Nutrition information and its influence on menu choice within higher education establishments

Abstract

The aim of this research was to evaluate the influence of nutritional information on menu choices in a higher educational setting using a menu designed by the students themselves. Based on USDA healthy eating standards, a menu comprising 7 healthy and 7 unhealthy meal options were presented, once unlabeled as control (n=214) and once labeled with healthy and non-healthy nutrient icons as an intervention test menu (n=212). Findings demonstrate that despite a positive observed trend, there were no significant differences between healthy selection of labeled and unlabeled dishes (p=0.16). Providing nutritional information in student cafeterias may be challenging but helpful. However, more strategies need to be developed to provide nutrition data on menus in an informative, comprehensive, yet friendly way that encourages healthy eating in campus foodservices. Nevertheless, no labeling system or legislation can control choices made by individuals, so the responsibility for a healthy selection must always remain personal.

The effect of nudges aligned with the renewed Flemish Food Triangle on the purchase of fresh fruits: An on-campus restaurant experiment

“…Despite the fact that some studies among university students did not find any effect of food labeling interventions (i.e. traffic light and healthy/unhealthy labeling) in the short term (42,43), the present study showed that students were positively influenced to choose fruit in the short and long term. This is in line with a recent systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized studies demonstrating that traffic light labeling is the most effective labeling method (44).…”

Qualitative menu labelling in university restaurants and its influence on food choices: A systematic review and synthesis without meta‐analysis

“…The update of the literature search identified six studies meeting the inclusion criteria. In total, 11 studies (Biden et al, 2018; Cerezo‐Prieto & Frutos‐Esteban, 2021; Cinciripini, 1984; Feldman et al, 2015; Migliavada et al, 2022; Mora‐García et al, 2019; Oliveira et al, 2018; Roy & Alassadi, 2020; Seward et al, 2016; Sogari et al, 2019; Vermote et al, 2020) were included. Three studies reported the results from two different interventions, giving a total of 14 interventions.…”

“…Of the included studies, four were conducted in the United States (Cinciripini, 1984; Feldman et al, 2015; Seward et al, 2016; Sogari et al, 2019), one in Brazil (Oliveira et al, 2018), one in Colombia (Mora‐García et al, 2019), one in Canada (Biden et al, 2018), one in Belgium (Vermote et al, 2020), one in New Zealand (Roy & Alassadi, 2020), one in Italy (Migliavada et al, 2022) and one in Spain (Cerezo‐Prieto & Frutos‐Esteban, 2021) (Table 3). Thus, the results of this review mainly reflect the behaviours of university students in North and South America and Europe.…”

“…Only one study had a strong quality (Oliveira et al, 2018) ( n = 1; 9%) and five had moderate quality (Cerezo‐Prieto & Frutos‐Esteban, 2021; Feldman et al, 2015; Migliavada et al, 2022; Roy & Alassadi, 2020; Vermote et al, 2020) ( n = 5; 45.5%). All other studies were classified as having weak quality (Biden et al, 2018; Cinciripini, 1984; Mora‐García et al, 2019; Seward et al, 2016; Sogari et al, 2019) ( n = 5; 45.5%).…”

Assessment of food safety knowledge, attitude and hygiene practices amongst food vendors on the University of Cape Coast Campus and its surrounding communities

“…The sale of street food is regarded as a signi cant contributor to the economies of many developing countries. As a result of rapid urbanization, many people now eat outside the home, increasing the importance of food establishments (Feldman et al, 2015). Because of the availability of jobs and readily available cooked meals at relatively low prices, the food chain industry has grown to be a signi cant contributor to the economies of many nations (Wuliyeng, 2013).…”