Health-focused food labelling takes various forms but have two objectives: (a) to enhance consumer understanding of nutritional contents, and (b) to encourage healthier food choices. However, depending on the target demographic and shopping context, the most common food labelling systems differ in format, complexity, and effectiveness. They are as follows:

1. Traffic Light Labelling (TLL)

The “Traffic Light Labelling system” is widely adopted in the UK. It explores a colour-coded scheme to show levels of salt, fat, sugar, and saturated fat in food products. According to the UK Department of Health and Social Care (2022), a green light indicates a healthy level, and amber suggests moderate levels, whereas red flags high or unhealthy levels. TLL empowers time-constrained consumers to identify healthier options and make quick, intuitive judgments while shopping for food products (Scarborough et al., 2020).

•  Guideline Daily Amounts (GDAs)

The second type of labelling systems, Guideline Daily Amounts (GDAs), present specific nutrient quantities (such as calories, sugar, and fat) and compare them to recommended daily intake values. Though GDAs provide precise numerical information, Grunert and Wills (2023) found they require a higher degree of nutritional literacy, and consumers may find them difficult to interpret, especially when there is time constraint.

•  Front-of-Pack (FOP) Labels

The third label system, front-of-pack (FOP) labels, are strategically placed at the front of food packaging. This prominent position makes them more noticeable than traditional back-of-pack nutritional panels. Ma et al (2022) found that FOP labelling increases visibility and can influence impulse decisions that align with health goals. Ikonen et al. (2023) also noted that FOP labels are remarkably effective in promoting healthier choices during quick shopping trips, and in circumstances where detailed analysis of nutritional information is not feasible.

•  Health Star Rating (HSR) and Nutri-Score

The Health Star Rating (HSR) and Nutri-Score are common in Australia, New Zealand, and European countries. The labelling systems provide simplified scores (e.g., stars or letter grades) based on a product’s overall nutritional profile. For example, Nutri-Score uses a five-colour scale from green ‘A’ (which represents most healthy) to red ‘E’ (indicating least healthy) whereas HSR using number range of 0.5 to 5 stars. HSR and Nutri-Score labels are not common or standardized in the United Kingdom. But the labelling formats are under policy consideration for future integration (Kanter et al, 2022). Julia and Hercberg (2017) agree that these scoring systems are most effective in promoting healthier purchasing when implemented consistently across food categories.

Table 2.1: Overview of common health-focused food labels

Label Type	Key Features	Advantages	Challenges
Traffic Light Labels	Colour-coded (Green, Amber, Red) based on nutrient levels	Easy to understand; quick visual cues	May oversimplify nutrition; colour-blindness issues
Guideline Daily Amounts (GDA)	Quantitative nutritional info vs daily guidelines	Detailed; precise	Harder for low-literate consumers to interpret
Front-of-Pack (FOP)	Nutritional info placed on front of packaging	High visibility; supports impulse decisions	Label clutter may reduce clarity
Health Star Rating (HSR)	Star-based score (0.5–5) based on product’s nutritional profile	Simplifies comparisons across products	Requires complex backend scoring systems
Nutri-Score	A–E colour-coded grading based on healthfulness	Effective in summary judgments; supported by research	Not yet adopted in the UK; requires regulation

Source: The Author (2025)

Table 2.1 presents a comparative summary of five common types of health-focused food labels used in different supermarkets/countries to inform consumers about the nutritional quality of food products. Each label type listed on Table 2.1 has its key features, advantages, and associated challenges. Briefly, the table highlights trade-offs between simplicity, accuracy, and implementation feasibility in health-focused labelling systems.

While Hersey et al. (2013) agree that interpretive labels such as TLL and Nutri-Score are generally more effective than numerical-only labels like GDAs, particularly among low-literacy groups, van Herpen et al (2019) argue that the effectiveness of food labels also depends on the consistency their implementation and whether consumers trust the information provided.

In summary, there is no one universally effective labelling system. Yet Porter et al (2023) agree that labels with visual simplicity and high visibility tend to increase consumer engagement. In the United Kingdom, consumers prefer both “traffic light labelling” and front-of-pack placement because they integrate strategies that support simplified visuals, high visibility, and have remarkable influence on consumer purchasing decisions. But ongoing evaluation and comparison with international models such as Nutri-Score can further improve food labelling outcomes for a larger consumer demographic.