Effects of Different Types of Front-of-Pack Labelling Information on the Healthiness of Food Purchases-A Randomised Controlled Trial

Bruce Neal, Michelle Crino, Elizabeth Dunford, Annie Gao, Rohan Greenland, Nicole Li, Judith Ngai, Cliona Ni Mhurchu, Simone Pettigrew, Gary Sacks, Jacqui Webster, Jason HY Wu, Bruce Neal, Michelle Crino, Elizabeth Dunford, Annie Gao, Rohan Greenland, Nicole Li, Judith Ngai, Cliona Ni Mhurchu, Simone Pettigrew, Gary Sacks, Jacqui Webster, Jason HY Wu

Abstract

Background: Front-of-pack nutrition labelling may support healthier packaged food purchases. Australia has adopted a novel Health Star Rating (HSR) system, but the legitimacy of this choice is unknown.

Objective: To define the effects of different formats of front-of-pack labelling on the healthiness of food purchases and consumer perceptions.

Design: Individuals were assigned at random to access one of four different formats of nutrition labelling-HSR, multiple traffic light labels (MTL), daily intake guides (DIG), recommendations/warnings (WARN)-or control (the nutrition information panel, NIP). Participants accessed nutrition information by using a smartphone application to scan the bar-codes of packaged foods, while shopping. The primary outcome was healthiness defined by the mean transformed nutrient profile score of packaged foods that were purchased over four weeks.

Results: The 1578 participants, mean age 38 years, 84% female recorded purchases of 148,727 evaluable food items. The mean healthiness of the purchases in the HSR group was non-inferior to MTL, DIG, or WARN (all p < 0.001 at 2% non-inferiority margin). When compared to the NIP control, there was no difference in the mean healthiness of purchases for HSR, MTL, or DIG (all p > 0.07), but WARN resulted in healthier packaged food purchases (mean difference 0.87; 95% confidence interval 0.03 to 1.72; p = 0.04). HSR was perceived by participants as more useful than DIG, and easier to understand than MTL or DIG (all p < 0.05). Participants also reported the HSR to be easier to understand, and the HSR and MTL to be more useful, than NIP (all p < 0.03).

Conclusions: These real-world data align with experimental findings and provide support for the policy choice of HSR. Recommendation/warning labels warrant further exploration, as they may be a stronger driver of healthy food purchases.

Keywords: food industry; food labelling; food purchases; policy; randomised trial.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Label formats investigated.
Figure 2
Figure 2
CONSORT diagram. Health Star Rating (HSR), Multiple Traffic Lights (MTL), Daily Intake Guide (DIG), Recommendations/warnings (WARN), and Nutrition Information Panel (NIP).
Figure 3
Figure 3
Fixed effects meta-analysis of the effects of health star ratings and multiple traffic lights compared to control on healthiness of food purchases in the current trial and a sister trial done in New Zealand (mean differences and 95% confidence interval). ES = Effect size; 95% CI = 95% confidence interval; HSR = Health Star Rating; MTL = Multiple Traffic Light; NIP = Nutrition Information Panel; NZ = New Zealand; AUS = Australia. I-squared statistic indicates between trial differences in contributing trial results beyond chance and p-value is result for test of heterogeneity of trial results.

