Explore the vast range of titles available.

Menu labelling is a practical tool to inform consumers of the energy content of menu items and help consumers make informed decisions in the eating-out environment, and the volume of studies published recently regarding its effects is expanding, both quantitatively and geographically. The aim of the present review and meta-analysis is to consider the most recent evidence which assesses the effect of menu labelling regarding changes in energy consumed, ordered or selected in both real-world and experimental settings. The review included fifteen peer-reviewed, full-text articles published between 2012 and 2014. Pertinent methodological information was extracted from each of the included studies and a quality assessment scheme was applied to classify the studies, after which systematic across-study comparisons were conducted. A meta-analysis was conducted including twelve of the fifteen studies, and stratified according to type of research setting and outcome: energy consumed, ordered or selected. The rating yielded studies categorized by study quality: good (n 3), fair (n 9) and weak (n 3). Overall nine studies showed statistically significant reductions in energy consumed, ordered or selected. Three articles reported no effect of menu labelling. The meta-analysis showed statistically significant effects of menu labelling: overall energy consumed was reduced by a mean of 419·5 kJ (100·2 kcal) and energy ordered in real-world settings decreased by a mean of 325·7 kJ (77·8 kcal). The review supports that menu labelling can effectively reduce energy ordered and consumed in the away-from-home food environment.

It is unknown how well menu labelling schemes that enforce the display of kilojoule (kJ) labelling at point-of-sale have been implemented on online food delivery (OFD) services in Australia. This study aimed to examine the prevalence of kJ labelling on the online menus of large food outlets with more than twenty locations in the state or fifty locations nationally. A secondary aim was to evaluate the nutritional quality of menu items on OFD from mid-sized outlets that have fewer locations than what is specified in the current scheme. Cross-sectional analysis. Prevalence of kJ labelling by large food outlets on OFD from August to September 2022 was examined. Proportion of discretionary ('junk food') items on menus from mid-sized outlets was assessed. Forty-three unique large food outlets on company (e.g. MyMacca's) and third party OFD (Uber Eats, Menulog, Deliveroo) within Sydney, Australia. Ninety-two mid-sized food outlets were analysed. N/A. On company OFD apps, 35 % (7/23) had complete kJ labelling for each menu item. In comparison, only 4·8 % (2/42), 5·3 % (2/38) and 3·6 % (1/28) of large outlets on Uber Eats, Menulog and Deliveroo had complete kJ labelling at all locations, respectively. Over three-quarters, 76·3 % (345/452) of menu items from mid-sized outlets were classified as discretionary. Kilojoule labelling was absent or incomplete on a high proportion of online menus. Mid-sized outlets have abundant discretionary choices and yet escape criteria for mandatory menu labelling laws. Our findings show the need to further monitor the implementation of nutrition policies on OFD.

Background Regulations mandating kilocalorie (kcal) labelling for large businesses in the out-of-home food sector (OHFS) came into force on 6th April 2022 as a policy to reduce obesity in England. To provide indicators of potential reach and impact, kcal labelling practices were studied in the OHFS, and customer purchasing and consumption behaviours prior to implementation of the mandatory kcal labelling policy in England. Methods From August-December 2021, large OHFS businesses subject to the kcal labelling regulations were visited prior to regulations coming into force on 6th April 2022. 3308 customers were recruited from 330 outlets and collected survey information on the number of kcal purchased and consumed by customers, customers’ knowledge of the kcal content of their purchases, and customers noticing and use of kcal labelling. In a subset of 117 outlets, data was collected on nine recommended kcal labelling practices. Results The average number of kcals purchased (1013 kcal, SD = 632 kcal) was high with 69% of purchases exceeding the recommendation of a maximum of 600 kcal per meal. Participants underestimated the energy content of their purchased meals by on average 253 kcal (SD = 644 kcals). In outlets providing kcal labelling in which customer survey data was collected, a minority of customers reported noticing (21%) or using (20%) kcal labelling. Out of the 117 outlets assessed for kcal labelling practices, 24 (21%) provided any in-store kcal labelling. None of the outlets met all nine aspects of recommended labelling practices. Conclusions Prior to implementation of 2022 kcal labelling policy, the majority of sampled OHFS large business outlets in England did not provide kcal labelling. Few customers noticed or used the labels and on average customers purchased and consumed substantially more energy than recommended in public health guidelines. The findings suggest that reliance on voluntary action for kcal labelling implementation failed to produce widespread, consistent, and adequate kcal labelling practices.

Background There are well documented socioeconomic disparities in diet quality and obesity. Menu energy labelling is a public health policy designed to improve diet and reduce obesity. However, it is unclear whether the impact energy labelling has on consumer behaviour is socially equitable or differs based on socioeconomic position (SEP). Methods Systematic review and meta-analysis of experimental (between-subjects) and pre-post implementation field studies examining the impact of menu energy labelling on energy content of food and/or drink selections in higher vs. lower SEP groups. Results Seventeen studies were eligible for inclusion. Meta-analyses of 13 experimental studies that predominantly examined hypothetical food and drink choices showed that energy labelling tended to be associated with a small reduction in energy content of selections that did not differ based on participant SEP (X 2 (1) = 0.26, p  = .610). Effect estimates for higher SEP SMD = 0.067 [95% CI: -0.092 to 0.226] and lower SEP SMD = 0.115 [95% CI: -0.006 to 0.237] were similar. A meta-analysis of 3 pre-post implementation studies of energy labelling in the real world showed that the effect energy labelling had on consumer behaviour did not significantly differ based on SEP (X 2 (1) = 0.22, p  = .636). In higher SEP the effect was SMD = 0.032 [95% CI: -0.053 to 0.117] and in lower SEP the effect was SMD = -0.005 [95% CI: -0.051 to 0.041]. Conclusions Overall there was no convincing evidence that the effect energy labelling has on consumer behaviour significantly differs based on SEP. Further research examining multiple indicators of SEP and quantifying the long-term effects of energy labelling on consumer behaviour in real-world settings is now required. Review registration Registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022312532) and OSF ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/W7RDB ).

To comply with the Paris Agreement, many countries have implemented mandatory energy certification policies in the HVAC sector. These policies have encouraged the deployment of more energy efficient technologies such as variable or inverter driven technologies, which have been developed based on established seasonal performance metrics. Therefore, this paper presents an experimental evaluation of a variable-type air conditioner based on seasonal cooling metrics and performance ratings using various energy labeling programs from multiple regions around the world. The results of this work demonstrate that the energy efficiency rating of an air conditioner is significantly influenced by the distribution of the reference outdoor temperature in the labeling program issued by each region, and not just by the adoption of a technical standard. These results are crucial for the development of public policies aimed at designing better energy efficiency and labeling programs. In particular, the findings are especially relevant for decision making by governments, as the adoption of a technical standard can be simplified, and greater harmonization of performance metrics used globally can lead to greater energy savings and mitigate the effects of global warming.

Background Food consumed outside of the home is often high in energy and population level interventions that reduce energy intake of people from both lower and higher socioeconomic position (SEP) are needed. There is a lack of evidence on the effectiveness and SEP equity of structural-based (e.g. increasing availability of lower energy options) and information provision (e.g. menu energy labelling) interventions on food choice. Methods Across two online experiments, participants of lower and higher SEP made meal choices in a novel virtual fast-food restaurant. To be eligible to take part, participants were required to be UK residents, aged 18 or above, fluent in English, have access to a computer with an internet connection and have no dietary restrictions. Participants were randomized to one of four conditions in a 2 × 2 between-subjects design: menu energy labelling present vs. absent and increased availability of lower energy options (75% of menu options lower energy) vs. baseline availability (25% of menu options lower energy). Participants also completed measures of executive function and food choice motives. Results The analysis of pooled data from both studies ( n  = 1743) showed that increasing the availability of lower energy options resulted in participants ordering meals with significantly less energy on average (− 71 kcal, p  <  0.001, partial η 2  = 0.024) and this effect was observed irrespective of participant SEP. Menu labelling had no significant effect on energy ordered (− 18 kcal, p  = 0.116, partial η 2  = 0.001) in participants from both higher and lower SEP. Furthermore, we found no evidence that executive function or food choice motives moderated the effect of increasing lower energy menu options or energy labelling on total energy ordered. Conclusions In a virtual fast-food environment, energy labelling was ineffective in reducing total energy ordered for both higher and lower SEP participants. Increasing the availability of lower energy options had an equitable effect, reducing total energy ordered in participants from higher and lower SEP. Trial registration Study protocols and analysis plans were pre-registered on the Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/ajcr6/ ).

