Dataset Information

Randomised controlled trial in an experimental online supermarket testing the effects of front-of-pack nutrition labelling on food purchasing intentions in a low-income population.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The 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.

Methods

Low-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.

Results

The 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).

Conclusion

The 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.

SUBMITTER: Egnell M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7871692 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Randomised controlled trial in an experimental online supermarket testing the effects of front-of-pack nutrition labelling on food purchasing intentions in a low-income population.

Egnell Manon M Boutron Isabelle I Péneau Sandrine S Ducrot Pauline P Touvier Mathilde M Galan Pilar P Buscail Camille C Porcher Raphaël R Ravaud Philippe P Hercberg Serge S Kesse-Guyot Emmanuelle E Julia Chantal C

BMJ open 20210208 2

<h4>Background</h4>The 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 tr ...[more]

PMID: 33558350

Similar Datasets

Project description: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 < 0.05). According to the NPSC score, the WL led to a better nutritional quality across breakfast cereals and salty snacks compared to the GDA (p < 0.05); a similar effect was observed for the MTL among non-dairy beverages (p < 0.05). The MTL and the WL required shorter shopping times compared to GDA (p < 0.05). Across all labeling conditions, the nutritional quality of the shopping cart tended to be lower among those with low income, education and nutrition knowledge levels. CONCLUSION:WL and MTL may foster healthier food choices in a faster way among low- and middle-income groups in Mexico. To produce an equitable impact among consumers of all socioeconomic strata, efforts beyond simply the inclusion of a communication campaign on how to use and interpret FOP labels will be required. TRIAL REGISTRATION:clinicaltrials.gov. NCT04308408 Retrospectively registered March 16, 2020.

Project description:Food systems highly contribute to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and shifting towards more environmentally friendly diets is urgently needed. Enabling consumers to compare the environmental impact of food products at point-of-purchase with front-of-pack labelling could be a promising strategy to trigger more environmentally friendly food choices. This strategy remained to be tested. The effect of a new traffic-light front-of-pack environmental label on food choices was tested in a 2-arm randomised controlled trial in a virtual reality supermarket. Participants (n = 132) chose food products to compose two main meals for an everyday meal scenario and for an environmentally friendly meal scenario with or without the label. The environmental label (ranging from A: green/lowest impact, to E: red/highest impact) was based on the Environmental Footprint (EF) single score calculation across food categories. The effect of the label on the environmental impact of food choices in each scenario was tested using linear mixed models. In the everyday meal scenario, the environmental impact of meals was lower in the label condition than in the no label condition (-0.17 ± 0.07 mPt/kg, p = 0.012). This reduction was observed at no nutritional, financial nor hedonic cost. The effectiveness of the label can be attributed to a change in the food categories chosen: less meat-based and more vegetarian meals were chosen with the label. In the environmentally friendly meal scenario, we demonstrated that the label provided new information to the participants as they were able to further reduce the environmental impact of their food choices with the label (-0.19 ± 0.07 mPt/kg, p = 0.005). Implementing a front-of-pack environmental label on food products in real supermarkets could increase awareness of the environmental impact of food and contribute to drive more environmentally friendly food choices. The study protocol was pre-registered prior to data collection at Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04909372).

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.

Project description:BackgroundFront-of-pack nutrition labelling (FoPL) of packaged foods can promote healthier diets. Australia and New Zealand (NZ) adopted the voluntary Health Star Rating (HSR) scheme in 2014. We studied the impact of voluntary adoption of HSR on food reformulation relative to unlabelled foods and examined differential impacts for more-versus-less healthy foods.Methods and findingsAnnual nutrition information panel data were collected for nonseasonal packaged foods sold in major supermarkets in Auckland from 2013 to 2019 and in Sydney from 2014 to 2018. The analysis sample covered 58,905 unique products over 14 major food groups. We used a difference-in-differences design to estimate reformulation associated with HSR adoption. Healthier products adopted HSR more than unhealthy products: >35% of products that achieved 4 or more stars displayed the label compared to <15% of products that achieved 2 stars or less. Products that adopted HSR were 6.5% and 10.7% more likely to increase their rating by ≥0.5 stars in Australia and NZ, respectively. Labelled products showed a -4.0% [95% confidence interval (CI): -6.4% to -1.7%, p = 0.001] relative decline in sodium content in NZ, and there was a -1.4% [95% CI: -2.7% to -0.0%, p = 0.045] sodium change in Australia. HSR adoption was associated with a -2.3% [-3.7% to -0.9%, p = 0.001] change in sugar content in NZ and a statistically insignificant -1.1% [-2.3% to 0.1%, p = 0.061] difference in Australia. Initially unhealthy products showed larger reformulation effects when adopting HSR than healthier products. No evidence of a change in protein or saturated fat content was observed. A limitation of our study is that results are not sales weighted. Thus, it is not able to assess changes in overall nutrient consumption that occur because of HSR-caused reformulation. Also, participation into labelling and reformulation is jointly determined by producers in this observational study, impacting its generalisability to settings with mandatory labelling.ConclusionsIn this study, we observed that reformulation changes following voluntary HSR labelling are small, but greater for initially unhealthy products. Initially unhealthy foods were, however, less likely to adopt HSR. Our results, therefore, suggest that mandatory labelling has the greatest potential for improving the healthiness of packaged foods.

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.

Dataset Information

Randomised controlled trial in an experimental online supermarket testing the effects of front-of-pack nutrition labelling on food purchasing intentions in a low-income population.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Randomised controlled trial in an experimental online supermarket testing the effects of front-of-pack nutrition labelling on food purchasing intentions in a low-income population.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets