Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Nutrition Facts Added-Sugar Labeling and Obesity-Associated Cancer Rates in the US.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Obesity-associated cancer burdens are increasing in the US. Nutrition policies, such as the Nutrition Facts added-sugar labeling, may reduce obesity-associated cancer rates.

Objective

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Nutrition Facts added-sugar labeling and obesity-associated cancer rates in the US.

Design, setting, and participants

A probabilistic cohort state-transition model was used to conduct an economic evaluation of added-sugar labeling and 13 obesity-associated cancers among 235 million adults aged 20 years or older by age, sex, and race/ethnicity over a median follow-up of 34.4 years. Policy associations were considered in 2 scenarios: with consumer behaviors and with additional industry reformulation. The model integrated nationally representative population demographics, diet, and cancer statistics; associations of policy intervention with diet, diet change and body mass index, and body mass index with cancer risk; and policy and health-related costs from established sources. Data were analyzed from January 8, 2019, to May 6, 2020.

Main outcomes and measures

Net costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio were estimated from societal and health care perspectives. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses incorporated uncertainty in input parameters and generated 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs).

Results

Based on consumer behaviors, the policy was associated with a reduction of 30 000 (95% UI, 21 600-39 300) new cancer cases and 17 100 (95% UI, 12 400-22 700) cancer deaths, a gain of 116 000 (95% UI, 83 800-153 000) quality-adjusted life-years, and a saving of $1600 million (95% UI, $1190 million-$2030 million) in medical costs associated with cancer care among US adults over a lifetime. The policy was associated with a savings of $704 million (95% UI, $44.5 million-$1450 million) from the societal perspective and $1590 million (95% UI, $1180 million-$2020 million) from the health care perspective. Additional industry reformulation to reduce added-sugar amounts in packaged foods and beverages would double the impact. Greater health gains and cost savings were expected among young adults, women, and non-Hispanic Black individuals than other population subgroups.

Conclusions and relevance

These findings suggest that the added-sugar labeling is associated with reduced costs and lower rates of obesity-associated cancers. Policymakers may consider and prioritize nutrition policies for cancer prevention in the US.

SUBMITTER: Du M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8080223 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundExcess added sugars, particularly from sugar-sweetened beverages, are a major risk factor for cardiometabolic diseases including cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes mellitus. In 2016, the US Food and Drug Administration mandated the labeling of added sugar content on all packaged foods and beverages. Yet, the potential health impacts and cost-effectiveness of this policy remain unclear.MethodsA validated microsimulation model (US IMPACT Food Policy model) was used to estimate cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes mellitus cases averted, quality-adjusted life-years, policy costs, health care, informal care, and lost productivity (health-related) savings and cost-effectiveness of 2 policy scenarios: (1) implementation of the US Food and Drug Administration added sugar labeling policy (sugar label), and (2) further accounting for corresponding industry reformulation (sugar label+reformulation). The model used nationally representative demographic and dietary intake data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, disease data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Wonder Database, policy effects and diet-disease effects from meta-analyses, and policy and health-related costs from established sources. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis accounted for model parameter uncertainties and population heterogeneity.ResultsBetween 2018 and 2037, the sugar label would prevent 354 400 cardiovascular disease (95% uncertainty interval, 167 000-673 500) and 599 300 (302 400-957 400) diabetes mellitus cases, gain 727 000 (401 300-1 138 000) quality-adjusted life-years, and save $31 billion (15.7-54.5) in net healthcare costs or $61.9 billion (33.1-103.3) societal costs (incorporating reduced lost productivity and informal care costs). For the sugar label+reformulation scenario, corresponding gains were 708 800 (369 200-1 252 000) cardiovascular disease cases, 1.2 million (0.7-1.7) diabetes mellitus cases, 1.3 million (0.8-1.9) quality-adjusted life-years, and $57.6 billion (31.9-92.4) and $113.2 billion (67.3-175.2), respectively. Both scenarios were estimated with >80% probability to be cost saving by 2023.ConclusionsImplementing the US Food and Drug Administration added sugar labeling policy could generate substantial health gains and cost savings for the US population.

Project description:The Nutrition Facts (NF) label was recently updated and now includes the added sugars content in an effort to reduce added sugars consumption. This study investigated whether consumers wanted to access or avoid the added sugars content using an online experiment and five product categories (yogurt, cereal, fruit juice, snack bar, ice cream). We recruited a sample of 490 U.S. adults (49% female; 73% White/Caucasian). Respondents were randomly assigned to an information treatment (simple or full) before making decisions on whether to access or avoid the added sugars content. The simple information treatment explained that added sugars information was now available on the NF label, while the full information treatment included additional details (e.g., how to interpret the added sugars content and associated diseases). After making the access or avoid decisions for each product category, respondents rated their likelihood of purchase for ten products (two per category). Rates of information avoidance were much lower than what has been observed in previous studies, and rates of avoidance did not vary by information treatment. The majority of respondents (75-87% across the five product categories) preferred to access the added sugars content. Still, we found some consumers preferred to avoid this information, with higher rates of avoidance for the ice cream product category. Additionally, we found significant differences in likelihood of purchase ratings between information accessors and avoiders. Respondents who chose to access the added sugars information exhibited healthier purchasing behaviors for all product categories; they were more likely to purchase low added sugars products and less likely to purchase high added sugars products relative to information avoiders. Given consumers' demonstrated interest in accessing the added sugars content, it is important that the new changes to the NF label be broadly communicated to promote healthy eating behaviors.

