1 / 16

Walter Farke (MPH) Deutsches Institut für Sucht- und Präventionsforschung (DISuP)

Overview of existing labels – A review of practices in Europe. European Parliament, Brussels 17. March 2011. Walter Farke (MPH) Deutsches Institut für Sucht- und Präventionsforschung (DISuP). Consumer labelling of alcoholic beverages Enticing consumers to buy the product

ledell
Download Presentation

Walter Farke (MPH) Deutsches Institut für Sucht- und Präventionsforschung (DISuP)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Overview of existing labels – A review of practices in Europe European Parliament, Brussels 17. March 2011 Walter Farke (MPH) Deutsches Institut für Sucht- und Präventionsforschung (DISuP)

  2. Consumer labelling of alcoholic beverages • Enticing consumers to buy the product • Package as advertising space • Helping the consumers to make informed decisions • Product information • Alerting the consumers about health and safety risks • Warning statements

  3. Main objective of WP 5 – Member State experiences: Collect practices on labelling of alcoholic beverages across Europe, focussing more particularly on EU-MS.

  4. The data collection focussed on information and warning • messages covering: • General health warnings; • Specific health warnings ( e.g. liver cirrhosis); • Information about units; • Drinking guidelines; • Legal age limits for purchasing alcoholic beverages; • Messages about drinking in moderation; • Drinking and Driving; • Operating machinery; • Harm to others (family members or other third parties).

  5. Mandatory Information (beverages > 1.2% ABV), • governed by the EU: • Mandatory for all: • Product name • Beverage category • Quantity: L, cl, ml • Strenght: % ABV • Contact info • Code or batch • Place of origin • Certain specific ingredients • Mandatory for some: • Minimum durability • Allergens • Easily understandable language • One or more official languages • Additional (not alternative to text) • pictogram for sulphites in wine and • sparkling wine

  6. National Governmental actions: • Germany 2004 (mandatory): • Age limits for alcopops • France 2007 (mandatory): • Alcohol consumption and pregnancy • Russia 2007 (mandatory): • Health warnings for different target groups, • age limits • United Kingdom 2007 (voluntary): • Alcohol content in units • Lower-risk guidelines • Alcohol and pregnancy message

  7. Alcohol industries actions (voluntary): • Denmark (1995): • Alcohol content in units (revised 2009) • The Netherlands (2004): • Responsible drinking message (website) • Germany (2006): • Age limits: “Beer? Sorry, at 16 years.“ • Drinking and Driving (campaigns) • Responsible drinking message: “Enjoy beer • consciously“ • Lithuania (2010): • Age limits

  8. Combination of responsibility message and web address

  9. Impact and effectiveness • Greater awareness of the messages was identified (Stockwell 2006). • Evidence of awareness and recall of the messages was found, especially among teenagers & pregnant women (McKinnon et al. 2000, Guillemont & Leon 2008). • Increasing awareness of the standard drink concept was also shown in Australia (Loxley et al. 2004). • It was shown that 17% of the 12-17 year-old alcohol consumers were prevented from buying alcopops when using age limits labels (Federal Institute for Health Education 2005).

  10. Determinants to grab attention: • Label clutter • Location • Orientation • Contrast • Colour • Pictorials • Signal icons/ texts • Border • Combination

  11. Results of a qualitative study (VicHealth 2009): • At the beginning, health warnings should be factual and informative; • Labels most likely to be effective are those linked with existing media campaigns; • If images are included, they would be more effective if they are linked with other elements of a social marketing campaign; • Messages should not tell the consumers what to do. Participants who had personal bad experiences in relation with their drinking behaviours are especially reluctant to these types of messages; • “Health Warning” was the most preferred wording.

  12. Suggestions of “Health Warning“ labels (Eurocare 2009)

  13. Suggestions of “Health Warning“ labels (SABMiller plc 2010, July 2010)

  14. Suggestions of “Health Warning“ labels (SABMiller plc 2010, Nov. 2010)

  15. Conclusions • Mandatory regulations should be the best way to use health warning labels and other information on alcoholic beverages, because ... • they ensure widest possible reach of the population; • they ensure a design that enhances visibility, e.g. they should determine the minimum size and the placement of the health warnings on the labels; • they ensure the relevance of the content of the messages, which really closing the gaps of knowledge among the consumers; • they provide the opportunity to support and reinforce warning messages on alcoholic beverages with similar messages on alcohol advertisement; • they ensure accessibility of specific target groups, e.g. pregnant women.

  16. Thank you for your attention! Contact: w.farke@katho-nrw.de

More Related