Effects of 4 Interpretive Front-of-Package Labeling Systems on Hypothetical Beverage and Snack Selections

Author:

Grummon Anna H.12,Gibson Laura A.3,Musicus Aviva A.45,Stephens-Shields Alisa J.6,Hua Sophia V.3,Roberto Christina A.3

Affiliation:

1. Department of Pediatrics, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California

2. Department of Health Policy, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California

3. Department of Medical Ethics and Healthy Policy, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia

4. Department of Nutrition, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts

5. Now with Center for Science in the Public Interest, Washington, DC

6. Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia

Abstract

ImportancePolicymakers and researchers have proposed a variety of interpretative front-of-package food labeling systems, but it remains unclear which is most effective at encouraging people to choose healthier foods and beverages, including among people with less education.ObjectiveTo test the effects of 4 interpretative front-of-package food labeling systems on the healthfulness of beverage and snack selections, overall and by education level.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis randomized clinical trial of a national sample of US adults 18 years and older was conducted online from November 16 to December 3, 2022.InterventionParticipants were randomized to view products with 1 of 5 food labeling systems, including control (calorie labels only) or 1 of 4 interpretative labeling systems: green (“choose often”) labels added to healthy foods; single traffic light labels added to healthy, moderately healthy, and unhealthy foods; physical activity calorie equivalent labels added to all products; and nutrient warning labels added to products high in calories, sugar, saturated fat, or sodium. All conditions had calorie labels on all products.Main Outcomes and MeasuresParticipants selected 1 of 16 beverages and 1 of 16 snacks that they wanted to hypothetically purchase. The primary outcomes were calories selected from beverages and from snacks. Secondary outcomes included label reactions and perceptions.ResultsA total of 7945 participants completed the experiment and were included in analyses (4078 [51%] female, 3779 [48%] male, and 88 [1%] nonbinary or another gender; mean [SD] age, 47.5 [17.9 years]). Compared with the control arm, exposure to the green (average differential effect [ADE], −34.2; 95% CI, −42.2 to −26.1), traffic light (ADE, −31.5; 95% CI, −39.5 to −23.4), physical activity (ADE, −39.0; 95% CI, −47.0 to −31.1), or nutrient warning labels (ADE, −28.2; 95% CI, −36.2 to −20.2) led participants to select fewer calories from beverages (all P < .001). Similarly, compared with the control label, exposure to the green (ADE, −12.7; 95% CI, −17.3 to −8.2), traffic light (ADE, −13.7; 95% CI, −18.2 to −9.1), physical activity (ADE, −18.5; 95% CI, −23.1 to −13.9), or nutrient warning labels (ADE, −14.2; 95% CI, −18.8 to −9.6) led participants to select fewer calories from snacks (all P < .001). These effects did not differ by education level. The green labels were rated as less stigmatizing than the other interpretative systems but otherwise generally received the least favorable label reactions and perceptions (eg, elicited less attention, were perceived as less trustworthy), while the nutrient warnings and physical activity labels received the most favorable ratings.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this randomized clinical trial of front-of-package food labeling systems, all 4 interpretative labeling systems reduced calories selected from beverages and from snacks compared with calorie labels, with no differences by education level.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05432271

Publisher

American Medical Association (AMA)

Subject

General Medicine

Cited by 2 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3