In:
PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science (PLoS), Vol. 18, No. 10 ( 2021-10-5), p. e1003765-
Abstract:
Suboptimal diets are a leading risk factor for death and disability. Nutrition labelling is a potential method to encourage consumers to improve dietary behaviour. This systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) summarises evidence on the impact of colour-coded interpretive labels and warning labels on changing consumers’ purchasing behaviour. Methods and findings We conducted a literature review of peer-reviewed articles published between 1 January 1990 and 24 May 2021 in PubMed, Embase via Ovid, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and SCOPUS. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-experimental studies were included for the primary outcomes (measures of changes in consumers’ purchasing and consuming behaviour). A frequentist NMA method was applied to pool the results. A total of 156 studies (including 101 RCTs and 55 non-RCTs) nested in 138 articles were incorporated into the systematic review, of which 134 studies in 120 articles were eligible for meta-analysis. We found that the traffic light labelling system (TLS), nutrient warning (NW), and health warning (HW) were associated with an increased probability of selecting more healthful products (odds ratios [ORs] and 95% confidence intervals [CIs] : TLS, 1.5 [1.2, 1.87]; NW, 3.61 [2.82, 4.63] ; HW, 1.65 [1.32, 2.06]). Nutri-Score (NS) and warning labels appeared effective in reducing consumers’ probability of selecting less healthful products (NS, 0.66 [0.53, 0.82] ; NW,0.65 [0.54, 0.77]; HW,0.64 [0.53, 0.76] ). NS and NW were associated with an increased overall healthfulness (healthfulness ratings of products purchased using models such as FSAm-NPS/HCSP) by 7.9% and 26%, respectively. TLS, NS, and NW were associated with a reduced energy (total energy: TLS, −6.5%; NS, −6%; NW, −12.9%; energy per 100 g/ml: TLS, −3%; NS, −3.5%; NW, −3.8%), sodium (total sodium/salt: TLS, −6.4%; sodium/salt per 100 g/ml: NS: −7.8%), fat (total fat: NS, −15.7%; fat per 100 g/ml: TLS: −2.6%; NS: −3.2%), and total saturated fat (TLS, −12.9%; NS: −17.1%; NW: −16.3%) content of purchases. The impact of TLS, NS, and NW on purchasing behaviour could be explained by improved understanding of the nutrition information, which further elicits negative perception towards unhealthful products or positive attitudes towards healthful foods. Comparisons across label types suggested that colour-coded labels performed better in nudging consumers towards the purchase of more healthful products (NS versus NW: 1.51 [1.08, 2.11]), while warning labels have the advantage in discouraging unhealthful purchasing behaviour (NW versus TLS: 0.81 [0.67, 0.98] ; HW versus TLS: 0.8 [0.63, 1]). Study limitati ons included high heterogeneity and inconsistency in the comparisons across different label types, limited number of real-world studies (95% were laboratory studies), and lack of long-term impact assessments. Conclusions Our systematic review provided comprehensive evidence for the impact of colour-coded labels and warnings in nudging consumers’ purchasing behaviour towards more healthful products and the underlying psychological mechanism of behavioural change. Each type of label had different attributes, which should be taken into consideration when making front-of-package nutrition labelling (FOPL) policies according to local contexts. Our study supported mandatory front-of-pack labelling policies in directing consumers’ choice and encouraging the food industry to reformulate their products. Protocol registry PROSPERO ( CRD42020161877 ).
Type of Medium:
Online Resource
ISSN:
1549-1676
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003765
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003765.g001
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003765.g002
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003765.g003
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003765.g004
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003765.g005
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003765.g006
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003765.t001
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003765.t002
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003765.t003
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003765.t004
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003765.t005
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003765.s001
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003765.s002
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003765.s003
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003765.s004
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003765.s005
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003765.s006
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003765.s007
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003765.s008
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003765.s009
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003765.s010
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003765.s011
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003765.s012
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003765.s013
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003765.s014
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003765.s015
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003765.s016
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003765.s017
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003765.s018
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003765.s019
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003765.s020
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003765.s021
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003765.s022
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003765.s023
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003765.s024
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003765.s025
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003765.r001
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003765.r002
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003765.r003
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003765.r004
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003765.r005
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003765.r006
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003765.r007
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003765.r008
Language:
English
Publisher:
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Publication Date:
2021
detail.hit.zdb_id:
2164823-2
Permalink