Explore the vast range of titles available.

Healthy food labels tout health benefits, yet most people prioritize tastiness in the moment of food choice. In a preregistered intervention, we tested whether taste-focused labels compared with health-focused labels increased vegetable intake at five university dining halls throughout the United States. Across 137,842 diner decisions, 185 days, and 24 vegetable types, taste-focused labels increased vegetable selection by 29% compared with health-focused labels and by 14% compared with basic labels. Vegetable consumption also increased. Supplementary studies further probed the mediators, moderators, and boundaries of these effects. Increased expectations of a positive taste experience mediated the effect of taste-focused labels on vegetable selection. Moderation tests revealed greater effects in settings that served tastier vegetable recipes. Taste-focused labels outperformed labels that merely contained positive words, fancy words, or lists of ingredients. Together, these studies show that emphasizing tasty and enjoyable attributes increases vegetable intake in real-world settings in which vegetables compete with less healthy options.

We evaluated changes in mindful eating as a potential mechanism underlying the effects of a mindfulness-based intervention for weight loss on eating of sweet foods and fasting glucose levels. We randomized 194 obese individuals ( M age = 47.0 ± 12.7 years; BMI = 35.5 ± 3.6; 78 % women) to a 5.5-month diet-exercise program with or without mindfulness training. The mindfulness group, relative to the active control group, evidenced increases in mindful eating and maintenance of fasting glucose from baseline to 12-month assessment. Increases in mindful eating were associated with decreased eating of sweets and fasting glucose levels among mindfulness group participants, but this association was not statistically significant among active control group participants. Twelve-month increases in mindful eating partially mediated the effect of intervention arm on changes in fasting glucose levels from baseline to 12-month assessment. Increases in mindful eating may contribute to the effects of mindfulness-based weight loss interventions on eating of sweets and fasting glucose levels.

Policies that require front-of-package (FoP) nutrient warnings are becoming increasingly common across the globe as a strategy to discourage excess consumption of sugary drinks and ultra-processed food. However, a better understanding of the pathway through which FoP nutrient warnings work, as well as a review of how outcomes being measured in recent studies map onto this pathway, are needed in order to inform policy on the most effective FoP label design for reducing purchases of ultra-processed foods. This scoping review describes a conceptual model for how FoP nutrient warnings affect consumer behavior, examines which of these outcomes are currently being measured, and summarizes evidence from randomized controlled experiments. Twenty-two studies which experimentally tested nutrient warnings against a control label or other labeling systems were included for full-text review. Our conceptual model includes attention; comprehension, cognitive elaboration, and message acceptance; negative affect and risk perception; behavioral intentions, and behavioral response, along with other elements such as external factors and interpersonal communications. We found that many studies focused on outcomes such as attention, comprehension, and behavioral intentions, but considerable gaps in the evidence remain, particularly for intermediary steps on the pathway to behavioral change, such as negative affect and social interactions. FoP nutrient warnings were visually attended to by consumers, easy to understand, helped consumers identify products high in nutrients of concern, and discouraged them from purchasing these products, although other labeling systems were perceived as containing more information and performed better at helping consumers rank the healthfulness of products. More research is needed to understand whether and how nutrient warnings work in the real world to discourage consumer purchases of sugary drinks and ultra-processed food.

Front-of-Package labels (FoPLs) are efficient tools for increasing consumers’ awareness of foods’ nutritional quality and encouraging healthier choices. A label’s design is likely to influence its effectiveness; however, few studies have compared the ability of different FoPLs to facilitate a consumer understanding of foods’ nutritional quality, especially across sociocultural contexts. This study aimed to assess consumers’ ability to understand five FoPLs [Health Star Rating system (HSR), Multiple Traffic Lights (MTL), Nutri-Score, Reference Intakes (RIs), and Warning symbol] in 12 different countries. In 2018, approximately 1000 participants per country were recruited and asked to rank three sets of label-free products (one set of three pizzas, one set of three cakes, and one set of three breakfast cereals) according to their nutritional quality, via an online survey. Participants were subsequently randomised to one of five FoPL conditions and were again asked to rank the same sets of products, this time with a FoPL displayed on pack. Changes in a participants’ ability to correctly rank products across the two tasks were assessed by FoPL using ordinal logistic regression. In all 12 countries and for all three food categories, the Nutri-Score performed best, followed by the MTL, HSR, Warning symbol, and RIs.

Background The retail market for toddler-specific packaged foods is growing. Many of these products are ultra-processed and high in nutrients of concern for health, yet marketed in ways that may make them appear wholesome. This study aims to assess parents’ responses to claims on unhealthy, ultra-processed toddler food products and test whether removing such claims promotes more accurate product perceptions and healthier product preferences. Methods Parents of toddlers aged 12 to < 36 months ( N  = 838) were recruited for an online experiment testing four on-pack claim conditions: control (no claim); 'contains \"good\" ingredient'; 'free from \"bad\" ingredient'; and unregulated 'child-related' claim. Participants were randomly assigned to one condition, then viewed images of toddler food products that varied in nutrition content and the claims displayed. Participants completed tasks assessing product preferences (unhealthy product displaying claim vs. a healthier option with no claim, across four food categories (banana bars, strawberry snacks, blueberry yogurt snacks and veggie snacks)), purchase intentions and product perceptions. Poisson regression (count variable) and linear regression (continuous outcomes) analyses were employed to test for mean differences by marketing claim conditions. Results For the overall sample, brief exposure to ‘free from \"bad\" ingredient’ claims increased participant’s intentions to purchase unhealthy food products for their toddlers, but there was no clear evidence that ‘contains \"good\" ingredient’ claims and ‘child-related’ claims significantly impacted parent’s preferences, purchase intentions and perceptions of toddler foods. However, certain claims influenced particular parent subgroups. Notably, parents with three or more children chose more unhealthy products when these products displayed ‘contains \"good\" ingredient’ or ‘free from \"bad\" ingredient’ claims; the latter claims also promoted stronger purchase intentions and enhanced product perceptions among this subgroup. Conclusions Findings indicate that ‘free from \"bad\" ingredient’ claims on unhealthy toddler foods are of most concern, as they boost the appeal of these products to parents. ‘Contains \"good\" ingredient’ claims and ‘child-related’ claims showed limited effects in this study. Considering available evidence, we recommend claims should not be permitted on child-oriented foods, as they may promote inaccurate product perceptions and unhealthy product choices by parents, that can detract from their children’s diets and health.

Background Changing the food environment is an important public health lever for encouraging sustainable food choices. Targeting the availability of vegetarian main meals served in cafeterias substantially affects food choice, but acceptability has never been assessed. We examined the effects of an availability intervention at a French university cafeteria on students’ main meal choices, meal offer satisfaction and liking. Methods A four-week controlled trial was conducted in a university cafeteria in Dijon, France. During the two-week control period, vegetarian main meals constituted 24% of the offer. In the subsequent two-week intervention period, this proportion increased to 48%, while all the other menu items remained unchanged. Students were not informed of the change. Student choices were tracked using production data, and daily paper ballots were used to assess student satisfaction with the meal offer and liking of the main meal they chose (score range [1;5]). Nutritional quality, environmental impact, and cost of production of meal choices were calculated for each lunchtime. Food waste was measured over 4 lunchtimes during control and intervention periods. An online questionnaire collected student feedback at the end of the study. Results Doubling availability of vegetarian main meals significantly increased the likelihood of choosing vegetarian options (OR = 2.57, 95% CI = [2.41; 2.74]). Responses of the paper ballots ( n  = 18,342) indicated slight improvements in meal offer satisfaction from 4.05 ± 0.92 to 4.07 ± 0.93 ( p  = 0.028) and in liking from 4.09 ± 0.90 to 4.13 ± 0.92 ( p  < 0.001) during control and intervention periods, respectively. The end-of-study questionnaire ( n  = 510) revealed that only 6% of students noticed a change the availability of vegetarian main meals. The intervention led to a decrease in the environmental impact of the main meals chosen, a slight decrease in nutritional quality, a slight increase in meal costs and no change in food waste. Conclusions Doubling availability of vegetarian main meals in a university cafeteria resulted in a twofold increase in their selection, with students reporting being more satisfied and liking the main meals more during the intervention period. These results suggest that serving an equal proportion of vegetarian and nonvegetarian main meals could be considered in French university cafeterias to tackle environmental issues. Trial registration Study protocol and analysis plan were pre-registered on the Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/pf3x7/ ).

