Front-of-Package Food Labeling to Reduce Caries: Economic Evaluation.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Jevdjevic M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8058828 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:We assessed the prevalence of front-of-package (FoP) claims in the Brazilian packaged food supply and examined whether foods with claims were more likely to be high in critical nutrients. Using data from a random 30% subsample of 11,434 foods and beverages collected in the five largest food retailers in Brazil in 2017 (n = 3491), we classified claims into nutrition, health, and environment. We examined whether foods with claims were more likely to be high in critical nutrients using 95% confidence intervals. Claims were found in 41.2% of the products. Nutrition claims were the most prevalent (28.5%), followed by health (22.1%), and environment-related claims (5.2%). More than 85% of the breakfast cereals, granola bars, and nectars contained claims, which were found in 51% of the dairy beverages. Foods with nutrition claims were more likely to be high in critical nutrients (65.3%; 95% CI 62.3, 68.2% vs. 54.1% 95% CI 52.1, 56.0). Products with health (52.9%; 95% CI 49.3, 56.4% vs. 58.5%; 95% CI 56.6, 60.3) and environment-related claims (33.5%; 95% CI 27.0, 40.8% vs. 58.6%; 95% CI 56.9, 60.2%) were less likely to be high in critical nutrients. FoP claims are prevalent in Brazil, and nutrition claims are more likely to have a poorer nutritional profile. Policymakers should consider restricting the presence of claims on unhealthy products.
| S-EPMC6950677 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundFront-of package (FoP) nutrition labels are an option to guide consumer's decision at the point of food purchase. Chile was the first country worldwide to implement a FoP warning label and thereafter several countries have followed this model. The objective of this study is to describe the process of development of the Chilean FoP warning label.MethodsA stepwise study was conducted including literature review, qualitative phase (lay audience & expert group meetings) and quantitative phase in women/adolescents from low-middle-socioeconomic status neighborhoods, Santiago, Chile (2 sub-studies, using point-of-sale questionnaires). Outcomes were prototype visualization, ease of understanding, and ability to modify purchase behavior.ResultsThe literature review and qualitative phase provided information on general text (e.g. short wording) and design characteristics (e.g. use of a logo, use of red or black colors); based on these characteristics 15 prototypes were created and quantitatively tested. In the first survey, a black-&-white stop sign and a black-&-white hand were preselected; in the second survey, the stop sign stating 'Excess of <nutrient>' had significantly better performance than the hand in terms of visualization, intention to purchase, and ability to modify intended purchase. Due to legal reasons the "excess of" was replaced by "high-in" in the final implementation of the law.ConclusionsA simple black-&-white stop sign warning label was the best option to flag pre-packaged foods with an excess of energy or nutrients of concern for non-communicable diseases; this FoP warning label was implemented in Chile in June 2016 as part of the Chilean Food Labeling and Marketing Law.
| S-EPMC6615240 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe National Academy of Medicine recommends that the U.S. adopt an interpretative front-of-package food labeling system, but uncertainty remains about how this system should be designed. This study examined reactions to front-of-package food labeling systems that use positive labels to identify healthier foods, negative labels to identify unhealthier foods, or both.MethodsIn August 2021, U.S. adults (N=3,051) completed an online randomized experiment. Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 labeling conditions: control (calorie), positive, negative, or both positive and negative labels. Labels were adapted from designs for a 'healthy' label drafted by the Food and Drug Administration and displayed on the front of product packaging. Participants selected products to purchase, identified healthier products, and reported reactions to the labels. Analyses, conducted in 2022, examined the healthfulness of participants' selections using the Ofcom Nutrient Profiling Model score (0-100, higher scores indicate being healthier).ResultsParticipants exposed to only positive labels, only negative labels, or both positive and negative labels had healthier selections than participants in the control arm (differences vs control=1.13 [2%], 2.34 [4%] vs 3.19 [5%], respectively; all p<0.01). The both-positive-and-negative-labels arm outperformed the only-negative-labels (p=0.03) and only-positive-labels (p<0.001) arms. The only-negative-labels arm outperformed the only-positive-labels arm (p=0.005). All the 3 interpretative labeling systems also led to improvements in the identification of healthier products and beneficial psychological reactions (e.g., attention, thinking about health effects; all p<0.05).ConclusionsFront-of-package food labeling systems that use both positive and negative labels could encourage healthier purchases and improve understanding more than systems using only positive or only negative labels.
