Knowledge, practices and perceptions of energy labelling of nut products among Australian consumers and stakeholders: an online survey

Abstract

Background

Nut consumption in Australia is low, perhaps due to concerns with weight gain. However, nut consumption is not associated with increased weight, in part because of their lower metabolisable energy. Current energy labelling for nuts use Atwater factors, which over‐represent the available energy from nuts. Therefore, this research aimed to examine stakeholders' knowledge, practices and perceptions of displaying true metabolisable energy on nutrition labels and its perceived impact on nut consumption.

Methods

An anonymous and voluntary survey was conducted online. Eligible respondents lived in Australia, were aged 18 years or older and had either no formal nutrition education (consumer group) or had formal training and were working as a stakeholder (stakeholder group; working in nutrition/dietetics, public health, food industry, food regulation or nut growing). Convenience sampling and snowballing were used to recruit respondents primarily via online advertisement.

Results

Three hundred and forty‐eight respondents (63.2% female; 71.0% aged 18–39 years; 69.0% Bachelor's degree or higher) were included in the analyses. A larger proportion of stakeholders agreed that nut consumption assists with weight management (67.9%) compared with consumers (47.6%). Theoretical food packaging showing both Atwater and metabolisable energy in the nutrition information panel was favoured among consumers and stakeholders, though 62.3% of consumers reported that a lower metabolisable energy of nuts would not impact their consumption.

Conclusions

This study indicates a need to further investigate the impact of metabolisable energy labelling on nut intake. Further education about the relationship between nuts and body weight is required for consumers and stakeholders.

Key points

• Our study provides insights into the perceptions of energy labelling on nut products.

• There is a lack of knowledge about the association between regular nut consumption and body weight, particularly among consumers.

• Consumers and stakeholders preferred nutrition labelling that showed the metabolisable energy of nuts alongside the Atwater energy content.

• Future research should investigate the impact of displaying metabolisable energy on nut consumption and trial the preferred methods of displaying this information on product labelling.

INTRODUCTION

Tree nuts and peanuts are energy‐dense foods recommended for regular consumption as part of a healthy diet. ¹ , ² Health benefits resulting from regular nut intake include a reduced risk of cardiovascular disease, ³ , ⁴ cancer ⁵ and type 2 diabetes. ⁶ Despite these well‐documented benefits, nut consumption remains low in Australia ⁷ and globally. ⁸ , ⁹ , ¹⁰ Previous research with both consumers and health professionals has highlighted concerns regarding weight gain and the high fat and energy content of nuts as barriers to regular nut consumption. ¹¹ , ¹²

Current evidence suggests that concerns regarding the effect of nut consumption on body weight are not supported by the literature. For example, systematic reviews and meta‐analyses conclude that there is no association between regular nut intake and body weight. ¹³ , ¹⁴ , ¹⁵ One mechanism that may contribute to the lack of association between nut intake and body weight is the lower metabolisable energy of tree nuts and peanuts, which may be up to 30% lower than what is reported on nutrition labels. ¹⁶ The metabolisable energy of nuts differs by nut type (e.g., almonds, cashews) and nut form (e.g., whole nuts, chopped nuts, nut butters). ¹⁶ Therefore, dispelling misconceptions regarding the effects of nut consumption on body weight and educating consumers and health professionals about the metabolisable energy of nuts may reduce confusion. Consequently, this may inform strategies to promote nut intake and increase consumption of nuts towards the recommended target of 30 g/day. ¹

Nutrition labelling on packaged food and beverage products in Australia is regulated by Food Standards Australia New Zealand and encompasses the ingredients list, the nutrition information panel (NIP), allergen labelling and nutrition content claims and health claims, among other labelling elements. ¹⁷ In Australia, the United States and the European Union, the energy content of food and beverage products displayed on packaging is required to be calculated using Atwater factors (17 kJ or 4 kcal per gram of carbohydrate and protein, 37 kJ or 9 kcal per gram of lipid and 29 kJ or 7 kcal per gram of alcohol), which are multiplied by the amount (grams) of energy‐containing proximates (carbohydrates, proteins, lipids and alcohol). ¹⁸ , ¹⁹ , ²⁰ However, Atwater factors provide an estimate of the energy content of foods and beverages and may not reflect the amount of energy absorbed by the human body (metabolisable energy). In the United States, a brand of nut bar has presented an updated nutrition facts label (known as the nutrition information panel in Australia and New Zealand) that accounts for the metabolisable energy content of nuts as reported by the research. ²¹ Another food labelling element that may communicate information regarding the energy content of foods is front‐of‐pack (FOP) labelling. ²²

There is currently no research exploring consumer and stakeholder perceptions of displaying nut metabolisable energy on food labels. Investigations are required to understand consumer perceptions of nutrition labelling and the potential impact that this can have on nut consumption, for example, whether displaying the lower metabolisable energy of nuts on packaging may influence consumers' nut intake. Furthermore, other stakeholders (such as nutrition professionals, nut growers and food regulation professionals) may have valuable insights on how to effectively formulate NIPs and FOP labels to show the metabolisable energy. Therefore, the aim of this study was to explore the knowledge, practices and perceptions of consumers and stakeholders of communicating the metabolisable energy of nuts on food labels and the perceived impact that this may have on nut consumption.

METHODS

Study design

A self‐administered, open online survey was conducted using REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture; version 13.7.5), hosted at the University of Wollongong, ²³ , ²⁴ to examine the perceptions of nuts among consumers and a variety of stakeholders (including dietitians, nutrition professionals, nutrition and food science researchers, public health professionals, food industry professionals, food regulators and nut growers). Responses to the survey were anonymous and voluntary and informed tacit consent was provided by respondents. Survey data were stored in REDCap (a secure, web‐based application), ²⁴ according to university policy. Ethics approval was obtained from the University of Wollongong Human Research Ethics Committee (2022/341). The survey outcomes were reported following the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E‐Surveys (CHERRIES) ²⁵ (Supporting Information S1: Material 1).

The development of questions was informed by the guidelines of Dillman, Smyth and Christian. ²⁶ The survey collected responses about respondent demographics, knowledge of nuts, current intake (consumers) or making recommendations (stakeholders) around nuts, facilitators and barriers to nut consumption (consumers) or making nut recommendations (stakeholders) and knowledge and perceptions of metabolisable energy of nuts and food labelling on nut products. The survey was piloted for content and face validity by three consumers and two dietitians, using a modified version of questionnaires by Mackenzie et al. ²⁷ and Trakman et al. ²⁸ Each test provided a score out of four for appropriateness and clarity. Adjustments to the survey were made prior to dissemination, based on the feedback.

