Department of Molecular Biosciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California Davis, 1 Shields Ave, Davis, CA 95616, USA.
Department of Health Behavior, Gillings School of Global Public Health; Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center; and Carolina Population Center; University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, 170 Rosenau Hall, CB #7400, 135 Dauer Drive, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA.
Prev Med. 2022 Jul;160:107090. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2022.107090. Epub 2022 May 17.
Added-sugar consumption in the U.S. exceeds recommended limits. Policymakers are considering requiring restaurants to use menu warning labels to indicate items high in added sugar. We sought to determine whether icon-only and icon-plus-text added-sugar menu labels were (1) perceived as more effective at potentially reducing consumption of items high in added sugar and (2) increased knowledge of menu items' added-sugar content relative to control labels, and if effects differed by label design. A national sample of U.S. adults (n = 1327) participated in an online randomized experiment. Participants viewed menu items with either a control label, 1 of 6 icon-only labels, or 1 of 18 icon-plus-text labels with 3 text variations. For their assigned label, participants provided ratings of perceived message effectiveness (a validated scale of a message's potential to change behavior). Participants were also asked to classify menu items by their added-sugar content. The icon-only and icon-plus-text labels were perceived as more effective than the control label (means: 3.7 and 3.7 vs. 3.1, respectively, on a 5-point scale; p < 0.001). The icon-only and icon-plus-text groups each correctly classified 71% of menu items by added-sugar content vs. 56% in the control group (p < 0.001). All icons and text variations were perceived as similarly effective. In conclusion, relative to a control label, icon-only and icon-plus-text added-sugar menu labels were perceived as effective and helped consumers identify items high in added sugar. Menu warning labels may be a promising strategy for reducing added-sugar consumption from restaurants, but research on behavioral effects in real-world settings is needed. Clinical Trials Identifier:NCT04637412.
美国的添加糖摄入量超过了建议的限量。政策制定者正在考虑要求餐馆使用菜单警示标签来标识高添加糖的食品。我们旨在确定仅图标和图标加文本的添加糖菜单标签是否：(1) 被认为更有效地减少高添加糖食品的消费；(2) 相对于控制标签增加了对菜单项目添加糖含量的了解，如果效果因标签设计而异。一项针对美国成年人的全国性样本(n=1327)参与了一项在线随机实验。参与者查看了带有控制标签、6 个仅图标标签中的 1 个或 18 个图标加文本标签中的 1 个，每个标签有 3 种文本变化。对于他们被分配的标签，参与者提供了对感知信息有效性的评价(一个信息改变行为的潜力的验证量表)。参与者还被要求根据添加糖含量对菜单项目进行分类。图标加文本标签比控制标签被认为更有效(平均值：3.7 和 3.7 与 3.1，分别在 5 分制上；p<0.001)。图标加文本组和图标组正确地根据添加糖含量将 71%和 71%的菜单项目分类，而控制组为 56%(p<0.001)。所有图标和文本变化都被认为同样有效。总之，与控制标签相比，图标加文本和图标加文本的添加糖菜单标签被认为是有效的，并帮助消费者识别高添加糖的食品。菜单警示标签可能是减少餐馆添加糖摄入量的一种很有前景的策略，但需要在现实环境中进行行为效果的研究。临床试验标识符：NCT04637412。
