Facts-Up-Front Versus Traffic-Light Food Labels: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Roberto, Christina A.; Bragg, Marie A.; Schwartz, Marlene B.; Seamans, Marissa J.; Musicus, Aviva A.; Novak, Nicole; Brownell, Kelly D.

doi:10.1037/e667222012-001

Cited by 32 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…the healthy choice) easier to make (Thaler & Sunstein, 2008). Examples of healthy eating nudges include placing fruit at the cash registry instead of candy bars, which increased fruit intake (Kroese, Marchiori, & De Ridder, 2016), implicitly signalling a social norm by displaying packaging of healthy snacks, influencing food choice between healthy and unhealthy food choices (Prinsen et al, 2013), traffic light labelling of foods, leading to increased nutrient knowledge as well as identification of health as an important factor in purchasing decisions (Roberto et al, 2012;Sonnenberg et al, 2013), and changing default portion sizes or choices, although results are mixed: one paper reports similar energy intake with smaller versus bigger plates, with bigger plates having the advantage of more vegetable sidedishes (Libotte, Siegrist, & Bucher, 2014) whereas another warns against the danger of overeating with big plates (Wansink & Van Ittersum, 2013).…”

Section: Physical Environmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Healthy diet: Health impact, prevalence, correlates, and interventions

Ridder

Kroese

Evers

et al. 2017

Psychology & Health

226

146

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To discuss healthy diet from a psychological perspective by considering definitions of healthy diet in terms of consumer understanding; the health effects of specific dietary elements in terms of overweight and (chronic) illness; the prevalence of healthy diet; the psychological and environmental determinants of healthy diet; and the psychological interventions that have been designed to promote healthy diet. Design: A systematic review of the psychological literature on healthy diet. Results: Our findings suggest that consumers have a relatively poor understanding of a healthy diet. The literature also demonstrates that there is poor evidence on the health protective effects of single foods or nutrients. We further show that low SES is the single consistent risk factor for not adhering to a healthy diet. Our review of the literature on determinants demonstrates that intentions, habits, self-regulatory skills, and the social and physical environment are the most important determinants of a healthy diet, which are in turn amenable to change by intervention strategies with varying levels of effectiveness. Educational interventions generally show a limited effect on practising a healthy diet whereas interventions targeting habitual behaviour and/or the physical environment seem more promising. Conclusions: In view of the large number of people who are concerned about their diets and make attempts to change their dietary patterns, we conclude that it is crucial to gain a better understanding of both the automatic and environmental influences that are responsible for people not acting upon their good intentions for diet change.

show abstract

Section: Physical Environmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Healthy diet: Health impact, prevalence, correlates, and interventions

Ridder

Kroese

Evers

et al. 2017

Psychology & Health

226

146

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Indeed, consumers demand a simplified standard with clearer and more comprehensible indications (Besler et al 2012). Consumer understanding of labels was also affected by the presence of FoPs (Ares et al 2012), which is evaluated positively if in graphical format (Geiger et al 1991), such as the traffic light for instance (Roberto et al 2012 information improve consumer comprehension of nutrient content in foodstuffs. However, the existence of multiple FoP formats limits consumer comprehension and discourages their use (Draper et al 2013).…”

Section: Results On Consumer Understanding Of Nutrition Informationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Aware Food Choices: Bridging the Gap Between Consumer Knowledge About Nutritional Requirements and Nutritional Information

Tarabella¹,

Burchi²

2016

SpringerBriefs in Food, Health, and Nutrition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This Brief provides a snapshot of the continuing debate in the food industry on how to bridge the gap between consumer knowledge of nutrition principles and the nutrition information system currently in place for labelling. Aware Food Choices: Bridging the Gap Between Consumer Knowledge About Nutrition and Nutritional Information examines the available literature on consumer understanding of nutritional information and comments on the current poor knowledge shown by consumers about nutrition principles. Another focus of this Brief is on the evolution of nutritional information in food labelling andcurrent regulations on nutritional claims and product facts. In reviewing attempts to improve the nutrition information system, this work points out that consumers must first understand the data provided in order to utilize the system to make healthy food choices. Therefore, any campaigns aimed at improving the information system must concentrate on consumer data understanding of nutrition principles and components as opposed to a sole focus on labelling upgrades

show abstract

“…La plupart des autres études sur les logos nutritionnels sont des enquêtes par questionnaires. Ces études, qui portent sur l'avis des consommateurs sur les logos, l'usage qu'ils déclarent en faire et la compréhension qu'ils en ont, tendent à montrer que les consommateurs sont sensibles aux logos nutritionnels et les accueillent favorablement [16][17][18]. Ainsi, une étude basée sur un questionnaire délivré par Internet dans 4 pays européens (n'incluant pas la France) conclut que les consommateurs apprécient de façon similaire tous les logos face-avant testés, les comprennent plutôt bien et seraient capables de distinguer grâce à eux les aliments sains des moins sains [19].…”

Section: Discussionunclassified