Project description:AimThe purpose of this study was to determine the relationships of pericardial adipose tissue and visceral adipose tissue volume with added sugar and sugar-sweetened beverage intakes. We hypothesized that both added sugar and sugar-sweetened beverages were positively associated with pericardial adipose tissue and visceral adipose tissue volumes in black and white men and women enrolled in the prospective Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults study.Methods and resultsDietary intake was assessed by diet history at baseline, year 7 and year 20 examinations in 3070 participants aged 18-30 and generally healthy at baseline. After 25 years follow-up, participants underwent a computed tomography scan of chest and abdomen; the computed tomography scans were read, and pericardial adipose tissue, visceral adipose tissue, and subcutaneous adipose tissue volumes were calculated. Quintiles were created for the average of baseline, year 7 and year 20 added sugar and for the average of sugar-sweetened beverages. General linear regression analysis evaluated the associations of pericardial adipose tissue and visceral adipose tissue volumes across quintiles of added sugar and across quintiles of sugar-sweetened beverage intakes adjusted for potential confounding factors. In a multivariable model, pericardial adipose tissue volume was higher across increasing quintiles of added sugar and sugar-sweetened beverage intakes (ptrend = 0.001 and ptrend < 0.001, respectively). A similar relation was observed for visceral adipose tissue (ptrend < 0.001 for both added sugar and sugar-sweetened beverages).ConclusionsLong-term intakes of added sugar and sugar-sweetened beverages were associated with higher pericardial adipose tissue, visceral adipose tissue, and subcutaneous adipose tissue volumes. Because these ectopic fat depots are associated with greater risk of disease incidence, these findings support limiting intakes of added sugar and sugar-sweetened beverages.

Project description:Prediabetes affects 38% of U.S. adults and is primarily linked to added sugars consumed from sugar-sweetened beverages. It is unclear if total dietary intake of added sugar also increases the risk for prediabetes. This study examined if total (g/day) and percent intakes of <10%, 10–15%, or >15% added sugar increase the odds for prediabetes in U.S. adults. A cross-sectional, secondary analysis using 2013–2018 NHANES data was conducted. This study included data from U.S. adults ≥ 20 years with normoglycemia (N = 2,154) and prediabetes (N = 3,152) with 1–2 days of dietary recall information. Prediabetes was defined as a hemoglobin A1c of 5.7%-6.4% or a fasting plasma glucose of 100–125 mg/dL. Survey-weighted logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios of prediabetes based on usual intakes of added sugar (total and percent intakes) using the National Cancer Institute Method. Differences in prediabetes risk and total and percent intakes of added sugar were compared by race/ethnicity. The sample’s total energy intake from added sugar was 13.9%. Total (unadjusted: OR: 1.01, 95% CI: .99–1.00, p = .26; adjusted: OR: 1.00, 95% CI: .99–1.00, p = .91) and percent intakes of added sugar (unadjusted [<10%: (ref); 10–15%: OR: .93, 95% CI: .77–1.12, p = .44; >15%: OR: 1.03, 95% CI: .82–1.28, p = .82] and adjusted [<10%: (ref); 10–15%: OR: .82, 95% CI: .65–1.04, p = .09; >15%: OR: .96, 95% CI: .74–1.24, p = .73]) were not significantly associated with an increased odds of prediabetes. Prediabetes risk did not differ by race/ethnicity for total (unadjusted model [p = .65]; adjusted model [p = .51]) or percent (unadjusted model [p = .21]; adjusted model [p = .11]) added sugar intakes. In adults ≥20 years with normoglycemia and prediabetes, total added sugar consumption did not significantly increase one’s risk for prediabetes and risk estimates did not differ by race/ethnicity. Experimental studies should expand upon this work to confirm these findings.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Despite associations of dietary added sugar with excess weight gain and chronic disease risk, intake among most Americans exceeds the recommended limits (<10% total energy). Maternal diet plays an important role in pregnancy-related outcomes, but little is known about the extent of added sugar intake during pregnancy. OBJECTIVE:To assess intake and identify the top sources of added sugars in the diets of pregnant vs nonpregnant women in the United States. DESIGN:Cross-sectional analysis of data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), 2003-2004 to 2011-2012. PARTICIPANTS:Four thousand one hundred seventy-nine pregnant and nonpregnant women (aged 20 to 39 years) who completed a dietary recall. STATISTICAL ANALYSES PERFORMED:Survey-weighted analyses were used to estimate means (95% CIs) in total grams and as percentage of total energy for added sugar intake by pregnancy status and by demographic subgroup and to identify leading sources of added sugar. RESULTS:Added sugar intake trended toward being higher in pregnant compared with nonpregnant women in absolute grams, 85.1 g (95% CI: 77.4 to 92.7) vs 76.7 g (95% CI: 73.6 to 79.9), respectively (P=0.06), but was lower among pregnant women when total energy intake was accounted for, 14.8% (95% CI: 13.8 to 15.7) vs 15.9% (95% CI: 15.2 to 16.6) of total energy, respectively (P=0.03). Among pregnant women, added sugar intake was similar among demographic subgroups. However, in multivariable regression, pregnancy status significantly modified the associations of education and income with added sugar intake, whereby less educated and lower-income women who were pregnant had lower added sugar intakes compared with those who were not pregnant, but more educated or higher-income women did not exhibit this pattern. The top five sources of added sugar for all women were sugar-sweetened beverages; cakes, cookies, and pastries; sugars and sweets; juice drinks and smoothies; and milk-based desserts. CONCLUSIONS:Although pregnant women had higher energy intakes, this was not attributed to higher intakes of added sugar. Although education and income affected consumption during pregnancy, intake of added sugar among all women, regardless of pregnancy status, exceeded recommendations.