Purpose This research examines how the design of the online energy label can be improved to stimulate consumer choice of energy-efficient household products in Web stores. Based on general evaluability theory, the authors propose new label formats that aim to improve the evaluability of the label information for consumers and test their influence during two distinct stages in the online decision-making process: consideration set formation and final choice. Design/methodology/approach Two large-scale controlled online experiments are conducted with over 10,000 consumers in 10 European countries. The experiments test label alternatives in simulated online store environments, mimicking the two distinct decision stages, for four product categories to enhance generalizability. The data are analyzed using random-intercept linear and logistic regression models to account for their multi-level structure. Findings The results show that the impact of the online energy label on consumers’ online decision-making depends on both the label format and the decision stage (consideration vs choice), but in a different way than expected. The findings reveal that the current online energy label is significantly outperformed by a label that provides reference information by incorporating the scale range. This alternative label is particularly effective in the consideration set formation stage, and among consumers who consider energy efficiency a relatively unimportant choice criterion. Research limitations/implications Online energy labels encourage consumers to consider and choose more energy-efficient products, especially if scale range information is included. The present results stress the importance of presenting this information early on in the online decision process. They also show that, particularly at this early stage and particularly for consumers who find energy efficiency a relatively unimportant choice criterion, label format matters. Practical implications The present findings provide important input for policymakers in the context of the ongoing revision of the EU energy label. They also help online retailers make decisions about when and how to present product information on their websites. Originality/value This study contributes to the literature on product labelling by examining the effects of relatively unexplored types of reference information in two distinct stages of the consumer decision-making process. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to test the effectiveness of the online energy label.

Young adults are the highest consumers of food prepared outside home (FOH) and gain most weight among Australian adults. One strategy to address the obesogenic food environment is menu labelling legislation whereby outlets with >20 stores in one state and >50 Australia-wide must display energy content in kJ. The aim of this study was to assess the contribution of FOH to the energy and macronutrients, saturated fat, total sugars and sodium intakes of young Australians. One thousand and one 18 to 30-year-olds (57% female) residing in Australia’s most populous state recorded all foods and beverages consumed and the location of preparation for three consecutive days using a purpose-designed smartphone application. Group means for the daily consumption of energy, percentage energy (%E) for protein, carbohydrate, total sugars, total and saturated fats, and sodium density (mg/1000 kJ) and proportions of nutrients from FOH from menu labelling and independent outlets were compared. Overall, participants consumed 42.4% of their energy intake from FOH with other nutrients ranging from 39.8% (sugars) to 47.3% (sodium). Independent outlets not required to label menus, contributed a greater percentage of energy (23.6%) than menu labelling outlets (18.7%, p < 0.001). Public health policy responses such as public education campaigns, extended menu labelling, more detailed nutrition information and reformulation targets are suggested to facilitate healthier choices.

Background There are a range of interventions designed to promote healthier food choices in full-service restaurants. However, it is unclear how these interventions affect dietary choices in people of lower and higher socioeconomic position (SEP). Methods A total of 2091 US participants recruited online completed Study 1 ( n  = 1001) and Study 2 ( n  = 1090). Recruitment was stratified by participant highest education level, resulting in higher SEP and lower SEP groups. In a between-subjects design, participants made hypothetical food choices (main dish, plus optional sides and desserts) from six restaurants menus in the absence vs. presence of menu energy labelling and from menus with baseline (10%) vs. increased availability (50%) of lower energy main dishes. Data were collected and analysed in 2019. Two studies were conducted in order to examine replicability and generalisability of findings across different restaurant menu types. Results Across both studies, increasing the availability of lower energy main menu options decreased the average energy content of the ordered main dish (− 129 kcal, 95% CI [− 139; − 119]) and total energy ordered (− 117 kcal, 95% CI [− 138; − 95]) in both higher and lower SEP participants. Energy labelling significantly reduced the energy content of ordered main dishes in higher SEP participants (− 41 kcal, 95% CI [− 54; − 29]), but not lower SEP participants (− 5 kcal, 95% CI [− 22; 11]). However, energy labelling reduced total energy ordered (− 83 kcal, 95% CI [− 105; − 60]) irrespective of SEP. Conclusions In two virtual experiments, increasing the availability of lower energy restaurant main menu options impacted on main menu dish choice and decreased total energy ordered irrespective of SEP. Energy labelling had a less pronounced effect on total energy ordered and had a larger impact on the energy content of main menu dish choice in higher as opposed to lower SEP participants. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04336540 retrospectively registered (7 April, 2020).

Information has not been proven a very successful means to promote voluntary behaviour change to protect the environment. On this backcloth, there is currently increasing interest in recommendations from behavioural economics focusing on making the choice architecture more facilitating for the desired behaviour. The authors present three studies demonstrating how mental shortcuts, based on subtle cues in the context, unconsciously influence human decision-making, with important consequences for the environment. Two of our own studies illustrate the behavioural impacts of (a) anchoring (the design of the European energy label) and (b) default effect (the framing of a request to participate in the Smart Grid), and data from Göckeritz et al. (Eur J Soc Psych 40:514-523, 2010 ) are used to illustrate the impacts of (c) herding or descriptive norms (the social context of energy saving). The authors end by pointing at theoretical weaknesses in behavioural economics and calling for research to strengthening the theoretical underpinnings of this approach to behaviour change.