Trial reportBMC public health2020
Randomized trial evaluating the effectiveness of within versus across-category front-of-package lower-calorie labelling on food demand.
Trial report in BMC public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04165447 (Randomized Trial Evaluating the Effectiveness of Within Versus Across-Category Front-of-Package Lower-Calorie Labelling on Food Demand), which is not on this map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Randomized Trial Evaluating the Effectiveness of Within Versus Across-Category Front-of-Package Lower-Calorie Labelling on Food Demand
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Calorie (energy) labelling for changing selection and consumption of food or alcohol.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- The impact of restricting price promotions on foods high in fat, sugar and salt on purchasing behaviours: a randomised controlled trial in a simulated online supermarket in the UK.Public health nutrition · 2026Trial
- Food label granularity and working memory: effects on food choice in a randomized controlled trial.Journal of health, population, and nutrition · 2025Trial
- A randomized trial to evaluate the impact of Singapore's forthcoming Nutri-grade front-of-pack beverage label on food and beverage purchases.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2023Trial
- Nudging customers towards healthier food and beverage purchases in a real-life online supermarket: a multi-arm randomized controlled trial.BMC medicine · 2022Trial
- Effects of Digitalized Front-of-Package Food Labels on Healthy Food-Related Behavior: A Systematic Review.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Efficiency of In-Store Interventions to Impact Customers to Purchase Healthier Food and Beverage Products in Real-Life Grocery Stores: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSeveral front-of-pack (FOP) labels identify healthier options by comparing foods within product categories. Alternative approaches label healthier options by comparing across categories. Which approach is superior remains unknown. The objective of this study was to test the effect of a within-category versus across-category FOP lower calorie label on 1) the percentage of labeled products purchased, 2) several measures of calories purchased (total, per dollar and per serving), and 3) total spending. We also tested the moderating effects of hunger and mood on purchasing patterns.
methodsUsing an online grocery store, we conducted a 3 × 3 crossover trial involving actual purchases with 146 participants randomly exposed to: 1) no labeling control; 2) within-category lower calorie labels, and; 3) across-category lower calorie labels. We labeled the 20% of products with the lowest calories per serving within or across categories. Purchases were compared using a fixed effects regression on first-differenced outcomes.
resultsRelative to the control condition, there was a 3 percentage point increase (p = 0.01) in labelled products purchased in the within-category arm and a non-significant decrease of 1 percentage point (p = 0.711) in the across-category arm. There was no significant difference in the proportion of labeled products purchased between the two labelling conditions. Neither strategy resulted in reductions in any measure of calories purchased or in total spending. When limited to beverages, there was a 398 cal reduction (p = 0.01) in the within-category arm and a 438 cal reduction (p < 0.01) in the across-category arm versus the control. Mood and hunger did not modify the effects for either strategy.
conclusionsResults provide evidence that both labelling strategies have the potential to influence food purchasing patterns. However, we cannot definitely state that one labelling approach is superior or even that an increase in the proportion of labelled products purchased will lead to a reduction in calories purchased.
trial registrationThe American Economic Association's registry for randomized controlled trials, RCT ID: AEARCTR-0002325; Prospectively Registered October 06, 2017. In compliance with ICMJE policy, the trial was also registered on Clinicaltrials.gov, RCT ID: [NCT04165447]. Retrospectively Registered 11 November 2019.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.