References

    1. World Health Organization . Global Action Plan for the Prevention and Treatment of Noncommunicable Diseases 2013–2020. World Health Organization; Geneva, Switzerland: 2013.
    1. Beaglehole R., Bonita R., Alleyne G., Horton R., Li L., Lincoln P., Mbanya J.C., McKee M., Moodie R., Nishtar S., et al. UN High-Level Meeting on Non-Communicable Diseases: Addressing four questions. Lancet. 2011;378:449–455. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60879-9.
    1. Siegrist M., Leins-Hess R., Keller C. Which front-of-pack nutrition label is the most efficient one? The results of an eye-tracker study. Food Qual. Preference. 2015;39:183–190. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.07.010.
    1. Young L., Swinburn B. Impact of the Pick the Tick food information programme on the salt content of food in New Zealand. Health Promot. Int. 2002;17:13–19. doi: 10.1093/heapro/17.1.13.
    1. Williams P., McMahon A., Boustead R. A case study of sodium reduction in breakfast cereals and the impact of the Pick the Tick food information program in Australia. Health Promot. Int. 2003;18:51–56. doi: 10.1093/heapro/18.1.51.
    1. European Food Information Council . Global Update on Nutrition Labelling. European Food Information Council; Brussels, Belgium: 2015.
    1. Campos S., Doxey J., Hammond D. Nutrition labels on pre-packaged foods: A systematic review. Public Health Nutr. 2011;14:1496–1506. doi: 10.1017/S1368980010003290.
    1. Department of Health . Guide to Creating a Front of Pack (FoP) Nutrition Label for Pre-Packed Products Sold through Retail Outlets. Department of Health; London, UK: 2013.
    1. Food Standards Australia New Zealand . Guide for Industry to the Health Star Rating Calculator (HSRC) Food Standards Australia New Zealand; Canberra, Australia: 2015.
    1. Rahkovsky I., Lin B.-H., Lin C.-T.J., Lee J.-Y. Effects of the Guiding Stars Program on purchases of ready-to-eat cereals with different nutritional attributes. Food Policy. 2013;43:100–107. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2013.08.013.
    1. Australia Food and Grocery Council Daily Intake Guide Labelling Canberra 2012. [(accessed on 23 November 2017)]; Available online:
    1. Pettigrew S., Talati Z., Miller C., Dixon H., Kelly B., Ball K. The types and aspects of front-of-pack food labelling schemes preferred by adults and children. Appetite. 2017;109:115–123. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2016.11.034.
    1. Trieu K., Neal B., Hawkes C., Dunford E., Campbell N., Rodriguez-Fernandez R., Legetic B., McLaren L., Barberio A., Webster J. Salt Reduction Initiatives around the World—A Systematic Review of Progress towards the Global Target. PLoS ONE. 2015;10:e0130247. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0130247.
    1. Grunert K.G., Wills J.M. A review of European research on consumer response to nutrition information on food labels. J. Public Health. 2007;15:385–399. doi: 10.1007/s10389-007-0101-9.
    1. Volkova E., Ni Mhurchu C. The Influence of Nutrition Labeling and Point-of-Purchase Information on Food Behaviours. Curr. Obes. Rep. 2015;4:19–29. doi: 10.1007/s13679-014-0135-6.
    1. Cecchini M., Warin L. Impact of food labelling systems on food choices and eating behaviours: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized studies. Obes. Rev. Off. J. Int. Assoc. Study Obes. 2016;17:201–210. doi: 10.1111/obr.12364.
    1. Crosetto P., Muller L., Ruffieux B. Helping consumers with a front-of-pack label: Numbers or colors?: Experimental comparison between Guideline Daily Amount and Traffic Light in a diet-building exercise. J. Econ. Psychol. 2016;55(Suppl. C):30–50. doi: 10.1016/j.joep.2016.03.006.
    1. Aschemann-Witzel J., Grunert K.G., van Trijp H.C., Bialkova S., Raats M.M., Hodgkins C., Wasowicz-Kirylo G., Koenigstorfer J. Effects of nutrition label format and product assortment on the healthfulness of food choice. Appetite. 2013;71:63–74. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2013.07.004.
    1. Watson W.L., Kelly B., Hector D., Hughes C., King L., Crawford J., Sergeant J., Chapman K. Can front-of-pack labelling schemes guide healthier food choices? Australian shoppers’ responses to seven labelling formats. Appetite. 2014;72:90–97.
    1. Arrua A., Machin L., Curutchet M.R., Martinez J., Antunez L., Alcaire F., Gimenez A., Ares G. Warnings as a directive front-of-pack nutrition labelling scheme: Comparison with the Guideline Daily Amount and traffic-light systems. Public Health Nutr. 2017;20:2308–2317. doi: 10.1017/S1368980017000866.
    1. Sacks G., Rayner M., Swinburn B. Impact of front-of-pack ‘traffic-light’ nutrition labelling on consumer food purchases in the UK. Health Promot. Int. 2009;24:344–352. doi: 10.1093/heapro/dap032.
    1. Sacks G., Tikellis K., Millar L., Swinburn B. Impact of ‘traffic-light’ nutrition information on online food purchases in Australia. Aust. N. Z. J. Public Health. 2011;35:122–126. doi: 10.1111/j.1753-6405.2011.00684.x.
    1. Sutherland L.A., Kaley L.A., Fischer L. Guiding stars: The effect of a nutrition navigation program on consumer purchases at the supermarket. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2010;91:1090s–1094s. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.2010.28450C.
    1. Dunford E., Trevena H., Goodsell C., Ng K.H., Webster J., Millis A., Goldstein S., Hugueniot O., Neal B. FoodSwitch: A Mobile Phone App to Enable Consumers to Make Healthier Food Choices and Crowdsourcing of National Food Composition Data. JMIR mHealth uHealth. 2014;2:e37. doi: 10.2196/mhealth.3230.
    1. Ni Mhurchu C., Volkova E., Jiang Y., Eyles H., Michie J., Neal B., Blakely T., Swinburn B., Rayner M. Effects of interpretive nutrition labels on consumer food purchases: The Starlight randomized controlled trial. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2017;105:695–704. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.116.144956.
    1. Hammond D. Health warning messages on tobacco products: A review. Tob. Control. 2011;20:327–337. doi: 10.1136/tc.2010.037630.
    1. Cobb L.K., Appel L.J., Anderson C.A.M. Strategies to Reduce Dietary Sodium Intake. Curr. Treat. Opt. Cardiovasc. Med. 2012;14:425–434. doi: 10.1007/s11936-012-0182-9.
    1. Maubach N., Hoek J., Mather D. Interpretive front-of-pack nutrition labels. Comparing competing recommendations. Appetite. 2014;82:67–77. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2014.07.006.
    1. Hamlin R.P., McNeill L.S., Moore V. The impact of front-of-pack nutrition labels on consumer product evaluation and choice: An experimental study. Public Health Nutr. 2015;18:2126–2134. doi: 10.1017/S1368980014002997.
    1. Herpen E.V., Hieke S., van Trijp H.C. Inferring Product Healthfulness from Nutrition Labelling: The Influence of Reference Points. Appetite. 2013 doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2013.10.012.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbejdspartnere

Medicinske tilstande

Narkotikainterventioner

3
Abonner