Dataset Information

Impact of front-of-pack nutrition labels on consumer purchasing intentions: a randomized experiment in low- and middle-income Mexican adults.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Front-of-pack (FOP) nutrition labeling is a cost-effective strategy to help consumers make informed and healthier food choices. We aimed to investigate the effect of the FOP labels used in the Latin American region on consumers' shopping intentions when prompted to make their choices with specific nutrients-to-limit in mind among low- and middle-income Mexican adults (>?18 y). METHODS:In this experimental study of an online simulated shopping situation participants (n?=?2194) were randomly assigned to one of three labeling conditions: Guideline Daily Amounts (GDA), Multiple Traffic Lights (MTL), or red Warning Labels (WL). Participants were required to view a video explaining how to correctly interpret the assigned label. Primary outcomes were the overall nutritional quality (estimated using the Nutrient Profiling Scoring Criterion [NPSC] and NPSC baseline score) and mean energy and nutrient content of purchases. Secondary outcomes included shopping time variables. We also evaluated the impact of the labels across food categories (ready-made foods, dairy beverages, non-dairy beverages, salty snacks, and breakfast cereals) and sociodemographic subgroups. RESULTS:The MTL and the WL led to a better overall nutritional quality of the shopping cart compared to the GDA (p?

SUBMITTER: Jauregui A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7137298 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Impact of front-of-pack nutrition labels on consumer purchasing intentions: a randomized experiment in low- and middle-income Mexican adults.

Jáuregui Alejandra A Vargas-Meza Jorge J Nieto Claudia C Contreras-Manzano Alejandra A Alejandro Nelson Zacarías NZ Tolentino-Mayo Lizbeth L Hall Marissa G MG Barquera Simón S

BMC public health 20200406 1

<h4>Background</h4>Front-of-pack (FOP) nutrition labeling is a cost-effective strategy to help consumers make informed and healthier food choices. We aimed to investigate the effect of the FOP labels used in the Latin American region on consumers' shopping intentions when prompted to make their choices with specific nutrients-to-limit in mind among low- and middle-income Mexican adults (> 18 y).<h4>Methods</h4>In this experimental study of an online simulated shopping situation participants (n = ...[more]

PMID: 32252716

Similar Datasets

Project description:Front-of-pack labeling is a cost-effective strategy to decrease population consumption of sodium, sugar, saturated fat, total fat, and trans-fatty acids, considered critical nutrients for chronic disease. Our main objective was to explore the subjective understanding of labels that are currently used internationally among low- and middle-income Mexican consumers. We performed two phases of 10 focus groups with adolescents (13-15 y), young adults (21-23 y), mothers of children 3-12 y, fathers of children 3-12 y and older adults (55-70 y). Seven FOPL were evaluated: Guideline Daily Amounts, Multiple Traffic Light, Chilean Warning labels, Warning labels in Red, 5-Color Nutrition Label, Health Star Rating, and Healthy Choice label. Data was analyzed with a triangulation of researchers using a content analysis, based on three codes: 1) awareness and use of the Guideline Daily Amounts, 2) acceptability, and 3) subjective understanding of labels. Most participants were aware of the Guideline Daily Amounts, however they rarely used it because interpreting the information displayed on the label was too complicated. Health Star Rating, Warning labels, Multiple Traffic Light and the Healthy Choice logo labels were the most understandable, however the acceptability of the The Healthy Choice logo decreased as it did not provide information on specific ingredients. The Warning labels was the only label able to warn about critical nutrients that could represent a health risk. The Warning labels in red was more accepted compared to Warning labels in black. Results show that directive and semi-directive labels, such as Warning labels, Health Star Rating or Multiple Traffic Light, may be better at helping population of low- and middle income make healthier food choices, than non-directive FOPL such as the Guideline Daily Amounts implemented in México. The study results highlight the potential of Warning labels to support decreases in the consumption of critical ingredients in low- and middle-income Mexican consumers.