The final survey is provided as Supporting Information S2: Material 2. Survey questions were distributed over a maximum of 25 pages, with each page displaying between one and five questions. There were eight categories of nonrandomised questions in the final survey, with different questions for consumers versus other stakeholders. Consumers and other stakeholder respondents were distinguished based on their response to the following dichotomous (yes/no) question: ‘Do you work in one of the following areas: nutrition/dietetics; nutrition/food science research; public health; food industry; food regulation; nut growing’ and were redirected to their corresponding questions. Four categories (total of 14 questions) were common to all respondents: eligibility, demographics, knowledge of nuts and final comments. The remaining four categories were specific to consumers or other stakeholders and included nut intake (consumers only; six questions), recommendations made around nuts (stakeholders only; nine questions), perceptions of nuts (five questions for consumers and six for other stakeholders) and labelling and metabolisable energy of nuts (15 questions for consumers and 13 for other stakeholders). The latter two categories consisted of similar questions for both consumers and other stakeholders, tailored to each group. The stakeholder pathway included questions that were similar to each other (e.g., ‘Describe the frequency of nut butter intake you recommend’ and ‘Describe how frequently you think consumers should be eating nut butters’) to capture the perceptions of stakeholders who do not directly make recommendations to consumers in their role. The maximum number of questions within each category is outlined in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Two survey pathways for consumer and stakeholder respondents, showing the number of questions (n) in each pathway and in each section. NIP, nutrition information panel. * Numbers are the maximum number of questions that could possibly be presented to a respondent (e.g., if a respondent did not select ‘nut butters’ to the question “Which of the following foods do you purchase? Tick all that apply”, then the branching logic about perceptions of the labelling of nut butters would not be presented). † Common questions: presented to every respondent and worded the same among consumers and stakeholders. ‡ Questions were tailored to consumers and other stakeholders, leading to a difference in the number of questions (e.g., consumers were asked about their nut intake whereas stakeholders were asked about their nut recommendations and what they thought consumers should be eating).

As stated above, four categories of questions were tailored to the consumer or the stakeholder. Questions about nut intake were presented only to consumers, whereas stakeholders were questioned about how they recommend or promote nut consumption. Perceptions of nuts included questions such as ‘How much do you agree or not agree with the following statements about nuts?’ and explored factors discouraging consumers from eating nuts and stakeholders from recommending nuts. Questions about food labelling and metabolisable energy were the focus of this study. Respondents were presented with general food labelling questions (e.g., if nutrition information, product price or brand influenced their choice). Respondents were also asked to estimate how much energy (in kilojoules) is in a 30‐g serve of nuts and how much of this energy (%) is absorbed by the body. Then, respondents were presented with the metabolisable energy of nuts and asked to identify the perceived impact of listing metabolisable energy on the label, on their nut consumption (consumers) or on the nut consumption among consumers (other stakeholders). Finally, respondents were shown several options for displaying nut metabolisable energy on hypothetical products (including on the NIP, and via an FOP claim, presented in Figure 2) and asked to indicate their preference for the different options.

Figure 2.

Hypothetical labelling presented to respondents to explore their preferences for buying or recommending a snack bar (a,b) and displaying metabolisable energy using NIPs and FOP labels (c–e; Options A–C, respectively). (e) The rationale for selecting a ‘15% less energy’ claim was based on the 5%–30% lower metabolisable energy range for nuts. Whole cashews and chopped roasted almonds both have approximately a 15% lower metabolisable energy, therefore the ‘15% less energy’ claim was used as an example. FOP, front‐of‐pack; NIP, nutrition information panel.

Respondents were recruited to the online survey using social media (including Twitter/X, LinkedIn, Instagram, posts on researchers' personal Facebook pages and on Facebook groups such as community groups and dietitian groups), the Nuts for Life (educates and promotes nut consumption) e‐newsletter, community flyers distributed in the Illawarra region of New South Wales and the main University of Wollongong campus and by snowballing or word of mouth. The survey was later advertised via the Dietitian Connection (an international dietetic association) e‐newsletter and a private Dietitian Connection Facebook group to recruit more dietitian respondents. To be eligible, respondents needed to be living in Australia, be aged 18 years or older and either have no formal nutrition training (for consumer respondents) or have formal nutrition training and be working as either a dietitian, nutrition professional, nutrition and food science researcher, public health professional, food industry professional, food regulator or nut grower (for stakeholder respondents). Respondents who had previously received formal nutrition training but were not currently working as one of the stakeholder types were ineligible for the study. The survey was initially conducted over a 2‐month period: 12 April to 17 June 2023. A reCAPTCHA feature was implemented on 19 April 2023 after receiving an abnormally large number of responses (~385), many indicative of bot responses, ²⁹ in the first week. The reCAPTCHA was presented prior to the first page of the survey. The survey was reopened from 21 September to 15 October 2023 following an advertisement by Dietitian Connection. Differences in the recruitment between the two survey openings are outlined in Supporting Information S5: Table 1.

The survey utilised both closed and open‐ended questions. Closed questions included multiple‐choice questions (‘select one answer only’ and ‘select all that apply’), both 3‐ and 5‐point Likert‐type scales (depending on the nature of the question) and sliding bars. Open‐ended questions were included to allow respondents to elaborate on their answer to a previous closed question. All questions were optional, allowing respondents to skip questions if desired. Eligibility and key branching questions were mandatory. Respondents were unable to progress to the next page if mandatory questions were left unanswered. Branching logic was used to direct respondents to questions based on their responses. Respondents were able to go back to previous questions and change their responses. An ‘I don't know’ option was included for closed questions where appropriate. Completeness checks were not conducted prior to survey submission. However, after submission, survey records were manually checked for completeness, and ‘incomplete’ records (defined as records that only provided demographic responses) and ‘partially complete’ records (defined as records that progressed past demographic items but did not complete the survey) were identified. As an incentive to complete the online survey, respondents were provided with the opportunity to enter a prize draw to win one of ten $50 electronic vouchers, randomly selected for the prize. To enter the draw, respondents provided their name and email address after completing the survey in a separate form not associated with the survey responses. Respondents were not prevented from completing the survey multiple times; however, survey records were checked for duplicate and fraudulent responses via a systematic process outlined in Supporting Information S3: Material 3, which were then excluded from analyses. IP addresses were not collected in the initial opening but were collected during the second opening as a method of identifying bots. All survey records were checked for bot responses using the systematic approach by one researcher, and a second researcher independently checked a random 10% sample using the same approach.

