Dataset Information

Pilot randomized controlled trial testing the influence of front-of-pack sugar warning labels on food demand.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Front-of-pack (FOP) nutrition warning labels to identify potentially harmful foods/beverages have recently been considered in Singapore. The objective of this study was to pilot test two promising FOP warning labels intended to reduce purchases of products high in sugar to determine whether a full scale trial testing one or both these labels using actual purchases is warranted. METHODS:Five hundred twelve participants ?21?years old and residing in Singapore completed all study elements online via the NUSMart Online Grocery Store study website. The study was designed as a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) where consumers were randomized and asked to hypothetically shop in one of three versions of an online grocery store; 1) no FOP label (control), 2) a graphical high-in-sugar label shaped like a stop sign, or 3) a text-based warning label. The proportion of labelled products purchased (primary outcome) and all secondary measures of diet quality were calculated using participants' orders. Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression was used to compare purchasing behavior across the three study arms. RESULTS:The proportion of high-in-sugar products selected (i.e., those targeted for labelling) was largest in the no label control arm at 20%. The proportion was a non-statistically significant 2 percentage points lower (P?=?0.146) for the high-in-sugar stop-sign label arm and 4 percentage points lower (P?

SUBMITTER: Ang FJL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6367807 | biostudies-other | 2019 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Pilot randomized controlled trial testing the influence of front-of-pack sugar warning labels on food demand.

Ang Felicia Jia Ler FJL Agrawal Sagun S Finkelstein Eric A EA

BMC public health 20190207 1

<h4>Background</h4>Front-of-pack (FOP) nutrition warning labels to identify potentially harmful foods/beverages have recently been considered in Singapore. The objective of this study was to pilot test two promising FOP warning labels intended to reduce purchases of products high in sugar to determine whether a full scale trial testing one or both these labels using actual purchases is warranted.<h4>Methods</h4>Five hundred twelve participants ≥21 years old and residing in Singapore completed al ...[more]

PMID: 30732609

Similar Datasets

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: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.

Project description:ImportanceFruit drinks are widely consumed by young children, and many parents mistakenly believe that these drinks are healthy, potentially due to front-of-package claims and imagery. Research is needed on the influence of this marketing and how labeling regulations could change behavior.ObjectiveTo assess the effects of a front-of-package 100% vitamin C claim, fruit imagery, percentage juice and teaspoons of added sugar disclosures, and high-added sugar warnings on parents' choices, knowledge, and perceptions of beverages.Design, setting, and participantsThis randomized clinical trial was conducted May to July 2021 as a single-exposure (no follow-up) online survey of primary caregivers of children ages 0 to 5 years throughout the US.InterventionsParticipants were shown no-, low-, and high-added sugar beverages and asked to choose 1 for their child. Participants were randomized to see high-added sugar beverages with 1 of 7 front-of-package conditions: (1) claim and imagery (control); (2) no claim; (3) no imagery; (4) no claim or imagery; (5) claim, imagery, and percentage juice disclosure; (6) claim, imagery, and warning; or (7) claim, imagery, warning, and teaspoons of added sugar disclosure.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcomes were type of beverage chosen (eg, high-added sugar beverage) and resulting calories and added sugar (in grams). Secondary outcomes were fruit drink knowledge (added sugar and percent juice) and perceptions.ResultsThere were 5005 participants included in the final analysis (mean [SD] age, 31.5 [8.3] years; 3587 female participants [71.7%]), including 714 participants in group 1, 717 participants in group 2, 710 participants in group 3, 717 participants in group 4, 708 participants in group 5, 729 participants in group 6, and 710 participants in group 7. Compared with participants in the control group, who had a mean (standard error [SE]) of 9.4 (0.5) g of added sugar and 81.9 (1.6) kcal in chosen beverages, only participants who saw warnings with teaspoons of added sugar disclosures had significantly reduced added sugar (-1.3 g; 95% CI, -2.6 to -0.1 g [-14.2%; 95% CI, -26.7% to -1.8%]; P = .04) and calories (-5.3 kcal; 95% CI, -9.8 to -0.9 kcal [-6.5%; 95% CI, -11.8% to -1.3%]; P = .02) in selected beverages. In warning conditions (ie, 6 and 7) compared with the control group (mean [SE] 41.0% [1.8%]), the proportion of participants choosing high-added sugar beverages was significantly reduced, by 5.5 percentage points (95% CI, 0.5 to 10.5 percentage points [13.4%; 95% CI, 1.2% to 25.6%]; P = .03) and 6.4 percentage points (95% CI, 1.4 to 11.4 percentage points [15.6%; 95% CI, 3.3% to 27.8%]; P = .01), respectively. The no claim or imagery condition (4) significantly reduced the proportion of parents choosing high-added sugar beverages (-7.6 percentage points; 95% CI, -12.6 to -2.6 percentage points [-18.4%; 95% CI, -30.6% to -6.3%]; P = .003). Percentage juice disclosures did not affect beverage choice.Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest that added sugar warnings and prohibitions of front-of-package claims and imagery may reduce parents' purchases of high-added sugar beverages for their young children but that percentage juice disclosures may not change behavior.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04811690.

Dataset Information

Pilot randomized controlled trial testing the influence of front-of-pack sugar warning labels on food demand.

Publications

Pilot randomized controlled trial testing the influence of front-of-pack sugar warning labels on food demand.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets