Finkelstein Eric Andrew, Ang Felicia Jia Ler, Doble Brett
Programme in Health Services & Systems Research, Duke-NUS Medical School, 8 College Road, Singapore, 169857, Singapore.
BMC Public Health. 2020 Mar 12;20(1):312. doi: 10.1186/s12889-020-8434-1.
Several front-of-pack (FOP) labels identify healthier options by comparing foods within product categories. Alternative approaches label healthier options by comparing across categories. Which approach is superior remains unknown. The objective of this study was to test the effect of a within-category versus across-category FOP lower calorie label on 1) the percentage of labeled products purchased, 2) several measures of calories purchased (total, per dollar and per serving), and 3) total spending. We also tested the moderating effects of hunger and mood on purchasing patterns.
Using an online grocery store, we conducted a 3 × 3 crossover trial involving actual purchases with 146 participants randomly exposed to: 1) no labeling control; 2) within-category lower calorie labels, and; 3) across-category lower calorie labels. We labeled the 20% of products with the lowest calories per serving within or across categories. Purchases were compared using a fixed effects regression on first-differenced outcomes.
Relative to the control condition, there was a 3 percentage point increase (p = 0.01) in labelled products purchased in the within-category arm and a non-significant decrease of 1 percentage point (p = 0.711) in the across-category arm. There was no significant difference in the proportion of labeled products purchased between the two labelling conditions. Neither strategy resulted in reductions in any measure of calories purchased or in total spending. When limited to beverages, there was a 398 cal reduction (p = 0.01) in the within-category arm and a 438 cal reduction (p < 0.01) in the across-category arm versus the control. Mood and hunger did not modify the effects for either strategy.
Results provide evidence that both labelling strategies have the potential to influence food purchasing patterns. However, we cannot definitely state that one labelling approach is superior or even that an increase in the proportion of labelled products purchased will lead to a reduction in calories purchased.
The American Economic Association's registry for randomized controlled trials, RCT ID: AEARCTR-0002325; Prospectively Registered October 06, 2017. In compliance with ICMJE policy, the trial was also registered on Clinicaltrials.gov, RCT ID: [NCT04165447]. Retrospectively Registered 11 November 2019.
几种包装正面(FOP)标签通过比较产品类别内的食品来识别更健康的选择。另一种方法是通过跨类别比较来标记更健康的选择。哪种方法更优越尚不清楚。本研究的目的是测试类别内与跨类别FOP低热量标签对以下方面的影响:1)购买的贴有标签产品的百分比;2)购买热量的几种衡量指标(总计、每美元和每份);3)总支出。我们还测试了饥饿和情绪对购买模式的调节作用。
我们使用一家在线杂货店进行了一项3×3交叉试验,涉及146名参与者的实际购买,他们被随机暴露于:1)无标签对照;2)类别内低热量标签;3)跨类别低热量标签。我们在类别内或跨类别中标记了每份热量最低的20%的产品。使用固定效应回归对一阶差分结果进行购买比较。
与对照条件相比,类别内组购买的贴有标签产品增加了3个百分点(p = 0.01),跨类别组则无显著下降,下降了1个百分点(p = 0.711)。两种标签条件下购买的贴有标签产品的比例没有显著差异。两种策略均未导致购买热量的任何衡量指标或总支出的减少。当仅限于饮料时,与对照组相比,类别内组热量减少了398卡路里(p = 0.01),跨类别组减少了438卡路里(p < 0.01)。情绪和饥饿并未改变任何一种策略的效果。
结果提供了证据表明两种标签策略都有可能影响食品购买模式。然而,我们不能肯定地说一种标签方法更优越,甚至不能确定购买的贴有标签产品比例的增加会导致购买热量的减少。
美国经济协会随机对照试验注册库,RCT编号:AEARCTR - 0002325;前瞻性注册于2017年10月6日。根据国际医学杂志编辑委员会(ICMJE)政策,该试验也在Clinicaltrials.gov上注册,RCT编号:[NCT04165447]。回顾性注册于2019年11月11日。