Data analysis

‘Partially complete’ survey records were included in the data analysis. After the removal of ‘bot’, ‘incomplete’, ‘ineligible’ and ‘insufficient information’ responses, data analysis was conducted using Microsoft Excel (version 16.54). Data were not adjusted for the nonrepresentative sample. Responses to the open‐ended question ‘Please specify your area of work’ were categorised using the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Standard Classification of Occupations database (ref). This question was presented to consumers only. Each response was matched to the most appropriate submajor group of occupations. For example, a respondent who reported working in hairdressing was matched to the ‘Other Technicians and Trades Workers’ 2‐digit sub‐major group, given that this category includes the 6‐digit occupation ‘Hairdresser’. The ABS Standard Classification of Occupations database does not include categories for students, retirees or the unemployed. The categories ‘Students’, ‘Retired’ and ‘Unemployed’ were created to capture the respective responses.

For analysis of closed questions, descriptive statistics (frequencies and proportions) were used to summarise responses. Perceptions of nuts and nut butters and preferences for showing nut metabolisable energy on hypothetical products were compared between consumers and stakeholders via Mann–Whitney tests and comparison of medians, using Stata/SE (version 17, StataCorp, 2021). To allow for statistical comparisons, Likert‐type scale responses about perceptions were scored as follows: ‘strongly disagree’ = 1, ‘somewhat disagree’ = 2, ‘neither agree nor disagree’ = 3, ‘somewhat agree’ = 4 and ‘strongly agree’ = 5. Responses regarding the metabolisable energy displayed on packaging were scored as follows: ‘this is the least helpful’ = 1, ‘this is somewhat helpful’ = 2 and ‘this is the most helpful’ = 3. χ ² tests were performed to analyse the perceptions of the impact of consuming 30 g of nuts/day on body weight. Both ‘No, my/their weight would not change’ and ‘No, I/they would lose weight’ responses were coded as 1 and the ‘Yes, I/they would gain weight’ response was coded as 2. ‘I don't know’ and ‘Did not respond’ responses were excluded from all analyses. A p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Open‐ended question responses were subjected to content analysis by one researcher within Microsoft Excel (version 16.54). Content analysis coding was guided by Saldaña, ³⁰ and responses were summarised into categories based on similar meaning. For example, for the question ‘Please clarify why you would choose one bar over the other’, responses such as ‘because it has less kilojoules’ and ‘lower energy content’ were coded into the category ‘less energy’. Verbatim quotes are included to capture the essence of categories. Data are presented as n (%), unless specified otherwise.

RESULTS

A total of 1004 survey records were received: 987 records from the initial opening and 17 records from the second opening of the survey. Of the total records, 405 (40.3%) were identified as bot records, with a further 156 (15.5%) records considered incomplete, 94 (9.4%) with ‘insufficient information’ and one (<0.1%) ineligible record (Supporting Information S4: Figure 1). Therefore, 348 (34.7%) records were considered valid and included in these analyses. The completion rate was 65.2% (655 respondents who submitted the last page out of the total 1004 respondents); however, it should be noted that many of those who submitted were identified as bots. The proportion of included records among the 599 nonbot records was 58.1% (348 out of the total 599 nonbot respondents).

Of the 348 valid records, 183 (52.6%) were completed by consumers and 165 (47.4%) were completed by stakeholders. Consumers were mostly female (65.0%) and aged 18–29 years (41.0%), and 149 (81.4%) consumers reported having a Certificate/Diploma or higher education. Stakeholders were also mostly female (61.2%), aged 30–39 years (40.6%) and had higher levels of education than consumers (83.0% reported a bachelor's degree or higher) (Table 1). Almost one‐third (30.6%) of consumers did not report their occupation, and of those who did, the most common categories were ‘Education Professionals’ (8.2%), ‘Design, Engineering, Science and Transport Professionals’ (7.1%) and ‘Students’ (6.6%) (Supporting Information S5: Table 2). Stakeholders were mostly working in ‘Nutrition/dietetics’ (58.2%), followed by ‘Nutrition/food science research’ (23.6%) and ‘Public health’ (22.4%) (Supporting Information S5: Table 3).

Table 1.

Demographic characteristics of consumer (n = 183) and stakeholder (n = 165) respondents.

	Consumers	Stakeholders	Total
Age, years
18–29	75 (41.0)	57 (34.6)	132 (37.9)
30–39	48 (26.2)	67 (40.6)	115 (33.1)
40–49	18 (9.8)	24 (14.6)	42 (12.1)
50–59	16 (8.7)	13 (7.9)	29 (8.3)
60–69	20 (10.9)	4 (2.4)	24 (6.9)
70–79	6 (3.3)	0 (0.0)	6 (1.7)
Gendera
Male	53 (29.0)	56 (33.9)	109 (31.3)
Female	119 (65.0)	101 (61.2)	220 (63.2)
Prefer to self‐describe	0 (0.0)	1 (0.6)	1 (0.3)
I prefer not to say	0 (0.0)	1 (0.6)	1 (0.3)
Did not respond	11 (6.0)	6 (3.6)	17 (4.9)
Highest level of education
High school, up to Year 10	4 (2.2)	4 (2.4)	8 (2.3)
High school, up to Year 12	29 (15.9)	6 (3.6)	35 (10.1)
Certificate/Diploma	46 (25.1)	17 (10.3)	63 (18.1)
Bachelor's degree	78 (42.6)	71 (43.0)	149 (42.8)
Post‐graduate degree (including Master's, Doctoral)	25 (13.7)	66 (40.0)	91 (26.2)
Did not respond	1 (0.6)	1 (0.6)	2 (0.6)

^aAt the time of survey development, this question was phrased as ‘What is your gender?’ and options were ‘Male’, ‘Female’, ‘Prefer to self‐describe’ and ‘I prefer not to say’. We acknowledge that ‘male’ and ‘female’ are not terminology used to describe gender and research in health sciences is evolving to recognise correct terminology.

Knowledge of nuts

A majority (>90%) of consumers considered the following to be nuts: almonds, Brazil nuts, cashews, hazelnuts, macadamias, pistachios and walnuts, compared with >80% of stakeholders (Supporting Information S4: Figure 2a). Among the ‘Other’ responses was ‘sunflower seed’ (n = 1). Cashew butter, almond butter and ABC (almond, Brazil nut and cashew) butter were the most common nut butters identified among consumers and stakeholders (Supporting Information S4: Figure 2b), with other butters specified including ‘hazelnut butter’, ‘macadamia butter’ and ‘sesame paste’. Over 76% of stakeholders reported being aware of the current recommendation for nut intake, compared with only 16.4% of consumers. However, only 9.8% (n = 18) of all consumers and 41.8% (n = 69) of all stakeholders correctly identified ‘30 grams’ or ‘one handful’ as the recommended serving size of nuts (Supporting Information S5: Table 4). Consumers and stakeholders identified nuts as having a high content of fats (69.4% vs. 49.1%) (Supporting Information S4: Figure 3) and a low carbohydrate content (66.7% vs. 57.0%).

