ArticleNutrients2021
Nutri-Score and Nutrition Facts Panel through the Eyes of the Consumer: Correct Healthfulness Estimations Depend on Transparent Labels, Fixation Duration, and Product Equivocality.
Article in Nutrients, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Front-of-pack labeling and perceived nutritional quality in adults with and without chronic disease: results from a quasi-experimental study.Frontiers in nutrition · 2025Article
- A Little Bird Told Me… Nutri-Score Panoramas from a Flight over Europe, Connecting Science and Society.Nutrients · 2023Article
- Guideline Daily Amounts Versus Nutri-Score Labeling: Perceptions of Greek Consumers About Front-of-Pack Label.Cureus · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Research on front-of-pack labels (FOPLs) demonstrated that Nutri-Score is one of the most promising FOPLs regarding healthfulness estimation accuracy. Nevertheless, as consumers are exposed to both the Nutri-Score and the mandatory Nutrition Facts Panel (NFP) in the supermarket, it is key to understand if and how both labels interact. This study investigates the contribution of Nutri-Score and NFP regarding healthfulness estimation accuracy, whether this impact differs depending on the product, and what role visual attention plays. We set up an eye-tracking experiment in a controlled setting in which 398 participants rated the healthfulness of 20 products. The results confirmed the positive impact of the Nutri-Score on healthfulness estimation accuracy, though the impact was larger for equivocal (i.e., difficult to judge) products. Interestingly, NFP either had no effect (compared to a package without Nutri-Score or NFP) or a negative effect (compared to a package with Nutri-Score alone) on healthfulness estimation accuracy. Eye-tracking data corroborated that 'cognitive overload' issues could explain why consumers exposed to Nutri-Score alone outperformed those exposed to both Nutri-Score and NFP. This study offers food for thought for policymakers and the industry seeking to maximize the potential of the Nutri-Score.
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.