Three formats examined in a 2024 online survey
Parents in a German online survey perceived different strengths in Nutri-Score, the nutrition information panel and the ingredients list. Nutri-Score received the most favourable ratings for visibility and clear design, while more users agreed that they understood the information in the nutrition panel. The study, published in BMC Public Health on 29 September 2026, reports an analysed sample of 978 adults.
Data were collected from 20 February to 4 March 2024 through a commercial online panel. Participants had to live with a child under 18, have lived in Germany for at least a year and handle at least half of household food shopping. Quotas covered household income and municipality size.
Understanding was defined by participants’ own answers
The survey asked how well participants knew each format. The subjective-understanding category combined those who said they roughly knew what it was about with those who said they knew what it was all about. Most respondents reported this level of understanding for each of the three formats. The questionnaire measured their perceptions rather than objectively tested knowledge or behaviour.
Only respondents reporting subjective understanding were asked whether they had ever used the relevant format. Users then evaluated it; respondents who understood a format but did not use it were asked about reasons for non-use. The use question did not specify a shopping context or a fixed recent period.
Users gave different ratings to the formats
Among the 688 Nutri-Score users in the evaluation table, 86.3% agreed that it was clearly visible and 87.1% that its design was clear. The corresponding ratings were 73.6% for both statements among 726 nutrition-panel users, and 68.4% and 55.5% among 690 ingredients-list users. The study reports statistically significant differences between all three formats for both statements.
Agreement with the statement about understanding the information was 76.0% for the nutrition panel, compared with 67.2% for Nutri-Score and 66.8% for the ingredients list. The nutrition panel scored significantly higher than the other two; those two did not differ significantly. These percentages combine respondents who agreed a little or totally, using the users of each format as the denominator.
Self-report and sampling limit the conclusions
The authors note that the study-specific questions had no formal psychometric validation or pilot testing. Self-reported understanding and use may be affected by recall and social desirability. The use question did not establish how often or consistently a format was used, whether it was still being used, or whether it influenced food choices.
The authors also caution that the online panel and its two quotas do not make the sample fully representative of all parents in Germany. Education was not quota-controlled, and parents without internet access or outside online panels may be underrepresented. The cross-sectional design does not establish causality. They call for research linking label engagement to objectively measured food choices and dietary outcomes.
-
Parents’ subjective understanding, use, reasons for non-use and perceived effectiveness of food labelling formats in Germany: a cross-sectional study of the Nutri-score, nutrition information panel and ingredients list ↗
BMC Public Health · CC-BY-4.0 ↗. Anja Simmet, Janine Ehret, Nana Ama Frimpomaa Agyapong and Nanette Stroebele-Benschop (2026). Parents’ subjective understanding, use, reasons for non-use and perceived effectiveness of food labelling formats in Germany: a cross-sectional study of the Nutri-score, nutrition information panel and ingredients list. BMC Public Health 26, 2696. Published 29 September 2026. DOI:10.1186/s12889-026-29571-8. Copyright The Author(s) 2026. CC BY 4.0. Editorial adaptation and translation: FoodRadar. Adapted by FoodRadar.