Nanae Tanemura, Ikuko Kashino and Michihiro Araki
High sodium intake remains a leading cause of death associated with cardiovascular disease and cancer in Japan. Improving food environment standards is crucial, particularly…
Abstract
Purpose
High sodium intake remains a leading cause of death associated with cardiovascular disease and cancer in Japan. Improving food environment standards is crucial, particularly through a population-wide approach, to limit processed food availability. This study aims to clarify the preferred reduced-sodium appeals highlighting health benefits of food according to the three stages of behavioral change.
Design/methodology/approach
An online survey was conducted in Japan from October 12 to 16, 2023, involving 1,200 individuals aged 20–80 years. Respondents were presented with two types of appeal expressions extracted from various sodium-reduced or normal food products. The evaluation of purchase intent was stratified according to the three stages of health behavior.
Findings
Among the 1,200 respondents (average age, 52.4 ± 13.2 years), 498 were in the action group (average age, 55.4 ± 13.4 years), 173 were in the preparation group (average age, 51.1 ± 12.6 years) and 529 were in the precontemplation group (average age, 49.9 ± 12.5 years) (p < 0.01). The precontemplation group preferred a rephrased expression of reduced sodium with no health appeal. Conversely, the action and preparation groups preferred a direct reduction in sodium appeal.
Originality/value
Conventional health appeals to reduce sodium intake will only improve the health of those who are already health conscious. Therefore, such efforts are inadequate for reducing health disparities. A population-wide food environment system based on behavior-stage groups should be established in collaboration with the food industry.
Details
Keywords
Nanae Tanemura, Masako Kakizaki, Takashi Kusumi, Rie Onodera, Yoshiko Tominaga, Michihiro Araki and Tsuyoshi Chiba
In this study, the authors clarified the differences in consumers' benefit–risk perceptions based on changes (description order and amount) in the benefit–risk information after…
Abstract
Purpose
In this study, the authors clarified the differences in consumers' benefit–risk perceptions based on changes (description order and amount) in the benefit–risk information after an assessment of the health impact of foods.
Design/methodology/approach
The authors set the following four benefit–risk information groups relating to fatty fish consumption—Group 1: benefit/simple–risk/detail; Group 2: risk/detail–benefit/simple; Group 3: benefit/detail–risk/detail; Group 4: risk/detail–benefit/detail. The authors conducted a randomized controlled study on June, 2022, involving 7,200 Japanese consumers aged over 18 years.
Findings
There were no significant differences in the risk and benefit perceptions. Furthermore, the logistic regression analysis identified women and benefit perception as significant influencing factors of “no-risk acceptance.”
Originality/value
This study found that all four message formats were acceptable to consumers due to high-benefit/low-risk perceptions. However, despite the difference in message types used in benefit–risk communication, there was no effect on risk acceptance among consumers. Public agencies should design their communication with considerations toward women and benefit perceptions.