Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33216747›Full record

ArticlePLoS medicine2020

The impact of voluntary front-of-pack nutrition labelling on packaged food reformulation: A difference-in-differences analysis of the Australasian Health Star Rating scheme.

Laxman Bablani, Cliona Ni Mhurchu, Bruce Neal, Christopher L Skeels, Kevin E Staub, Tony Blakely

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.0field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Voluntary versus mandatory food labels, Australia.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Laxman BablaniCentre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5601-7387
Cliona Ni MhurchuFaculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0002-1144-9167
Bruce NealThe George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0490-7465
Christopher L SkeelsDepartment of Economics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3632-1933
Kevin E StaubDepartment of Economics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Tony BlakelyCentre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6995-4369
The University of Melbourne · AUUniversity of Auckland · NZUNSW Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFront-of-pack nutrition labelling (FoPL) of packaged foods can promote healthier diets. Australia and New Zealand (NZ) adopted the voluntary Health Star Rating (HSR) scheme in 2014. We studied the impact of voluntary adoption of HSR on food reformulation relative to unlabelled foods and examined differential impacts for more-versus-less healthy foods. METHODS AND

findingsAnnual nutrition information panel data were collected for nonseasonal packaged foods sold in major supermarkets in Auckland from 2013 to 2019 and in Sydney from 2014 to 2018. The analysis sample covered 58,905 unique products over 14 major food groups. We used a difference-in-differences design to estimate reformulation associated with HSR adoption. Healthier products adopted HSR more than unhealthy products: >35% of products that achieved 4 or more stars displayed the label compared to <15% of products that achieved 2 stars or less. Products that adopted HSR were 6.5% and 10.7% more likely to increase their rating by ≥0.5 stars in Australia and NZ, respectively. Labelled products showed a -4.0% [95% confidence interval (CI): -6.4% to -1.7%, p = 0.001] relative decline in sodium content in NZ, and there was a -1.4% [95% CI: -2.7% to -0.0%, p = 0.045] sodium change in Australia. HSR adoption was associated with a -2.3% [-3.7% to -0.9%, p = 0.001] change in sugar content in NZ and a statistically insignificant -1.1% [-2.3% to 0.1%, p = 0.061] difference in Australia. Initially unhealthy products showed larger reformulation effects when adopting HSR than healthier products. No evidence of a change in protein or saturated fat content was observed. A limitation of our study is that results are not sales weighted. Thus, it is not able to assess changes in overall nutrient consumption that occur because of HSR-caused reformulation. Also, participation into labelling and reformulation is jointly determined by producers in this observational study, impacting its generalisability to settings with mandatory labelling.

conclusionsIn this study, we observed that reformulation changes following voluntary HSR labelling are small, but greater for initially unhealthy products. Initially unhealthy foods were, however, less likely to adopt HSR. Our results, therefore, suggest that mandatory labelling has the greatest potential for improving the healthiness of packaged foods.

Indexed as

AustraliaDiet, HealthyFoodFood LabelingFood PackagingHealth BehaviorHumansNew ZealandNutrition PolicyNutritive Value

Identifiers

PMID33216747
PMCPMC7679009
OpenAlexW3100457599

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.