Nut intake among consumers

Most consumers (62.3%) reported consuming nuts at least once/week, with the most common frequencies being 1–2 times/week (20.2%) and 3–4 times/week (18.6%) (Supporting Information S5: Table 5). The proportion of consumers who reported eating nuts either less than once/month, or never, was 14.8%. The most reported amount of nut intake was ‘one handful’ (16.9%) (Supporting Information S5: Table 6). Consumers reported eating nut butters less frequently; 43.2% reported consuming nut butters at least once/week, whereas 31.7% reported consuming nut butters less than once/month, or never. For nut butters, 25.1% of consumers reported eating one to two tablespoons (Supporting Information S5: Table 6). Consumers reported wanting to keep their consumption of nuts the same (54.1%) or to increase their consumption of nuts (41.0%), whereas a greater proportion reported wanting their consumption of nut butters to stay the same (75.4%), with 14.8% wanting to increase nut butter consumption.

Nut recommendations among health professionals and other stakeholders

Three‐quarters (n = 128; 77.6%) of stakeholders reported making recommendations about nuts to clients or the public (Supporting Information S5: Table 5). Consuming nuts once/day was the most recommended (54.7%) nut intake frequency, followed by 3–4 times/week (22.7%). Nut butters were recommended for consumption less frequently, with 32.8% recommending daily consumption, 25.0% recommending consumption 3–4 times/week and 22.7% recommending nut butter consumption 1–2 times/week. No respondents reported ‘never’ recommending nut consumption, though 4.7% (n = 6) ‘never’ recommended nut butter consumption (Supporting Information S5: Table 5). Stakeholders typically recommend either 30 g (21.1%) or one handful (27.3%) of nuts and 1–2 tablespoons (37.5%) of nut butters (Supporting Information S5: Table 7). When prompted for their reasons for suggesting particular amounts of nuts and nut butters, stakeholders reported that nuts were healthy (particularly regarding heart health); they have a favourable nutrient composition of protein, unsaturated fats and micronutrients; and that their recommendations are informed by the Australian Dietary Guidelines and/or recent evidence.

Half (n = 83; 50.3%) of all stakeholders believed that consumers should be eating nuts once/day, compared with 28.5% believing that nut butters should be consumed daily (Supporting Information S5: Table 5). The proportion of stakeholders not knowing how frequently nut butters should be consumed was higher than for nuts (7.3% vs. 1.8%). Stakeholders also reported believing that consumers should be eating 30 g or one handful (43.7%) of nuts, and 1–2 tablespoons (34.0%) of nut butters (Supporting Information S5: Table 8), aligning with their recommendations.

Perceptions of nuts and nut butters

Half (n = 91; 49.7%) of all consumers ‘strongly agreed’ that nuts are tasty. Stakeholders also ‘strongly agreed’ that nuts are tasty (55.8%). Although a majority (73.3%) of consumers agreed to some extent that nuts were high in energy, nearly half (47.6%) agreed that nuts are good for weight management, whereas 16.4% disagreed. Most stakeholders (83.0%) believed that nuts were high in energy; however, only two‐thirds (67.9%) agreed that nuts are good for weight management, and when compared with consumers, a smaller proportion of stakeholders (5.4%) disagreed to some extent (Table 2). A higher proportion of consumers (25.7%) and stakeholders (13.3%) disagreed with nut butters being good for weight management (Supporting Information S5: Table 9).

Table 2.

Perceptions of nuts reported by consumers (n = 183) and stakeholders (n = 165).

	Strongly disagree	Somewhat disagree	Neither agree nor disagree	Somewhat agree	Strongly agree	Mediana	I don't knowb	Did not respondb	p Valuec
Nuts are tasty
Consumers	8 (4.4)	6 (3.3)	8 (4.4)	52 (28.4)	91 (49.7)	5	4 (2.2)	14 (7.7)	0.0657
Stakeholders	2 (1.2)	0 (0.0)	6 (3.6)	46 (27.9)	92 (55.8)	5	1 (0.6)	18 (10.9)
Nuts are convenient
Consumers	11 (6.0)	10 (5.5)	8 (4.4)	48 (26.2)	90 (49.2)	5	2 (1.1)	14 (7.7)	0.0114
Stakeholders	1 (0.6)	2 (1.2)	4 (2.4)	45 (27.3)	93 (56.4)	5	1 (0.6)	19 (11.5)
Nuts are sustainable
Consumers	5 (2.7)	12 (6.6)	30 (16.4)	44 (24.0)	56 (30.6)	4	25 (13.7)	11 (6.0)	0.0464
Stakeholders	0 (0.0)	7 (4.2)	17 (10.3)	54 (32.7)	59 (35.8)	4	7 (4.2)	21 (12.7)
Nuts are healthy
Consumers	5 (2.7)	10 (5.5)	14 (7.7)	66 (36.1)	75 (41.0)	4	2 (1.1)	11 (6.0)	0.0013
Stakeholders	3 (1.8)	1 (0.6)	13 (7.9)	38 (23.0)	92 (55.8)	5	1 (0.6)	17 (10.3)
Nuts are high in protein
Consumers	6 (3.3)	9 (4.9)	20 (10.9)	60 (32.8)	62 (33.9)	4	14 (7.7)	12 (6.6)	0.0180
Stakeholders	3 (1.8)	5 (3.0)	11 (6.7)	52 (31.5)	74 (44.9)	5	2 (1.2)	18 (10.9)
Nuts are high in energy
Consumers	5 (2.7)	7 (3.8)	16 (8.7)	70 (38.3)	64 (35.0)	4	10 (5.5)	11 (6.0)	0.0008
Stakeholders	1 (0.6)	2 (1.2)	6 (3.6)	56 (33.9)	81 (49.1)	5	2 (1.2)	17 (10.3)
Nuts are high in fat
Consumers	6 (3.3)	12 (6.6)	15 (8.2)	53 (29.0)	77 (42.1)	4	9 (4.9)	11 (6.0)	0.0494
Stakeholders	3 (1.8)	2 (1.2)	15 (9.1)	42 (25.5)	82 (49.7)	5	3 (1.8)	18 (10.9)
Nuts are high in other nutrients (fibre, vitamins, minerals)
Consumers	4 (2.2)	9 (4.9)	21 (11.5)	62 (33.9)	58 (31.7)	4	16 (8.7)	13 (7.1)	0.0012
Stakeholders	2 (1.2)	1 (0.6)	14 (8.5)	48 (29.1)	78 (47.3)	5	3 (1.8)	19 (11.5)
Nuts are good for weight management
Consumers	8 (4.4)	22 (12.0)	39 (21.3)	51 (27.9)	36 (19.7)	4	16 (8.7)	11 (6.0)	<0.0001
Stakeholders	4 (2.4)	5 (3.0)	24 (14.6)	55 (33.3)	57 (34.6)	4	3 (1.8)	17 (10.3)
Nuts are good for heart health
Consumers	3 (1.6)	16 (8.7)	28 (15.3)	59 (32.2)	46 (25.1)	4	20 (10.9)	11 (6.0)	<0.0001
Stakeholders	3 (1.8)	3 (1.8)	16 (9.7)	41 (24.9)	82 (49.7)	5	2 (1.2)	18 (10.9)

