Department of Health Behavior, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2024 Oct 9;21(1):115. doi: 10.1186/s12966-024-01664-w.
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.
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.
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.
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.
ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05842460. Prospectively registered March 15th, 2023.
营养成分和加工程度是互补但不同的概念，越来越多的证据表明，超加工食品（UPF）的营养价值与健康效应独立，即使这些食品的营养成分很高。目前有 10 多个国家要求在产品包装正面标签（FOPL）上标注高添加糖、饱和脂肪和/或钠的信息，以告知消费者。公共卫生倡导者一直呼吁在这些 FOPL 上添加超加工警告标签，但消费者对这些标签的理解和影响程度仍不得而知。我们研究了在现有的营养成分警告标签上添加超加工警告标签是否会影响消费者对产品的认知和购买意愿。
2023 年，巴西的一组成年人（n=1004）回答了一个关于“超加工”一词含义的开放性问题，随后进行了一项在线实验，他们看到了四个带有警告标签的超加工产品。参与者被随机分配观看仅营养成分警告标签或营养成分加超加工警告标签。然后，参与者回答了关于他们购买产品的意愿、产品认知和感知标签有效性的问题。
在实验之前，大多数参与者（69%）对“超加工”一词有一定的理解。与仅营养成分警告标签相比，添加超加工警告标签会导致更多的参与者正确识别产品为 UPF（Cohen's d=0.16，p=0.02）。然而，与仅营养成分警告标签相比，添加超加工警告标签并没有显著影响购买意愿、产品健康感知或感知标签有效性（均 p>0.05）。在探索性分析中，人口统计学特征和对 UPF 概念的预先理解并不能调节超加工警告标签的效果。
超加工警告标签可能有助于消费者更好地识别 UPF，但它们似乎不会影响行为意愿和产品认知，超出营养成分警告标签已经产生的影响。未来的研究应该检验超加工警告标签对于需要和不需要营养成分警告的产品的效果，以及检验提示 UPF 健康效应的标签方法的好处。
ClinicalTrials.gov，NCT05842460。于 2023 年 3 月 15 日前瞻性注册。
