Explore the vast range of titles available.

The cycle book Bn is a graph with one copy of cycle C4 and n copies of cycle C3, and a common edge between C4 and n copies of C3. In this article we show that the cycle book Bn has an edge magic total labeling, Bn has an edge super magic total labelling for n = 1 and 2. Moreover we prove that B3 is not super edge magic total labeling.

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.

Sustainability labelling on food products can help consumers make informed purchasing decisions and support the urgent transition to sustainable food systems. While there is a relatively robust body of evidence on health and nutrition labelling, less is known about the effectiveness of sustainability labelling in facilitating sustainable food choices. This paper investigates the impact of sustainability labelling on consumer understanding, attitudes, and behaviour to support a more nuanced, detailed, and holistic understanding of the evidence. Using a narrative literature review methodology, the paper assesses studies covering environmental, social, and/or animal welfare aspects of sustainability labelling on food products. We found that consumer understanding of sustainability information is often limited, which could hinder behaviour change. While sustainability labelling can influence consumer attitudes and purchasing behaviours, evidence from real consumer settings tends to show small effect sizes. Consumers are generally willing to pay more for sustainability-labelled products, and organic labelling often leads to the highest reported willingness to pay. The review emphasises the importance of trust, suggesting a preference for labelling backed by governments or public authorities. Sustainability labelling that uses intuitively understandable cues has an increased impact, with visual aids such as traffic light colours showing promise. We conclude that further research is needed in real-world settings, using representative populations and exploring the influence of demographic factors, values, and attitudes.

Background Nutrient content and degree of processing are complementary but distinct concepts, and a growing body of evidence shows that ultra-processed foods (UPFs) can have detrimental health effects independently from nutrient content. 10 + countries currently mandate front-of-package labels (FOPL) to inform consumers when products are high in added sugars, saturated fat, and/or sodium. Public health advocates have been calling for the addition of ultra-processed warning labels to these FOPLs, but the extent to which consumers would understand and be influenced by such labels remains unknown. We examined whether the addition of ultra-processed warning labels to existing nutrient warning labels could influence consumers’ product perceptions and purchase intentions. Methods In 2023, a sample of adults in Brazil ( n  = 1,004) answered an open-ended question about the meaning of the term “ultra-processed,” followed by an online experiment where they saw four ultra-processed products carrying warning labels. Participants were randomly assigned to view either only nutrient warning labels or nutrient plus ultra-processed warning labels. Participants then answered questions about their intentions to purchase the products, product perceptions, and perceived label effectiveness. Results Most participants (69%) exhibited a moderate understanding of the term “ultra-processed” prior to the experiment. The addition of an ultra-processed warning label led to a higher share of participants who correctly identified the products as UPFs compared to nutrient warning labels alone (Cohen’s d = 0.16, p  = 0.02). However, the addition of the ultra-processed warning label did not significantly influence purchase intentions, product healthfulness perceptions, or perceived label effectiveness compared to nutrient warning labels alone (all p  > 0.05). In exploratory analyses, demographic characteristics and prior understanding of the concept of UPF did not moderate the effect of ultra-processed warning labels. Conclusions Ultra-processed warning labels may help consumers better identify UPFs, although they do not seem to influence behavioral intentions and product perceptions beyond the influence already exerted by nutrient warning labels. Future research should examine how ultra-processed warning labels would work for products that do and do not require nutrient warnings, as well as examine the benefits of labeling approaches that signal the health effects of UPFs. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05842460. Prospectively registered March 15th, 2023.