^aMedian was calculated using the following codes: 1 = ‘strongly disagree’, 2 = ‘somewhat disagree’, 3 = ‘neither agree nor disagree’, 4 = ‘somewhat agree’ and 5 = ‘strongly agree’.

^b ‘I don't know’ and ‘Did not respond’ responses were not included in analyses.

^c Medians were compared using the Mann–Whitney test.

There were statistically significant differences between consumers and stakeholders in perceptions about the taste of nut butters, the convenience of nuts, the sustainability of nuts and nut butters, the healthiness of nuts and nut butters, the protein and energy contents of nuts and nut butters, the fat content of nuts, other nutrients present in nuts and nut butters and the impact of nuts and nut butters on body weight and heart health (Table 2 and Supporting Information S5: Table 9). In each of these statements, stakeholders were more agreeable than consumers. Additionally, differences were observed for the ‘I don't know’ responses, although these were not analysed statistically. There was a higher proportion of consumers, compared with stakeholders, who reported that they did not know about the sustainability of nuts (13.7% vs. 4.2%) and nuts being good for heart health (10.9% vs. 1.2%), as well as the sustainability of nut butters (24.6% vs. 7.9%), nut butters being high in protein (14.8% vs. 2.4%), nut butters being good for weight management (18.6% vs. 2.4%) and nut butters being good for heart health (22.4% vs. 2.4%).

Barriers to consuming and recommending nuts and nut butters

Among consumers, the most common barrier to nut consumption was their high cost (45.9%), followed by the high‐fat content (25.1%) and the belief that consumption can cause weight gain (25.1%) (Supporting Information S4: Figure 4a). Cost was a less influential barrier to nut butter consumption (24.6%), with the two most common barriers reported as being their high‐fat content (31.2%) and the concern for weight gain (27.9%). Some ‘other’ reasons for avoiding nuts reported by consumers in open‐ended responses included forgetting that they exist, not consuming snacks of any kind and being unable to find organic nuts. For nut butters, reasons were not being interested or preferring whole nuts, not eating bread or other foods to spread on, disliking the texture and avoiding seed oils added to nut butters.

Stakeholders reported that the most common barriers to recommending nuts were people having an allergy or intolerance (60.6%) or being in close contact with someone who has an allergy (51.5%), followed by dental issues (48.5%), the high cost of nuts (24.9%), their fat content (16.4%) and the belief that nuts could cause weight gain (14.6%) (Supporting Information S4: Figure 4b). Barriers were similar for recommending nut butters: people with an allergy or intolerance (58.8%) or in contact with someone who has an allergy (49.7%), dental issues (30.3%), high‐fat content (20.0%), nut butter consumption can cause weight gain (19.4%) and their high cost (18.8%). ‘Other’ reasons for not recommending nuts were the potential to overeat and swallowing issues. For nut butters, ‘other’ reasons included portion control, added ingredients such as sugar and salt, unsure of the evidence and nut butters being an inconvenient snack.

Despite the common barriers to nut consumption, 71.0% of consumers believed that eating 30 g of nuts daily would not have any effect on their weight, with only 19.7% believing that they would gain weight if they consumed this amount. Most stakeholders (60.0%) reported believing that consumption of 30 g of nuts every day would not affect body weight and nearly one quarter (23.6%) believing that people would gain weight, with no statistically significant differences in perceptions between consumers and stakeholders (p = 0.196). When prompted to provide further comments regarding nut intake and body weight, stakeholders reported that the overall dietary pattern was a more important factor than a single serving of nuts:

One handful of nuts wouldn't cause weight gain or loss, it's whether they follow a sustainable and healthy diet as well that [would] affect this. (Food industry & food regulation, female, aged 18–29 years)

Stakeholders also commented that portion control was crucial for weight management:

Depends on amount of nuts consumed ‐ higher intakes of nuts could contribute to weight gain. (Nutrition/dietetics, female, aged 30–39)

When asked if Australians should be eating more or less nuts, almost half (47.9%) of all stakeholders agreed that nut consumption in Australia needs to increase, with 26.1% believing that nut consumption rates should not change, and 12.1% believed that nut consumption should decrease (Supporting Information S5: Table 10).

Influential factors when purchasing and recommending nuts

Three‐quarters (75.4%) of consumers reported purchasing nuts, whereas 61.2% purchase nut butters and 67.8% purchase nut‐containing products (such as breakfast cereals, muesli bars, confectionery, sauces, etc.). Among consumers, the price was reported to be the most influential factor when purchasing nuts, nut butters and nut‐containing products (Supporting Information S5: Tables 11 and 12). For nuts and nut butters, the least influential factor was energy content, whereas for nut‐containing products, consumers reported environmental factors (such as plastic packaging) to be the least influential factor. Stakeholders reported that price was the most influential factor when making recommendations about nuts, nut butters and nut‐containing products, whereas product brand was the least influential factor (Supporting Information S5: Table 11).

Three‐quarters (74.3%) of consumers reported checking or sometimes checking the NIPs on nut products (Supporting Information S5: Table 13). For nuts, nut butters and nut‐containing products, consumers reported most often checking the sugar content (57.7%, 57.6% and 62.8%, respectively) and rarely checking the fibre content (50.9%, 57.6% and 47.3%, respectively) (Supporting Information S4: Figure 5). Most stakeholders (60.0%) recommended or sometimes recommended checking NIPs (Supporting Information S5: Table 14). The recommended nutrients to check differed based on the nut product. For nuts, it was recommended to often check sodium (58.6%) and rarely check carbohydrate content (33.3%). For nut butters, sugars and saturated and/or trans fats were the most recommended nutrients to check (70.7% and 62.6%, respectively), whereas the least recommended were carbohydrates, protein and total fat (22.2%, 15.2% and 16.2%, respectively). For nut‐containing products, stakeholders often recommended checking sugar content (79.8%) and rarely checking total fat (10.1%) (Supporting Information S4: Figure 6).