| S-EPMC10166580 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundFront-of-package labelling regulations proposed by Health Canada in their Healthy Eating Strategy (2016) were finally passed in 2022, but remain unimplemented. This study analyzed interactions that occurred between stakeholders and government related to this policy proposal to identify key themes and policy implications.MethodsA qualitative framework analysis was conducted on publicly available documents for stakeholder correspondences related to front-of-package that occurred between 2016 and 2019 in Health Canada's Meetings and Correspondence on Healthy Eating database. Five sequential steps were applied: familiarization, identifying a thematic framework, indexing, charting, and mapping and interpretation. A complex systems (i.e., a dynamic system with multiple interconnecting components) lens was incorporated in the final step to deepen the analysis.ResultsHundred and seventy-three documents were included, the majority from industry stakeholders (n = 108, 62.4%). Three overarching themes were identified: industry trying to control the agenda and resist regulation; questioning the evidence supporting the policy and its impact on the agri-food industry; and dismissing the need and effectiveness of the policy. Incorporating a complex system lens found industry and non-industry stakeholders held markedly different perspectives on how cohesive the system defined by the front-of-package labelling policy was, and the policy impact on its stability. Economic and opportunity costs were the main trade-offs, and symbol misinterpretation considered an unintended consequence by industry. Finally, some stakeholders argued for wider policy scope incorporating more products, while others requested a narrower approach through exemptions.ConclusionInteractions with industry stakeholders on health food policy proposals require careful consideration, given it may suit their interests to generate delays and policy discordance. Explicitly setting out the principles of engagement and actively encouraging non-industry stakeholder representation provides a more balanced approach to policy consultation and development.
| S-EPMC10115994 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Dietary practices are a key behavioral factor in chronic disease prevention; one strategy for improving such practices population-wise involves front-of-package labels (FoPL). This online randomized study, conducted in a quota-based sample of 1159 Polish adults (mean age = 40.9 ± 15.4 years), assessed the objective understanding of five FoPL: Health Star Rating, Multiple Traffic Lights, NutriScore, Reference Intakes (RI) and Warning Label. Objective understanding was evaluated by comparing results of two nutritional quality ranking tasks (without/with FoPL) using three food categories (breakfast cereals, cakes, pizza). Associations between FoPL exposure and objective understanding were assessed via multivariable ordinal logistic regression. Compared to RI and across food categories, significant improvement in objective understanding was seen for NutriScore (OR = 2.02; 95% CI: 1.41-2.91) and Warning Label (OR = 1.61; 95% CI: 1.12-2.32). In age-stratified analyses, significant improvement in objective understanding compared to RI emerged mainly among adults aged 18-30 years randomized to NutriScore (all food categories: OR = 3.88; 95% CI: 2.04-7.36; cakes: OR = 6.88; 95% CI: 3.05-15.51). Relative to RI, NutriScore was associated with some improvement in objective understanding of FoPL across and within food categories, especially among young adults. These findings contribute to the ongoing debate about an EU-wide FoPL model.
| S-EPMC8750026 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Front-of-Package (FOP) labels highlight important nutrients and help consumers make informed decisions about food purchases. In this study, we investigated consumer comprehension, opinion, and preference associated with two different formats of FOP labels and compared consumer shopping behavior and general trends related to nutrition labeling. Consumer eye-tracking was used for measuring perceived understanding of nutritional information objectively. Results revealed that a color-coded FOP label would garner more attention than a black and white FOP label. Subjects found color-coded FOP labels more straightforward than black and white labels. Participants used the information provided on the FOP for shopping goals. Still, FOPs did not affect objective consumer attention to labels, and labeling schemes did not significantly affect participants' decisions. Participating subjects did use FOP labels instead of the nutrition facts panels. Still, FOP groups scored lower on a nutrition literacy quiz, indicating that their perceived and actual understanding of nutritional information differed. Our findings suggest that subjects pay attention to FOP labels but do not make decisions.
