The present commentary contains a clear and simple guide designed to identify ultra-processed foods. It responds to the growing interest in ultra-processed foods among policy makers, academic researchers, health professionals, journalists and consumers concerned to devise policies, investigate dietary patterns, advise people, prepare media coverage, and when buying food and checking labels in shops or at home. Ultra-processed foods are defined within the NOVA classification system, which groups foods according to the extent and purpose of industrial processing. Processes enabling the manufacture of ultra-processed foods include the fractioning of whole foods into substances, chemical modifications of these substances, assembly of unmodified and modified food substances, frequent use of cosmetic additives and sophisticated packaging. Processes and ingredients used to manufacture ultra-processed foods are designed to create highly profitable (low-cost ingredients, long shelf-life, emphatic branding), convenient (ready-to-consume), hyper-palatable products liable to displace all other NOVA food groups, notably unprocessed or minimally processed foods. A practical way to identify an ultra-processed product is to check to see if its list of ingredients contains at least one item characteristic of the NOVA ultra-processed food group, which is to say, either food substances never or rarely used in kitchens (such as high-fructose corn syrup, hydrogenated or interesterified oils, and hydrolysed proteins), or classes of additives designed to make the final product palatable or more appealing (such as flavours, flavour enhancers, colours, emulsifiers, emulsifying salts, sweeteners, thickeners, and anti-foaming, bulking, carbonating, foaming, gelling and glazing agents).

No abstract

Background: Brazil is currently debating the implementation of front-of-package labels. This study tested if Warning labels (WLs) improved consumer understanding, perceptions, and purchase intentions compared to Traffic-Light labels (TLLs) in 1607 Brazilian adults. Methods: In this online, randomized controlled experiment participants saw images of 10 products and answered questions twice—once in a no-label, control condition and then again in a randomly assigned label condition. The relative differences in responses between WLs and TLLs between control and label conditions were estimated using one-way ANOVAs or Chi-square tests. Results: Presenting WLs on products compared to TLLs helped participants: (i) improve their understanding of excess nutrient content (27.0% versus 8.2%, p < 0.001); (ii) improve their ability to identify the healthier product (24.6% versus 3.3%, p < 0.001); (iii) decrease perceptions of product healthfulness; and (iv) correctly identify healthier products (14.0% versus 6.9%, p < 0.001), relative to the control condition. With WLs, there was also an increase in the percentage of people: (v) expressing an intention to purchase the relatively healthier option (16.1% versus 9.8%, p < 0.001); and (vi) choosing not to buy either product (13.0% versus 2.9%, p < 0.001), relative to the control condition. The participants in the WL condition had significantly more favorable opinions of the labels compared to those in the TLL group. Conclusions: WLs would be more effective, compared to the TLL, at improving consumer food choices.

Purpose Examine fathers’ perceived reasons for their lack of inclusion in pediatric research and strategies to increase their participation. Description We conducted expert interviews with researchers and practitioners (N = 13) working with fathers to inform the development of an online survey. The survey—which measured fathers’ perceived reasons for their underrepresentation in pediatric research, recommended recruitment venues, and research personnel and study characteristics valued by fathers—was distributed online and in-person to fathers. Assessment Respondents included 303 fathers. Over 80 % of respondents reported that fathers are underrepresented in pediatric research because they have not been asked to participate. Frequently recommended recruitment venues included community sports events (52 %), social service programs (48 %) and the internet (60 %). Compared with white fathers, more non-white fathers recommended public transit (19 % vs. 10 %, p = .02), playgrounds (16 % vs. 6 %, p = .007) and barber shops (34 % vs. 14 %, p <.0001) and fewer recommended doctors’ offices (31 % vs. 43 %, p = .046) as recruitment venues. Compared with residential fathers (100 % resident with the target child), more non-residential fathers recommended social services programs (45 % vs. 63 %, p = .03) and public transit (10 % vs. 27 %, p = .001) and fewer recommended the workplace (17 % vs. 40 %, p = .002) as recruitment venues. Study brevity, perceived benefits for fathers and their families, and the credibility of the lead organization were valued by fathers. Conclusion Fathers’ participation in pediatric research may increase if researchers explicitly invite father to participate, target father-focused recruitment venues, clearly communicate the benefits of the research for fathers and their families and adopt streamlined study procedures.