Estimating the metabolisable energy of nuts

Although many consumers (35.0%) did not know (or did not respond to) the energy content of a 30‐g serve of whole nuts, 23.5% believed the energy content to be between 401 and 600 kJ. A quarter (23.6%) of all stakeholders did not know (or did not respond to) the energy content of a 30‐g serve of whole nuts. However, 33.3% believed the energy content to be between 601 and 800 kJ (Supporting Information S4: Figure 7). The energy content of a 30‐g serve of whole nuts is between 750 and 900 kJ, depending on the nut type. ³¹ More than half (55.2%) of the consumers did not know (or did not respond to) the proportion of energy absorbed by the body. More than one‐third (34.5%) of stakeholders did not know (or did not respond to) the proportion of energy absorbed by the body, with 19.4% believing that 70%–79% of energy coming from whole nuts would be absorbed (Supporting Information S4: Figure 8). The metabolisable energy of nuts ranges from 70% to 95%, depending on nut type and form. ¹⁶

Perceived influence of metabolisable energy on consumption and recommendations

After being presented the metabolisable energy of nuts, most consumers (62.3%) did not believe that their nut consumption would change (Figure 3a). Among stakeholders who reported recommending nuts to clients or the public (n = 128), 41.4% did not believe that metabolisable energy of nuts would change their nut recommendation practice and 32.0% reported that they would recommend more nuts (Figure 3b). Among stakeholders who do not make any nut recommendations to clients or the public (n = 33), half (51.5%) did not believe that nut consumption rates would be impacted by understanding the metabolisable energy of nuts, whereas 30.3% reported that nut consumption would increase (Supporting Information S5: Table 15).

Figure 3.

Proportions of consumers (6a; n = 183) * and stakeholders who currently make recommendations (6b; n = 128) † perceiving the metabolisable energy of nuts impacting on intake and recommendations, respectively. * n = 183 consumers represent all consumer respondents. † n = 128 stakeholders represent stakeholder respondents who report making recommendations.

When shown hypothetical snack bar products with different labelling of energy contents, over one‐third of consumers (39.3%) reportedly preferred to purchase a snack bar showing metabolisable energy compared with the same bar that showed energy calculated using Atwater factors (Figure 4). A frequent reason for choosing the bar showing metabolisable energy was that it contained less energy, whereas consumers who preferred the bar showing energy from Atwater factors reported liking that it contained more energy, with some stating that this would be more filling. However, 45 (24.6%) consumers reported that they would be happy to purchase either bar, though many respondents stated that the difference in energy was not significant enough to prefer one bar over the other.

Figure 4.

Preferences among consumers (a; n = 183) * and stakeholders who make recommendations (b; n = 128) † for purchasing or recommending nut‐containing snack bars that show different energy contents on packaging, respectively. * n = 183 consumers represent all consumer respondents. † n = 128 stakeholders represent stakeholder respondents who report making recommendations.

About one‐third (n = 44; 34.4%) of stakeholders who reported recommending nuts to their clients or the public (n = 128) preferred to recommend the snack bar showing metabolisable energy on packaging, compared with the bar showing energy calculated using Atwater factors, though 21.9% believed that they would recommend either bar (Figure 4). A majority (54.6%) of nonrecommending stakeholders (n = 33) believed that consumers would be most likely to choose a snack bar that showed metabolisable energy in the NIP rather than Atwater energy (Supporting Information S5: Table 16).

Preferences for energy labelling on packaged nut products

Figure 2c–e shows the three options that respondents were presented that show nut metabolisable energy on packaging. When consumers were asked about showing metabolisable energy on product packaging, 36.6% thought that packaging that showed both Atwater and metabolisable energy values (Option B) would be the most helpful. Consumers reported that they preferred the concise and transparent information showing both Atwater and metabolisable energy. Option B was also selected because this packaging did not include any FOP labels:

It seems like a marketing trick and desperate to put the front of pack claims on. While I know it is true, if I did not know this information, the front of a product pack isn't believable and just seems deceptive. (Consumer, female, aged 30–39)

However, some consumers reported that they wanted the extra information presented on Option C and liked the FOP label because it caught their attention:

Front of [pack] info would definitely tune me in to check the energy level at the back and help to realise that the metabolisable energy is lower. (Consumer, female, aged 60–69)

Packaging with only metabolisable energy without further explanation (Option A; Figure 2c) was reported by consumers to be the least helpful option (Table 3). When asked how likely they would be to purchase hypothetical products with differing labelling, a similar proportion of consumers reported that they would be ‘very likely’ to purchase Option B (Figure 2d; showing both metabolisable and Atwater energy in the NIP) (21.3%) or Option C (Figure 2e; Atwater energy in the NIP with a footnote and FOP label explaining that not all of this energy will be absorbed in the body) (21.9%) (Supporting Information S5: Table 17).

Table 3.

Perceptions of displaying metabolisable energy of nuts in nutrition labels between consumers (n = 183) and stakeholders (n = 165).

	This is the most helpful	This is somewhat helpful	This is the least helpful	Mediana	Did not respondb	p Valuec
Option A: NIP shows only the ME and does not have any FOP claims.
Consumers	19 (10.4)	31 (16.9)	73 (39.9)	1	60 (32.8)	0.1046
Stakeholders	28 (17.0)	20 (12.1)	52 (31.5)	1	65 (39.4)
Option B: NIP shows both the original energy content and the ME, and no FOP claims.
Consumers	67 (36.6)	53 (29.0)	14 (7.7)	2.5	49 (26.8)	0.0001
Stakeholders	25 (15.2)	67 (40.6)	16 (9.7)	2	57 (34.6)
Option C: original NIP with a FOP claim explaining ME, and more information on the back of the pack.
Consumers	53 (29.0)	51 (27.9)	34 (18.6)	2	45 (24.6)	0.5854
Stakeholders	54 (32.7)	34 (20.6)	32 (19.4)	2	45 (27.3)

Abbreviations: FOP, front‐of‐pack; ME, metabolisable energy; NIP, nutrition information panel.

^aMedian was calculated using the following codes: 1 = ‘this is the least helpful’, 2 = ‘this is somewhat helpful’, 3 = ‘this is the most helpful’.

^b ‘Did not respond’ responses were not included in analyses.

^c Medians were compared using the Mann–Whitney test.

Among all stakeholders (n = 165), Option C (Atwater energy in the NIP with a footnote and FOP label explaining that not all of this energy will be absorbed in the body) was reported to be the most helpful labelling to present metabolisable energy and Option A (only metabolisable energy in the NIP) was the least helpful (Table 3). In open‐ended responses, stakeholders believed that the FOP claim would be more useful to consumers than the NIP. Stakeholders also liked the extra information provided by Option C (Atwater energy in the NIP with a footnote and FOP label explaining that not all this energy will be absorbed in the body). Stakeholders commented that Option A (metabolisable energy only in the NIP) could ‘be misleading’, as it only shows the metabolisable energy value without any further explanation. Like consumers, there was some scepticism among stakeholders regarding FOP labelling, with one respondent stating:

Front of package messages are poorly [regulated], confusing and unreliable ‐ I usually advise [patients] to just check the nutrition information panel and ingredients list. (Nutrition/dietetics, female, aged 30–39)

Stakeholders were mostly supportive of label changes that showed either Option B (both metabolisable and Atwater energy in the NIP) or Option C (Atwater energy in the NIP with a footnote and FOP label) (Supporting Information S5: Table 18). They were either ‘somewhat’ or ‘very’ likely to recommend nut products that showed Option B (50.3%) or Option C (41.8%), compared to Option A (40.0%). Interestingly, Option C also had the highest proportion of stakeholders being either ‘somewhat’ or ‘very’ unlikely to recommend (11.5%) compared with Option A and Option B (both 7.9%).

When perceptions of the helpfulness of the different options were compared between consumers and stakeholders, Option A and Option C received a similar score from both groups. However, there was a statistically significant difference in perceptions of Option B (p = 0.0001). Consumers scored Option B as more helpful than stakeholders (Table 3).

DISCUSSION

To the authors' knowledge, this study is the first to explore perceptions of consumers and a range of stakeholders about presenting the metabolisable energy of nuts on packaged nut‐containing products. Perceptions about the healthfulness of nuts and association with body weight were also investigated to identify gaps in nutrition knowledge among consumers and health professional stakeholders.

Addressing barriers to both consumers eating nuts and health professionals recommending nut intake is required to encourage consumption in line with dietary guidelines. Our study indicated that although stakeholder respondents were generally recommending nut intake in line with dietary guidelines, consumers reported not meeting the 30‐g daily target, which also aligned with nut intakes reported in the Australian population. ⁷ Barriers to nut intake reported by consumers in our study agree with those reported by others, including the perceived effect of nut intake on body weight, high‐fat content, cost, dentition and allergy. ¹² Among stakeholders, the most common barriers to recommending nuts were primarily nut allergy and dental issues, followed by the high‐fat content and risk of weight gain. Concerns regarding the impact of nut intake on body weight have previously been reported by health professionals; ¹¹ however, this was a less prominent barrier in our survey. Given that most of our stakeholders were working in nutrition and/or dietetics, they would be expected to have a greater understanding of nutrition and health than consumers, and this may explain why consumers perceived weight gain as a stronger barrier than stakeholders. Given that nut consumption falls short of recommendations globally, ⁷ , ⁸ , ⁹ , ¹⁰ and consumers are likely to eat more nuts if advised to do so by their health professional, ¹¹ strategies tailored to these barriers are now needed.

The perception that nuts cause weight gain has previously been reported in the literature, ¹¹ , ¹² , ³² , ³³ despite evidence to the contrary. ¹³ , ¹⁴ , ¹⁵ , ³⁴ Many consumers and stakeholders from our survey correctly acknowledged that nuts are high in fat and energy. For consumers, this likely contributes to the belief that regular consumption leads to weight gain, and this belief likely plays a role in their low nut intakes. A greater proportion of stakeholders were in agreement that nuts and nut butters are high in fat and energy, reflected in their estimations of the energy content of a serve of nuts. However, stakeholders recommended consumption in line with guidelines, which may indicate an understanding of the importance of the whole diet when considering body weight. Consumers and stakeholders were less confident in the fat and energy content of nut butters, possibly due to the variance in commercial nut butter composition. Although nuts are high in fat, and therefore energy, a portion of these fats are not digested and absorbed by the body. ¹⁶ There is strong evidence for the lack of association between regular nut consumption and body weight, which may in part be explained by the lower‐than‐expected metabolisable energy of nuts. ¹⁶ However, this evidence is not reflected in the perceptions of consumers and key stakeholders, highlighting a need for further education regarding the energy content of nuts among both consumers and stakeholders.

Given the disconnect between perceptions of the impact of nut consumption on body weight and the evidence, presenting the lower metabolisable energy values of nuts on nut‐containing products may be a strategy to overcome this barrier and promote consumption. Both consumers and stakeholders agreed that the metabolisable energy of nuts should be displayed on product packaging alongside the Atwater energy estimation, rather than in place of it. Consumers reported preferring the metabolisable energy presented in the NIP, whereas stakeholders preferred FOP labels. Previous research with Australian consumers indicated that health claims, a type of FOP labelling, were frequently viewed as not trustworthy. ³⁵ These findings align with open‐ended responses in our study, with consumers expressing a mistrust of FOP claims and believing NIPs to be a credible source of nutrition information. This finding likely explains the preference for showing metabolisable energy in the NIP. However, it should be noted that approximately one‐third of consumers thought that FOP labels explaining metabolisable energy would be most helpful, suggesting that further research is needed to determine the optimal way to communicate this information and the impact that this has on nut intake. Furthermore, consideration of the type and processing form of nuts is required, given that metabolisable energy is dependent on nut type and form. ¹⁶ For consumers to choose a healthy product, they need to trust the nutrition information and the health claims being made. Stakeholders, specifically nutrition experts and professionals working in food regulation, have a greater understanding of nutrition labelling requirements, which may explain their preference for FOP claims to attract consumer attention. In addition, taking consumer preferences into consideration may improve their trust in health claims and consequently food choice. ³⁶ Therefore, amending the current labelling system to include the metabolisable energy should be considered, given that 40% of consumer respondents in this study would choose a nut bar that shows metabolisable energy. However, one‐quarter of consumers reported that they would choose either a bar showing metabolisable energy or a bar showing Atwater energy, and many consumers and stakeholders did not believe that knowing the metabolisable energy of nuts would change their intake or recommendations of nuts. This indicates that more research about the impact of displaying metabolisable energy of nuts on consumption and recommendations is required.