Objectives. To assess the effects of the Nutri-Score label (relative to the Reference Intakes label or no label) on the nutritional quality of students' food purchases.Methods. A 3-arm randomized controlled trial was conducted in France in 2017; 2907 participants were randomized into 1 of the 3 study arms (Nutri-Score, Reference Intakes, no label) and invited to purchase groceries from an experimental Web-based supermarket. The main outcome was the overall nutritional quality of purchases, measured according to a modified version of the Food Standards Agency Nutrient Profiling System (FSAm-NPS/HCSP) score.Results. The mean (+/- SD) FSAm-NPS/HCSP score was lower in the Nutri-Score group (2.02 +/- 3.56) than in the Reference Intakes group (2.69 +/- 3.44), reflecting higher nutritional quality; however, there was no significant difference between the Nutri-Score and no-label (2.45 +/- 3.28) groups or between the Reference Intakes and no-label groups. Shopping cart content was lower in calories and saturated fatty acids and higher in fruits and vegetables in the Nutri-Score arm than in the other arms.Conclusions. The Nutri-Score label appeared to improve the nutritional composition of students' food purchases relative to the Reference Intakes label or no label.

Despite strong evidence linking exposure to food and beverage marketing with poor diet quality and negative health impacts in children, the effect of brand marketing (i.e. marketing featuring branded content, but no food products) is uncertain. This study evaluated the impact of brand marketing product-based advertising on children's food preferences and behavioural intentions. An online survey was administered to participants randomised to one of four ad conditions; familiar product (i.e. from popular Canadian brands); familiar brand (i.e. no food product, Canadian brand); unfamiliar product (i.e. foreign products); and unfamiliar brand ad (i.e. foreign brand). Participants viewed three ads displaying features of that condition and answered three 5-point Likert-scale questions related to the study outcomes: food preference, purchase intent and pester power. The average of all outcomes determined the total impact. An ANOVA with Bonferroni tests evaluated differences in impact between conditions. Canada participants: 1341 Canadian children (9-12 years). Familiar product ads had a higher total impact on children (mean score 3·57) compared with familiar brand ads (2·88), unfamiliar brand ads (3·24) or unfamiliar product ads (3·09; < 0·001 for all pairwise comparisons). Total impact was lower for familiar brand ads than for unfamiliar brand ads or unfamiliar product ads ( < 0·001 for all pairwise comparisons). The impact of an unfamiliar brand and product did not differ ( = 0·53). Results suggest that familiar product ads seem to have a stronger impact on children's food preferences and behavioural intentions than familiar brand ads, unfamiliar brand ads and unfamiliar product ads.

Front-of-package labels indicating a product’s environmental footprint (i.e., eco-score labels) offer promise to shift consumers towards more sustainable food choices. This study aimed to understand whether eco-score labels impacted consumers’ perceptions of environmental sustainability and intentions to purchase sustainable and unsustainable foods. US parents (n = 1,013) completed an online experiment in which they were shown 8 food products (4 sustainable and 4 unsustainable). Participants were randomized to a control (n = 503, barcode on product packaging) or eco-score label group (n = 510, eco-score label on product packaging). The eco-score label was color-coded with a grade of A-F based on the product’s environmental footprint, where “A” indicates relative sustainability and “F” indicates relative unsustainability. Participants rated each product’s environmental sustainability and their future likelihood of purchase. We used multilevel mixed-effects linear regression models and examined moderation by product category and sociodemographic characteristics. The eco-score label lowered perceived sustainability of unsustainable products by 13% in relative terms or -0.4 in absolute terms (95% CI -0.5, -0.3; p<0.001). The eco-score label increased perceived sustainability of sustainable products by 16% in relative terms or 0.6 in absolute terms (95% CI 0.5, 0.7, p<0.001). Effects on purchase intentions were smaller, with a 6% decrease for unsustainable products (p = 0.001) and an 8% increase for sustainable products (p<0.001). For unsustainable products, the effect of eco-score labels on sustainability perceptions was greater for older adults, men, participants with higher educational attainment, and participants with higher incomes. For sustainable products, the effect of ecolabels on sustainability perceptions was greater for those with higher educational attainment. Eco-score labels have the potential to direct consumers towards more sustainable products. Future studies should investigate eco-score label effectiveness on behavioral outcomes.

Parents commonly use rewards to encourage children to eat healthfully, but this practice remains controversial because rewards are suspected of undermining children's intrinsic motivation. A cluster-randomized trial examined children's acceptance of a disliked vegetable over 12 daily taste exposures. These exposures were paired with a tangible reward, a social reward, or no reward, and the findings were compared with the results from a no-treatment control condition. Liking and intake of the vegetable were assessed in a free-choice consumption task at preintervention, postintervention, I month after intervention, and 3 months after intervention. Liking increased more in the three intervention conditions than in the control condition, and there were no significant differences between the intervention conditions. These effects were maintained at follow-up. Children in both reward conditions increased consumption, and these effects were maintained for 3 months; however, the effects of exposure with no reward became nonsignificant by 3 months. These results indicate that external rewards do not necessarily produce negative effects and may be useful in promoting healthful eating.