Impact of front-of-pack nutrition labels on consumer purchasing intentions: a randomized experiment in low- and middle-income Mexican adults.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Jauregui A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7137298 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Apr
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
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]
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.
| S-EPMC6860442 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In 2011, a National Academy of Medicine report recommended that packaged food in the U.S. display a uniform front-of-package nutrition label, using a system such as a 0-3 star ranking. Few studies have directly compared this to other labels to determine which best informs consumers and encourages healthier purchases. In 2013, we randomized adult participants (N=1247) in an Internet-based survey to one of six conditions: no label control; single traffic light; multiple traffic light; Facts Up Front; NuVal; or 0-3 star ranking. We compared groups on purchase intentions and accuracy of participants' interpretation of food labels. There were no differences in the nutritional quality of hypothetical shopping baskets across conditions (p=0.845). All labels improved consumers' abilities to judge the nutritional quality of foods relative to no label, but the best designs varied by outcomes. NuVal and multiple traffic light labels led to the greatest accuracy identifying the healthier of two products (p<0.001), while the multiple traffic light also led to the most accurate estimates of saturated fat, sugar, and sodium (p<0.001). The single traffic light outperformed other labels when participants compared nutrient levels between similar products (p<0.03). Single/multiple traffic light and Facts Up Front labels led to the most accurate calories per serving estimations (p<0.001). Although front-of-package labels helped participants more accurately assess products' nutrition information relative to no label, no conditions shifted adults' purchase intentions. Results did not point to a clearly superior label design, but they suggest that a 3-star label might not be best for educating consumers.
| S-EPMC5764801 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC9306177 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe Nutri-Score, a front-of-pack nutrition label, has been adopted in 2017 in France but its impact on low-income populations is unknown, and they are more at risk of having unhealthy diets. The present study assessed the effects of the Nutri-Score on the nutritional quality of purchasing intentions among low-income individuals, compared with the current French labelling situation: references intakes (RIs) and no label, using a three-arm parallel-group randomised controlled trial.MethodsLow-income active adults from the NutriNet-Santé cohort (household income below €1200/month) were asked to perform a shopping task in an experimental online supermarket after being randomised in one of the three conditions (Nutri-Score, RIs or no labelling). The main outcome was the overall nutritional quality of the virtual shopping cart, assessed with the French-modified Food Standards Agency Nutrient Profiling System (FSAm-NPS), and secondary outcomes were the nutrient content of the shopping carts. 524 subjects were randomised, and 336 included in the analyses.ResultsThe Nutri-Score resulted in the highest overall nutritional quality of the shopping cart, as reflected by a FSAm-NPS score (1.86 (SD 3.59) points) significantly lower (reflecting higher nutritional quality) than the RIs (3.21 (SD 4.14) points, p≤0.05) but not significantly lower than no label (2.60 (SD 3.09) points, p=0.3). The Nutri-Score also resulted into significantly lower contents in calories and saturated fatty acids in the shopping cart, compared with the RIs only (p≤0.05).ConclusionThe implementation of the front of pack nutrition label Nutri-Score, adopted in France and in different European countries, appears to have the potential to encourage purchasing intentions of foods from higher nutritional quality among low-income individuals, compared with the RIs label promoted by food manufacturers.Trial registration number: NCT02769455.
| S-EPMC7871692 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The implementation of a standardized front-of-pack-labelling (FoPL) scheme would likely be a useful tool for many consumers trying to improve the healthfulness of their diets. Our objective was to examine what the traffic light labelling scheme would look like if implemented in the US. Data were extracted from Label Insight's Open Access branded food database in 2017. Nutrient levels and the proportion of products classified as "Red" (High), "Amber" (Medium) or "Green" (Low) in total fat, saturated fat, total sugar and sodium for food and beverage items were examined. The proportion of products in each category that had each possible combination of traffic light colors, and met the aggregate score for "healthy" was examined. Out of 175,198 products, >50% of all US packaged foods received a "Red" rating for total sugar and sodium. "Confectionery" had the highest mean total sugar (51.9 g/100 g) and "Meat and meat alternatives" the highest mean sodium (781 mg/100 g). The most common traffic light label combination was "Red" for total fat, saturated fat and sodium and "Green" for sugar. Only 30.1% of products were considered "healthy". A wide variety (n = 80) of traffic light color combinations were observed. A color coded traffic light scheme appears to be an option for implementation across the US packaged food supply to support consumers in making healthier food choices.
| S-EPMC5452210 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC6482590 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC6938009 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundFront 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.MethodsEye 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.ResultsOur 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.ConclusionsThe 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.
| S-EPMC4619412 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC7968175 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To stem the increasing incidence of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) and obesity, front-of-pack labels (FOPLs) have been developed since 1989. Whereas several countries have already adopted one voluntarily, the European Community wants to harmonize an FOPL system that will be mandatory for all member states. The purpose of this narrative review is to describe what could be achieved or not by FOPLs, and to discuss if there is enough evidence to establish whether such labels are effective in modifying purchasing behavior, in directing individual dietary patterns towards a healthy and sustainable diet, and in reformulating food products by the food industry. Non-directive FOPLs, which are still under study, appear to be informative and well-accepted by consumers even if they require a cognitive effort. Conversely, directive FOPLs are supported by several studies, but they are mostly conducted in simulated scenarios and/or performed as retrospective studies. Nevertheless, directive FOPLs are rated as an intuitive tool, and they have demonstrated a high capacity to help consumers rank food products as more or less healthy. In conclusion, directive and non-directive FOPLs convey different messages. No FOPL individually can be considered exhaustive in relation to all the objectives outlined in this narrative review, and therefore, the development of a model synthesizing both messages is advisable. Many questions remain open, such as the possibility of reformulating pre-packaged products, how to deal with traditional products, and the impact on the incidence of NCDs and obesity. In the light of the complexity of factors that condition consumption choices and health, none of the current FOPLs can be considered a health policy tool on its own. The possibility of development remains open, but as the state of the art, these tools do not seem to be able to achieve all the European Community goals together. We can speculate that they could meet these goals only if they are integrated into a multi-tiered, structured health policy intervention.
| S-EPMC8879020 | biostudies-literature