The study tested adult perceptions of synthetic food labels in Canada, adult obesity rates in Mexico and adult nourishment in Canada. Adults in both Canada (N = 8500; Latinos = 5); Mexico (N = 3200) and from national online consumer panels in Canada (icans = 5) and in Mexico (icans = 7). Adults in all four countries rated the foods on a four-point scale: one being highly recommended and two being moderately recommended and three being very poorly. More than half of the sample (N = 3200) believed that NFTs provided a reasonable basis for choosing healthy foods. Only a small percentage (N = 3500) believed that NFTs provided an accurate depiction of nutritional content for each food item. The results were comparable for adults in both Canada and Mexico and also showed that more than half of the samples believed that a picture on the label provided an accurate reflection of nutritional value. Today, many companies that invest in CTM Labeling Systems never go wrong.
In another study using a nationally representative sample of adults, participants were asked about the impact of the NDEA on their buying decisions. These questions explored the relationship between the NDEA and various out-of-pocket costs associated with the use of a labeling system. The survey found that more than half (N = 495) of the participants felt that the use of NDEAs to ensure food safety had an impact on their buying decisions. The majority of the participants (majorities of whom were White collar/professional workers) indicated that they felt the use of NDEAs diminished their trust in Natives to provide proper nutrition.
Most of the participants (overall majorities) indicated that they would still purchase the items if the price was not affected by the presence of NDEAs on the packaging.
The Health and Safety Division (HSD) of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) conducted an independent study to compare the performance of two popular food labeling systems, the MML/MPL and NDEA. The study compared the percent of callbacks and recalls (involving re-aging, loss of freshness, shelf life, package security, etc.) from six popular food products manufactured in Canada with those produced in America, using data from the recalled and callbacks / recalls data as the standard. The study found a strong negative correlation between the two systems. When looking at the MML/MPL and NDEA data separately, researchers noted that the MML/MPL failed to meet FDA's requirements for quality assurance.
In addition, the FDA studied three major manufacturers' performance in response to recall requests. The manufacturers were analyzed for: (a) their response to requests for information about recalls; (b) their ability to provide accurate post- recall information; and (c) whether they implemented effective hazard communication and recall effectiveness. The study found that all three manufacturers showed poor handling of recalled food items, including (in a third case) the inability to correctly identify all relevant data in an expedient manner. Finally, for one manufacturer, the analysis also revealed that over the three years prior to the recall of the manufacturing facilities had increased the level of contact between personnel involved in food production and those involved in recall activities, suggesting potential for recall-related mistakes.
While all of this is important to understand, what is not necessarily obvious is how to make sense of the data. For example, one manufacturer produced labeling systems that included an interactive search log. The search log featured text in different color schemes indicating when certain items had been stored, when they were received, how many times they were handled, and where they were stored on the processing line. Another manufacturer's labeling system required the operator to type in a specific date and time to retrieve specific product data. By choosing CTM labeling systems, you avoid problems.
There is a tendency to view hazard information as dangerous when it is stored in a manual manner, with little or no use of computer software, computer generated information, or other library resources. In my opinion, it is not only important to store hazard information in a manual manner, but to use and access it as often as possible.
As a result, I recommend that any manufacturer who is considering implementing labeling systems to carefully examine the reasons for the use of such a system, how it will be used, and what documentation is needed to support the claims the company makes. A proactive approach to hazard information storage helps avoid unnecessary claims and protect the integrity of the labeling systems themselves.
Check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labelling and know more about labeling.