In addition to confusion regarding the effect of nut consumption on body weight, our survey highlights potential areas of confusion common to both consumers and stakeholders. Consumers and stakeholders reported that they did not perceive nut butters to be a healthy food, possibly due to the addition of salt and/or sugar to some formulations or the classification of nut butters as a ‘spread’ (which includes jams, choc‐hazelnut spreads and honey). This perception was anticipated, as nut butters can vary in ingredients and nutritional composition. The belief that nut butters are not healthy, especially compared with whole nuts, could contribute to the lower consumption of nut butters and less frequent recommendation of nut butters, compared with nuts. It may also play a role in the belief that nut butters contribute to weight gain, more than whole nuts. Additionally, the findings of our survey highlight a lack of confidence regarding the sustainability of nuts and particularly nut butters, especially among consumers. The concept of sustainable foods and diets is complex, and more research to understand the perceptions among consumers and nutrition professionals is needed. Perceptions around the sustainability and healthfulness of nuts and nut butters may act as additional barriers to regular consumption, and further education may improve awareness and encourage consumption.

There are several strengths to our study. Our survey was advertised online, making it accessible by the Australian population and recruiting respondents from across the nation. Several stakeholders were targeted, including consumers, nutrition experts, public health professionals, food industry professionals, food regulation professionals and nut growers, each providing a unique, valuable perspective. Our survey was developed using robust methodology, including pilot testing to check for content and face validity and adjusting according to feedback prior to opening. Finally, our study was reported according to the CHERRIES checklist. The findings have identified gaps in nutrition knowledge and provide guidance for education for both consumer and stakeholder groups. There are, however, some limitations that need to be acknowledged. First, although multiple key stakeholders were recruited, many were dietitians or nutrition professionals, with limited food regulation professionals and nut growers. Other limitations include our study findings not being generalisable to the Australian population, given that most respondents were young, female and well educated. Our survey was susceptible to voluntary response bias, with people who are interested in or knowledgeable about nuts being more likely to complete the survey. The self‐reported nature of our survey means that responses may not truly reflect behaviour, particularly regarding nut intake and recommendations. Our survey was also self‐administered, with the potential for respondents to not respond to the entire survey or complete it more than once due to anonymity. Due to the small sample sizes of some stakeholder groups (food regulation, nut growers), it was not possible to compare specific stakeholders in statistical analyses; rather, all stakeholders were one group and compared with consumers. Many questions in the survey received nonresponses due to the inclusion of incomplete survey records; however, nonresponses were not included in analyses. Finally, our survey was infiltrated by bot responses, which could have impacted the integrity of survey findings, though considerable effort was made to reduce this. Attacks from bots, defined as ‘computer programs that fill out web‐based surveys with random responses’, are increasingly common in online surveys and can reduce data quality. ²⁹ Monitoring our survey indicated the presence of bot responses, which may have been inadvertently exacerbated by the anonymous survey, the incentive and advertising the survey online. ²⁹ , ³⁷ , ³⁸ , ³⁹ As a result, a systematic approach to identify and remove these responses was developed and informed by the literature. ²⁹ , ³⁷ , ³⁸ , ³⁹ Suggestions including collecting IP addresses and checking for illogical responses were applied. Although other strategies such as collecting personal information from respondents and not advertising surveys online are recommended, these were not implemented to encourage maximum participation. ²⁹ , ³⁷ , ³⁸ , ³⁹

CONCLUSION

Our study provides valuable insights into the perceptions of nuts, body weight and nutrition labelling among consumers and a range of stakeholders. The findings of our survey indicate a lack of knowledge about the association between regular nut consumption and body weight, particularly among consumers. Further education about the relationship between nuts and body weight is required for both consumers and stakeholders. Both consumers and stakeholders reported a preference for showing the metabolisable energy of nuts alongside the Atwater energy content in nutrition labelling. This indicates a need to consider the addition of metabolisable energy to nutrition labels in Australia. Moreover, changing the macronutrient contents (such as fat content) in NIPs to reflect metabolisable energy may be explored in future studies. Future research should continue to explore perceptions about nuts and body weight, investigate the impact of displaying metabolisable energy on nut consumption and trial the preferred methods of displaying this information on product labelling.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Cassandra J. Nikodijevic, Yasmine C. Probst, Sze‐Yen Tan and Elizabeth P. Neale formulated the research question and designed the study; Cassandra J. Nikodijevic conducted the research; Cassandra J. Nikodijevic and Elizabeth P. Neale analysed the data; Cassandra J. Nikodijevic drafted the manuscript; and Yasmine C. Probst, Sze‐Yen Tan and Elizabeth P. Neale provided critical revision of the manuscript.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST STATEMENT

Cassandra J. Nikodijevic receives a matching PhD scholarship that is equally funded by the University of Wollongong and Nuts for Life. Yasmine C. Probst has been previously involved in clinical trials funded by and received funding from the California Walnut Commission, received funding and research support from the Almond Board of Australia and received funding from Nuts for Life. Sze‐Yen Tan was previously involved in clinical studies that were funded by the Almond Board of California, the International Nut and Dried Fruit Council and the California Walnut Commission. Sze‐Yen Tan is also currently serving as a First Editor of the British Journal of Nutrition. Elizabeth P. Neale has previously received research funding from Nuts for Life, the California Walnut Commission and the International Nut and Dried Fruit Council.

ETHICS STATEMENT

Ethics approval was obtained from the University of Wollongong Human Research Ethics Committee (2022/341).

PEER REVIEW

The peer‐review history for this article is available at https://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway/wos/peer-review/10.1111/jhn.13379.

Supporting information

Supporting information.

Supporting information.

Supporting information.

Supporting information.

Supporting information.

Biographies

Cassandra J. Nikodijevic is an Accredited Practising Dietitian and is completing her PhD at the University of Wollongong. Cassandra's research explores nut consumption in Australia and the energy‐regulating mechanisms of nuts.

A/Professor Yasmine C. Probst is an Advanced Accredited Practising Dietitian and Fellow of the Australasian Institute of Digital Health. Her research focuses on health behaviour management for people living with multiple sclerosis.

Dr. Sze‐Yen Tan is an Advanced Accredited Practising Dietitian and Senior Lecturer at Deakin University. His research focuses on dietary strategies that promote healthy ageing and optimal metabolic health.

Dr Elizabeth P. Neale is an Advanced Accredited Practising Dietitian and Senior Lecturer at the University of Wollongong. Elizabeth's research focuses on evidence‐based frameworks in nutrition and impacts of nut consumption.

Nikodijevic CJ, Probst YC, Tan S‐Y, Neale EP. Knowledge, practices and perceptions of energy labelling of nut products among Australian consumers and stakeholders: an online survey. J Hum Nutr Diet. 2025;38:e13379. 10.1111/jhn.13379

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.