ArticleNutrients2021
Assessing the Effectiveness of Front of Pack Labels: Findings from an Online Randomised-Controlled Experiment in a Representative British Sample.
Article in Nutrients, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
18 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Effects of a Combined Front-of-Pack Nutrition Label and Nutrition Education Intervention on Healthier Choices of Freshly Prepared Beverages: An Online Randomized Controlled Trial.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- The Role of Dietary Fibers in the Management of Type 2 Diabetes: A Synthesis of Current Evidence and Clinical Implications.Nutrients · 2026Review
- Indonesian Adolescents' Perceptions of Front-of-Package Labels on Packaged Food and Drinks.Current developments in nutrition · 2025Article
- Nutrients or processing? An analysis of food and drink items from the UK National Diet and Nutrition Survey based on nutrient content, the NOVA classification and front of package traffic light labelling.The British journal of nutrition · 2024Article
- Influence of the cautionary legend on non-nutritive sweetener (NNS) on preference and healthfulness perception.PloS one · 2024Article
- Flavour, emulsifiers and colour are the most frequent markers to detect food ultra-processing in a UK food market analysis.Public health nutrition · 2023Article
- How does the updated Nutri-Score discriminate and classify the nutritional quality of foods in a Norwegian setting?The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2023Article
- A Little Bird Told Me… Nutri-Score Panoramas from a Flight over Europe, Connecting Science and Society.Nutrients · 2023Article
- A study is 21 times more likely to find unfavourable results about the nutrition label Nutri-Score if the authors declare a conflict of interest or the study is funded by the food industry.BMJ global health · 2023Article
- Comparative understanding and preference of Nutri-Score and NutrInform Battery in a sample of Spanish consumers.European journal of public health · 2023Article
- Front-of-Pack Nutrition Labels: Comparing the Nordic Keyhole and Nutri-Score in a Swedish Context.Nutrients · 2023Article
- Guideline Daily Amounts Versus Nutri-Score Labeling: Perceptions of Greek Consumers About Front-of-Pack Label.Cureus · 2022Article
- Review
- Polish Consumers' Understanding of Different Front-of-Package Food Labels: A Randomized Experiment.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Article
- Comparison of Healthiness, Labelling, and Price between Private and Branded Label Packaged Foods in New Zealand (2015-2019).Nutrients · 2021Article
- Evaluation of the Ability of Nutri-Score to Discriminate the Nutritional Quality of Prepacked Foods Using a Sale-Weighting Approach.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Front of pack food labels (FOPLs) provide accessible nutritional information to guide consumer choice. Using an online experiment with a large representative British sample, we aimed to examine whether FOPLs improve participants' ability to identify the healthiness of foods and drinks. The primary aim was to compare ability to rank between FOPL groups and a no label control. Adults (≥18 years), recruited from the NatCen panel, were randomised to one of five experimental groups (Multiple Traffic Light, MTL; Nutri-Score, N-S; Warning Label, WL; Positive Choice tick, PC; no label control). Stratification variables were year of recruitment to panel, sex, age, government office region, and household income. Packaging images were created for three versions, varying in healthiness, of six food and drink products (pizza, drinks, cakes, crisps, yoghurts, breakfast cereals). Participants were asked to rank the three product images in order of healthiness. Ranking was completed on a single occasion and comprised a baseline measure (with no FOPL), and a follow-up measure including the FOPL as per each participant's experimental group. The primary outcome was the ability to accurately rank product healthiness (all products ranked correctly vs. any incorrect). In 2020, 4504 participants had complete data and were included in the analysis. The probability of correct ranking at follow-up, and improving between baseline and follow-up, was significantly greater across all products for the N-S, MTL and WL groups, compared to control. This was seen for only some of the products for the PC group. The largest effects were seen for N-S, followed by MTL. These analyses were adjusted for stratification variables, ethnicity, education, household composition, food shopping responsibility, and current FOPL use. Exploratory analyses showed a tendency for participants with higher compared to lower education to rank products more accurately. Conclusions: All FOPLs were effective at improving participants' ability to correctly rank products according to healthiness in this large representative British sample, with the largest effects seen for N-S, followed by MTL.
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.