Comparison of front-of-package nutrition labelling schemes in Costa Rica: a multi-arm parallel-group randomised controlled trial assessing objective understanding and purchase intention.
Fabio S Gomes, Karol M Morales, Damián R Valenzuela, Adriana Blanco-Metzler, Nydia Amador, Karla B Aguilar, Carolina B Palmieri, Tatiana Gamboa-Gamboa, Gastón Ares
{"title":"Comparison of front-of-package nutrition labelling schemes in Costa Rica: a multi-arm parallel-group randomised controlled trial assessing objective understanding and purchase intention.","authors":"Fabio S Gomes, Karol M Morales, Damián R Valenzuela, Adriana Blanco-Metzler, Nydia Amador, Karla B Aguilar, Carolina B Palmieri, Tatiana Gamboa-Gamboa, Gastón Ares","doi":"10.1016/j.appet.2024.107774","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Different front-of-package labelling (FOPL) schemes have been developed worldwide to encourage informed and healthier food purchase decisions. However, few studies have formally compared different schemes, particularly in the Latin American context. This study aimed to assess the effects of four different FOPL schemes on the objective understanding of the nutritional content and intention to purchase products. This single-blinded multi-arm randomised controlled trial was conducted using a face-to-face survey with adult shoppers, recruited at supermarkets in Costa Rica (n=1350). Participants randomly assigned to intervention groups saw 12 mock-up products presented at random and balanced orders featuring one FOPL scheme or none: black octagonal warning labels (OWL), Nutri-Score (NUS), traffic-light labelling (TFL), guideline daily amounts (GDA), or no FOPL scheme (control group). Similar number of participants were analysed in each group: OWL (n=264), NUS (n=279), TFL (n=263), GDA (n=273), and control (n=271). Compared to the control group, the odds for correctly identifying the least harmful option more often were three times higher in the OWL group (OR 3.08; 95% CI, 2.26-4.20), and 89%, 57% and 19% higher in the TFL (1.89; 95% CI, 1.40-2.56), the GDA (1.57; 95% CI, 1.16-2.21) and the NUS (1.19; 95% CI 0.89-1.60), respectively. OWL also was more efficacious in helping participants to correctly identify a product with excessive amounts of sugars, sodium, and/or saturated fats, as well as in encouraging the intention to purchase the least harmful or the intention to choose none of the options in the choice task. OWL performed best in helping shoppers to correctly identify when a product contained excessive amounts of nutrients to limit, to correctly identify the least harmful option, and to intend to purchase the least harmful option, more often.</p>","PeriodicalId":242,"journal":{"name":"Appetite","volume":" ","pages":"107774"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Appetite","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2024.107774","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Different front-of-package labelling (FOPL) schemes have been developed worldwide to encourage informed and healthier food purchase decisions. However, few studies have formally compared different schemes, particularly in the Latin American context. This study aimed to assess the effects of four different FOPL schemes on the objective understanding of the nutritional content and intention to purchase products. This single-blinded multi-arm randomised controlled trial was conducted using a face-to-face survey with adult shoppers, recruited at supermarkets in Costa Rica (n=1350). Participants randomly assigned to intervention groups saw 12 mock-up products presented at random and balanced orders featuring one FOPL scheme or none: black octagonal warning labels (OWL), Nutri-Score (NUS), traffic-light labelling (TFL), guideline daily amounts (GDA), or no FOPL scheme (control group). Similar number of participants were analysed in each group: OWL (n=264), NUS (n=279), TFL (n=263), GDA (n=273), and control (n=271). Compared to the control group, the odds for correctly identifying the least harmful option more often were three times higher in the OWL group (OR 3.08; 95% CI, 2.26-4.20), and 89%, 57% and 19% higher in the TFL (1.89; 95% CI, 1.40-2.56), the GDA (1.57; 95% CI, 1.16-2.21) and the NUS (1.19; 95% CI 0.89-1.60), respectively. OWL also was more efficacious in helping participants to correctly identify a product with excessive amounts of sugars, sodium, and/or saturated fats, as well as in encouraging the intention to purchase the least harmful or the intention to choose none of the options in the choice task. OWL performed best in helping shoppers to correctly identify when a product contained excessive amounts of nutrients to limit, to correctly identify the least harmful option, and to intend to purchase the least harmful option, more often.
期刊介绍：
Appetite is an international research journal specializing in cultural, social, psychological, sensory and physiological influences on the selection and intake of foods and drinks. It covers normal and disordered eating and drinking and welcomes studies of both human and non-human animal behaviour toward food. Appetite publishes research reports, reviews and commentaries. Thematic special issues appear regularly. From time to time the journal carries abstracts from professional meetings. Submissions to Appetite are expected to be based primarily on observations directly related to the selection and intake of foods and drinks; papers that are primarily focused on topics such as nutrition or obesity will not be considered unless they specifically make a novel scientific contribution to the understanding of appetite in line with the journal's aims and scope.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