| S-EPMC8749384 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The WHO recommends front-of-package labeling (FOPL) to help parents make healthier food choices for their children. But which type of FOPL resonates with parents in China? We performed a cross-sectional study to investigate parental preferences for five widely used formats of FOPL. A multi-stage cluster sampling method was applied to selected parents of students in primary and secondary schools in six provinces and municipalities from July 2020 to March 2021. A close-ended questionnaire was used to collect demographic information, parents' preferences for five FOPL in three dimensions, perceptions of the importance of nutrients labeled on FOPL, and prepackaged foods that need FOPL most. Chi-square tests were used to examine the characteristics among five groups. The results showed that multiple traffic lights (MTL) was preferred by parents, followed by warning labels. Parents thought the most needed nutrients to label were sugar, salt, and total fat. The top three prepackaged foods to label were "baked food", "milk and dairy products" and "sugar-sweetened beverages". Our findings indicate that nutrient-specific FOPL formats with interpretive aids were preferred by Chinese parents. These new findings can help inform the planning and implementation of FOPL in China and help Chinese parents make healthier food choices.
| S-EPMC8878132 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundA global push to reduce the amount of saturated and trans-fatty acids, added salt and sugar in processed food, and to enhance fruit, vegetable and whole grain intake, while limiting energy intake, exists for most populations.ObjectivesTo redesign the International Choices Program (note: this is unrelated to the US Smart Choices Program), initially Netherlands focused, by an international board of scientists to create a generic, global front-of-pack nutrition logo system that helps consumers make healthier food choices and stimulates product reformulation.MethodsThe Programme is a product-group-specific-nutrient-profiling approach with a distinction between basic and discretionary foods. The basic product groups are main contributors of essential and beneficial nutrients, and are based on food-based dietary guidelines from more than 20 countries across the globe. Generic criteria are derived from international nutrient recommendations for trans-fatty acids, saturated fatty acids, sodium, added sugar, fibre and energy, and evaluated against food composition data from 12 countries across Europe and market reality (actual foods on the market). Selected debates such as the source of fibre are also presented.ResultsGeneric criteria and a decision framework were developed to further define food categories, so as to meet the unique country- and region-specific dietary needs. The result is a complete set of criteria that is evaluated on a regular basis to ensure its alignment with international dietary patterns, new scientific insights and current developments within the food market.ConclusionsThese guidelines are currently used in a number of countries across the globe, and are being evaluated for effectiveness. Completed studies have demonstrated an increase in consumer awareness, a positive effect on product innovation and a potential impact on nutrient intakes.
| S-EPMC3208753 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC10500374 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionCurrent economic evaluations of school-based caries prevention programs (SCPPs) do not compare multiple types of SCPPs against each other and do not consider teeth beyond permanent first molars.ObjectivesTo assess the cost-effectiveness of a comprehensive SCPP relative to an SCPP focused on delivering sealants for permanent first molars only and to a default of no SCPP. Based on a societal perspective, a simulation model was used that compared the health and cost impacts on 1) permanent first molars only and 2) all posterior teeth.MethodsTo calibrate the model, we used data from CariedAway, a comprehensive SCPP that used glass ionomer to prevent and arrest active decay among children. We then evaluated the incremental cost-effectiveness of implementing 3 alternate school-based approaches (comprehensive, sealant only, and no program) on only first molars and all posterior teeth. Probabilistic, 1-, and 2-way sensitivity analyses are included for robustness. Cost-effectiveness is assessed with a threshold of $54,639 per averted disability-adjusted life year (DALY).ResultsWe first compared the 3 programs under the assumption of treating only first molars. This assessment indicated that CariedAway was less cost-effective than school-based sealant programs (SSPs): the resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for CariedAway versus SSPs was $283,455 per averted DALY. However, when the model was extended to include CariedAway's treatment of all posterior teeth, CariedAway was not only cost-effective but also cost-saving relative to SSPs (ICER, -$943,460.88 per averted DALY; net cost, -$261.45) and no SCPP (ICER, -$400,645.52 per averted DALY; net cost, -$239.77).ConclusionsThis study finds that economic evaluations assessing only cost and health impacts on permanent first molars may underestimate the cost-effectiveness of comprehensive SCPPs 1) preventing and arresting decay and 2) treating all teeth. Hence, there is an urgent need for economic evaluations of SCPPs to assess cost and health impacts across teeth beyond only permanent first molars.Knowledge transfer statementThe results of this study can be used by policy makers to understand how to evaluate economic evaluations of school-based caries prevention programs and what factors to consider when deciding on what types of programs to implement.
| S-EPMC6749793 | biostudies-literature