Project description:BackgroundWarning Labels (WL) highlight excessive amounts of critical nutrients in order to discourage consumption of unhealthful packaged food products. This study aimed to evaluate among Mexican school children, the objective understanding of traditional and numeric WL (aimed at small products) considered by the Mexican regulation, and whether cartoon characters influenced the understanding of WL. We also tested some communication strategies to facilitate the correct use of the WL.MethodsWe carried out a randomized experiment in July 2019 in public elementary schools from Morelos, Mexico. Participants aged 6-13 years, were randomly assigned to one of four groups: 1) Nutrient Facts Panel (NF) (n = 120), 2) Nutrient Facts Panel with cartoon characters (NF + C) (n = 83), considered the control groups, 3) Warning Labels (WL) (n = 109), and 4) Warning Labels with cartoon characters (WL + C) (n = 96). After allocation, children assigned to both WL groups (WL or WL + C), were randomly required to watch two posters simultaneously or a video explaining how to correctly interpret WLs. Logistic regression models adjusted by sex, age and cluster (school) were fitted.ResultsThe percentage of children correctly choosing the healthiest or the unhealthiest option was higher for WL groups (56.8, 95%CI; 40.8-72.8) compared to NF groups (24.3, 95%CI; 20.4-28.3, p < 0.05). The understanding of traditional WL was higher (28.7, 95%CI: 22.8-35.4) than the numeric WL (19, 95%CI: 14.2-25.0, p < 0.05). But, correct answers for identifying healthy and unhealthy products were higher for numeric WL than for NF groups. Cartoon characters reduced the percentage of correct answers for choosing unhealthiest products (WL + C: 48.9, 95%CI: 25.6-72.4 vs WL: 58.7, 95%CI: 36.4-81.1, p < 0.05). The video was 2.23 times more helpful than the posters to the correct interpretation of the WL (p < 0.05).ConclusionsIn scholar Mexican children, traditional and numeric WL were useful to identify healthier and unhealthier packaged products in comparison to NF, suggesting that both WL formats may effectively communicate the excessive content of nutrients of concern among children. Cartoon characters may reduce the objective understanding of the WL, underscoring the need to regulate advertising directed to children along with the implementation of front-of-pack labeling.

Project description:BackgroundMost food in the United Kingdom is purchased in supermarkets, and many of these purchases are routinely tracked through supermarket loyalty card data. Using such data may be an effective way to develop remote public health interventions and to measure objectively their effectiveness at changing food purchasing behavior.ObjectiveThe Front-of-pack food Labels: Impact on Consumer Choice (FLICC) study is a pilot randomized controlled trial of a digital behavior change intervention. This pilot trial aimed to collect data on recruitment and retention rates and to provide estimates of effect sizes for the primary outcome (healthiness of ready meals and pizzas purchased) to inform a larger trial.MethodsThe intervention consisted of a website where participants could access tailored feedback on previous purchases of ready meals and pizzas, set goals for behavior change, and model and practice the recommended healthy shopping behavior using traffic light labels. The control consisted of Web-based information on traffic light labeling. Participants were recruited via email from a list of loyalty card holders held by the participating supermarket. All food and drink purchases for the participants for the 6 months before recruitment, during the 6-week intervention period, and during a 12-week washout period were transferred to the research team by the participating supermarket. Healthiness of ready meals and pizzas was measured using a predeveloped scale based solely on the traffic light colors on the foods. Questionnaires were completed at recruitment, end of the intervention, and end of washout to estimate the effect of the intervention on variables that mediate behavior change (eg, belief and intention formation).ResultsWe recruited 496 participants from an initial email to 50,000 people. Only 3 people withdrew from the study, and purchase data were received for all other participants. A total of 208 participants completed all 3 questionnaires. There was no difference in the healthiness of purchased ready meals and pizzas between the intervention and control arms either during the intervention period (P=.32) or at washout (P=.59).ConclusionsAlthough the FLICC study did not find evidence of an impact of the intervention on food purchasing behavior, the unique methods used in this pilot trial are informative for future studies that plan to use supermarket loyalty card data in collaboration with supermarket partners. The experience of the trial showcases the possibilities and challenges associated with the use of loyalty card data in public health research.Trial registrationISRCTN Registry ISRCTN19316955; http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN19316955 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/76IVZ9WjK).International registered report identifier (irrid)RR2-10.1186/s40814-015-0015-1.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Front-of-package labelling is a cost-effective strategy to help consumers make healthier choices and informed food purchases. The effect of labels is mediated by consumer understanding and acceptability of the label. We compared the acceptability and understanding of labels used in Latin-America among low- and middle-income Mexican adults. METHODS:Participants (n =?2105) were randomly assigned to one of three labels: Mexican Guideline Daily Allowances (GDA), Ecuador's Multiple Traffic Lights (MTL), or Chile's Warning Labels (WL) in red. Label acceptability was evaluated through items regarding likeability, attractiveness and perceived cognitive workload. Objective understanding was evaluated by asking participants to select the product with the lowest nutritional quality among three products. We measured the time participants took to choose the product. Differences in label acceptability, understanding and time required to choose a product across labels were tested. RESULTS:Compared to the GDA, a higher proportion of participants liked the MTL and WL, considered them attractive, and with a lower perceived cognitive workload (p <?0.05). Participants had 4.00 (2.86-5.59) times the odds of correctly identifying the product with the lowest nutritional quality when using the MTL label and 4.52 (3.24-6.29) times the odds when using the WL, in comparison to the GDA. Time required to choose the product was lower for the MTL (Median: 11.25?s; IQR?=?8.00-16.09) and the WL (Median?= 11.94?s, IQR?=?8.56-16.52) compared to the GDA (Median: 15.31?s; IQR?=?10.81-20.21; p <?0.05). No differences were observed between the MTL and the WL. CONCLUSIONS:GDA had the lowest acceptability and understanding among the labels tested. The MTL and the WL were more accepted and understood, and allowed low- and middle-income consumers to make nutrition-quality related decisions more quickly. WL or MTL may foster healthier food choices in the most vulnerable groups in Mexico compared to the current labelling format.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Front of pack (FOP) nutrition labels are concise labels located on the front of food packages that provide truncated nutrition information. These labels are rapidly gaining prominence worldwide, presumably because they attract attention and their simplified formats enable rapid comparisons of nutritional value. METHODS:Eye tracking was conducted as US consumers interacted with actual packages with and without FOP labels to (1) assess if the presence of an FOP label increases attention to nutrition information when viewers are not specifically tasked with nutrition-related goals; and (2) study the effect of FOP presence on consumer use of more comprehensive, traditional nutrition information presented in the Nutritional Facts Panel (NFP), a mandatory label for most packaged foods in the US. RESULTS:Our results indicate that colored FOP labels enhanced the probability that any nutrition information was attended, and resulted in faster detection and longer viewing of nutrition information. However, for cereal packages, these benefits were at the expense of attention to the more comprehensive NFP. Our results are consistent with a potential short cut effect of FOP labels, such that if an FOP was present, participants spent less time attending the more comprehensive NFP. For crackers, FOP labels increased time spent attending to nutrition information, but we found no evidence that their presence reduced the time spent on the nutrition information in the NFP. CONCLUSIONS:The finding that FOP labels increased attention to overall nutrition information by people who did not have an explicit nutritional goal suggests that these labels may have an advantage in conveying nutrition information to a wide segment of the population. However, for some food types this benefit may come with a short-cut effect; that is, decreased attention to more comprehensive nutrition information. These results have implications for policy and warrant further research into the mechanisms by which FOP labels impact use of nutrition information by consumers for different foods.

Project description:BackgroundThe Nutri-Score summary graded front-of-pack nutrition label has been identified as an efficient tool to increase the nutritional quality of pre-packed food purchases. However, no study has been conducted to investigate the effect of the Nutri-Score on the shopping cart composition, considering the type of foods. The present paper aims to investigate the effect of the Nutri-Score on the type of food purchases, in terms of the relative contribution of unpacked and pre-packed foods, or the processing degree of foods.MethodsBetween September 2016 and April 2017, three consecutive randomized controlled trials were conducted in three specific populations - students (N = 1866), low-income individuals (N = 336) and subjects suffering from cardiometabolic diseases (N = 1180) - to investigate the effect of the Nutri-Score on purchasing intentions compared to the Reference Intakes and no label. Using these combined data, the proportion of unpacked products in the shopping carts, as well as the distribution of products across food categories taking into account the degree of processing (NOVA classification) were assessed by trials arm.ResultsThe shopping carts of participants simulating purchases with the Nutri-Score affixed on pre-packed foods contained higher proportion of unpacked products - especially raw fruits and meats, i.e. with no FoPL -, compared to participants purchasing with no label (difference of 5.93 percentage points [3.88-7.99], p-value< 0.0001) or with the Reference Intakes (difference of 5.27[3.25-7.29], p-value< 0.0001). This higher proportion was partly explained by fewer purchases of pre-packed processed and ultra-processed products overall in the Nutri-Score group.ConclusionsThese findings provide new insights on the positive effect of the Nutri-Score, which appears to decrease purchases in processed products resulting in higher proportions of unprocessed and unpacked foods, in line with public health recommendations.

Dataset Information

Impact of front-of-pack nutrition labels on consumer purchasing intentions: a randomized experiment in low- and middle-income Mexican adults.

Publications

Impact of front-of-pack nutrition labels on consumer purchasing intentions: a randomized experiment in low- and middle-income Mexican adults.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets