer product evaluation. Journal of Food Products Marketing, 23(3), 251–266.
9. Butkeviciene, V., Stavinskiene, J., Rutelione, A. (2008). Impact of Consumer Package Communication on Consumer Decision Making Process. Engineering Economics, (1).
10. Casillas, C. (2013). Food packaging’ role in food safety. Food Processing, (5).
11. Dörnyei, K. R., Gyulavári, T. (2015). Why do not you read the label? — an integrated framework of consumer label information search. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 40(1), 92–100.
12. Fenko, A., Kersten, L., Bialkova, S. (2016). Overcoming consumer scepticism toward food labels: The role of multisensory experience. Food Quality and Preference, 48 (part A), 81–92.
13. Gatnar, E., Walesiak, M. (2007). Statystyczna analiza danych. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
14. Grundey, D. (2010). Functionality of Product Packaging: Surveying Consumers’ Attitude Towards Selected Cosmetic Brands. Economics & Sociology, 3(1), 87–103
15. Hota, M., Charry, K. (2014). The impact of visual and child-oriented packaging elements versus information on children’s purchase influence across various age groups. International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 42(11/12), 1069–1082.
16. Jamal, A., Khan, M. S., Tsesmetzi, M. S. (2012). Information cues roles in product evaluations: The case of the UK cosmetics market. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 20(3), 249–265.
17. Lee, D. S., Yam, K. L., Piergiovanni, L. (2008). Food Packaging Science and Technology.CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group.
18. Magnier, L., Crie, D. (2015). Communicating packaging eco-friendliness: An exploration of consumers’ perceptions of eco-designed packaging. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 43(4/5), 350–366.
19. Manijeh, B., Azadeh, R. (2017). Consumers’ perception of usability of product packaging and impulse buying. Journal of Islamic Marketing, 9(2), 262–282
20. Nura, A. (2018). Advances in food packaging technology: A review. Journal of Postharvest Technology, 06(4), 55–64.
21. Robertson, G. L. (2013). Food Packaging: Principles and Practice. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
22. Rozporządzenie Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady (UE) nr 1169/2011 z 25 października 2011 r. w sprawie przekazywania konsumentom informacji na temat żywności (Dz.U. UE L304/18 z 22.11.2011).
23. Shah, S., Ahmed, A., Ahmad, N. (2013). Role of Packaging in Consumer Buying Behavior. International Review of Basic and Applied Sciences, 1(2), 35–41.
24. Silayoi, P., Speece, M. (2004). Packaging and purchasing decisions: An exploratory study on the impact of involvement level and time pressure. British Food Journal, 66(8), 607–628.
25. Silayoi, P., Speece, M. (2007). The importance of packaging attributes: A conjoint analysis approach. European Journal of Marketing, 41(11/12), 1495–1517.
26. Soroka, W. (2002). Fundamentals of Packaging Technology. Naperville: IOPP.
27. Wang, E. (2013). The influence of visual packaging design on perceived food product quality, value, and brand preference. International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 41(10), s. 805–816.
28. Wang, R. W. Y., Chou, M. C., Wen Lan, P. (2010). Research into the elements of design differentiation in the findability of beverage packaging. The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, 5(2), 1–24.