Explore the vast range of titles available.

To identify peer-reviewed research on consumers' usage and attitudes towards the nutrition label and the food industry's response to labelling regulations outside Europe, North America, and Australia and to determine knowledge gaps for future research. Narrative review. This review identified nutrition labelling research from 20 countries in Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America. Consumers prefer that pre-packaged food include nutrition information, although there is a disparity between rates of use and comprehension. Consumer preference is for front-of-pack labelling and for information that shows per serving or portion as a reference unit, and label formats with graphics or symbols. Research on the food and beverage industry's response is more limited but shows that industry plays an active role in influencing legislation and regulation. Consumers around the world share preferences with consumers in higher income countries with respect to labelling. However, this may reflect the research study populations, who are often better educated than the general population. Investigation is required into how nutrition labels are received in emerging economies especially among the urban and rural poor, in order to assess the effectiveness of labelling policies. Further research into the outlook of the food and beverage industry, and also on expanded labelling regulations is a priority. Sharing context-specific research regarding labelling between countries in the global South could be mutually beneficial in evaluating obesity prevention policies and strategies.

COVID-19 threatens the health of children, yet it is important to recognize that children's health is at risk not only by the disease itself but by the policies that have been adopted before and during the pandemic. As unemployment has increased during the pandemic, so has the risk of uninsur-ance.1 Loss of insurance coverage is particularly harmful for children because of the long-term health, education, and financial benefits of nsurance.2 Levels of health insurance coverage for children were decreasing even before COVID-19, outpacing similar negative trends in adult insurance coverage3 In an effort to improve children's coverage, 25 states adopted policies that extended continuous eligibility in the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and 23 states adopted continuous eligibility for Medicaid, allowing children to remain enrolled for a 12-month period even if temporary income changes would have made them ineligible for the program.4 Since the pandemic began, the federal government mirrored these state actions to stabilize Medicaid coverage through the Families First Coronavirus Response Act. The act provided enhanced funding for Medicaid, but it required states to not restrict eligibility standards and to provide continuous coverage without eligibility redetermination for enrollees through the remainder of the public health emergency. Although CHIP has been a policy success, its smaller enrollment and budget compared with Medicaid, recent lapses in federal funding, and fraying bipartisan support has resulted in a program that can be overlooked by policymakers.5 This is what happened when Congress did not require CHIP to provide enrollment protections for enrollees through Families First. During the pandemic, a handful of states have adopted enrollment protections for their CHIP programs, but this has been a patchwork approach. Ultimately, the contrasting treatment of continuous eligibility regulations, combined with the fragmented insurance landscape across programs, complicates and threatens the health of enrollees.We analyzed variation in Medicaid and CHIP enrollment changes across states that had implemented continuous eligibility policies prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. We aggregated data from the federal government's standardized monthly reports of Medicaid and CHIP enrollment figures across all the states. All states are required to report a range of data to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), including application, eligibility, and enrollment figures. We collected reported data from March to October 2020, when finalized reports by the CMS were last made available. We measured changes in child enrollment in two different ways-on a per capita basis and as a percentage change in enrollment over the time period of the study.

Background To identify peer-reviewed research on consumers' usage and attitudes towards the nutrition label and the food industry's response to labelling regulations outside Europe, North America, and Australia and to determine knowledge gaps for future research. Design Narrative review. Results This review identified nutrition labelling research from 20 countries in Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America. Consumers prefer that pre-packaged food include nutrition information, although there is a disparity between rates of use and comprehension. Consumer preference is for front-of-pack labelling and for information that shows per serving or portion as a reference unit, and label formats with graphics or symbols. Research on the food and beverage industry's response is more limited but shows that industry plays an active role in influencing legislation and regulation. Conclusions Consumers around the world share preferences with consumers in higher income countries with respect to labelling. However, this may reflect the research study populations, who are often better educated than the general population. Investigation is required into how nutrition labels are received in emerging economies especially among the urban and rural poor, in order to assess the effectiveness of labelling policies. Further research into the outlook of the food and beverage industry, and also on expanded labelling regulations is a priority. Sharing context-specific research regarding labelling between countries in the global South could be mutually beneficial in evaluating obesity prevention policies and strategies.