Table 3.

Themes, sub-themes and example(s) of individual responses identified in the open-ended questions in which participants wrote down their opinion about nutritional warnings, and the percentage of participants who mentioned each theme and sub-theme: Uruguayan citizens aged 18–75 years (n 1416), 61 % female, who responded to an online survey about nutritional warnings as front-of-pack labels, 2017

Theme	Sub-theme	Example(s) of individual responses	Frequency of mention (%)
General attitude			95·3
	Positive attitude	‘It is a good initiative’; ‘An excellent idea’	93·1
	Indifference	‘I don’t care’; ‘It won’t change what I eat’	0·1
	Negative attitude	‘Absurd’; ‘A bad idea. If a food is not healthful it should not be sold’	2·2
Advantages			32·9
	Easy to understand	‘We should know what we eat and those who don’t know about nutrition find it very difficult to understand the labels’; ‘Very useful to facilitate understanding of nutrition information at the time of purchase’	8·8
	Enables informed choices	‘It would help people to make informed choices and eat more healthfully’	8·3
	Facilitates decision making	‘Given the number of similar products available in the marketplace, it would facilitate decision making and choice of healthful products’	7·8
	Easy to identify/captures attention	‘It would be very easy to identify and to know more about a product’; ‘They would be seen quickly and easily’; ‘They would definitely catch my attention’	7·0
	It counters marketing strategies	‘Visual signs to compete with marketing is what we need’; ‘They would counteract deceitful advertising’; ‘To prevent advertising lies that poison us’	1·0
Expected positive consequences			15·9
	Raises consciousness	‘It would make people more conscious of what they eat’; ‘It’s an invitation to care about what we consume and the damage it causes us’; ‘People will be shocked about some products’	6·4
	Encourages more healthful food choices	‘It would help us make more healthful choices’	3·3
	Improves the health status of the population	‘It will help us have a more healthful life’; ‘It would contribute to the prevention of several diseases’	3·4
	Educates people	‘It is a good way to educate people’; ‘It would educate those who have no idea about nutrition’; ‘It would help us educate our children’	1·6
	Encourages food reformulation	‘This would encourage brands to invest their money in making healthful products’	1·2
Factors conditioning success			14·2
	Communication campaigns	‘It should be accompanied by communication campaigns from primary school’; ‘This should be accompanied by a huge communication campaign stressing the risks associated with these products’	3·6
	Large size	‘They should be big, so that we can easily read them’	3·5
	Changes to the design	‘I would use bright and attention-grabbing colours’	2·0
	Governmental control	‘It requires strict control’; ‘Companies should be controlled’	1·9
	Compulsory implementation	‘It should be compulsory’; ‘It should be included in all foods with excessive content’	1·3
	Include additional information	‘It should include how much they contained’; ‘Quantities should be included’	0·9
	Quick implementation	‘It’s an urgent measure!’; ‘It should have already been implemented’	0·9
Reasons for the implementation			13·1
	Nutrition information is difficult to find and understand	‘Information about how much quantity products contain is not enough to clearly evaluate whether they are healthful or not’; ‘Nowadays we do not understand the information or it is not easily accessible’	6·9
	Health problems of the population	‘It is necessary given the serious health problems of the Uruguayan population’	3·0
	Deceitful marketing strategies	‘Many products are advertised as healthful but they are not’; ‘The market is full of deceitful marketing strategies’	2·3
	Information is a consumer right	‘It would help us realize our citizens’ rights’	0·9
Disadvantages			8·7
	It does not include quantitative information	‘It is necessary to have information about quantity’	2·7
	Criteria for defining ‘excess’ are not clear	‘What is the criteria for considering excess?’; ‘I don’t understand how to interpret “excess”? Excess compared to what?’	2·4
	It does not consider positive nutrients	‘Information should be included on both “good” and “bad” products’; ‘I would also highlight positive things. For example, vitamins, minerals, low in sodium’	0·8
	It scares	‘These signs would scare people so that they do not consume those products’; ‘The signs are too negative. I would say aggressive’	0·7
	The information is already available on the labels	‘Nutrition information is enough’; ‘It isn’t necessary to include these signs. Nutrition information is already complete’	0·6
	It does not include non-packaged products	‘What happens with the products that are sold in a takeaway or consumed in a restaurant?’	0·4
	It is confusing	‘It is more confusing than informative’; ‘It can create confusion in people without nutrition education’	0·3
	It does not educate consumers	‘It does not pursue the objective of educating people’; ‘It does not educate consumers’	0·2
	It would reduce sales of products	‘What would happen with small shops when sales of these products decrease?’	0·4
	It does not allow to compare products	‘It does not allow me to compare products’	0·1
	It encourages unhealthful reformulation	‘My great fear is related to producers. For example, they could replace sugar for other substances that can be even more harmful for our body’	0·1
Additional policies			14·7
	Additional labelling policies	‘It is urgent to label GMO’; ‘It would be nice to have labels for products that contain gluten and dairy’	13·1
	Regulation of marketing practices	‘Advertising of these substances should be prohibited’	0·8
	Prohibition of specific products	‘These products with excess should be prohibited’	0·6
	Taxes and subsidies	‘It is not enough. Healthful foods should be subsidized and unhealthful products should pay more taxes’	0·1
	Promote consumption of natural products	‘Policies should aim at encouraging people to consume fresh home-made foods’	0·1

GMO, genetically modified organisms.

Percentages do not sum up to 100 % because each participant could give responses related to more than one sub-theme.