Secondary Outcomes of a Front-of-Pack-Labelling Randomised Controlled Experiment in a Representative British Sample: Understanding, Ranking Speed and Perceptions.

Jessica Packer, Simon J Russell, Deborah Ridout, Anne Conolly, Curtis Jessop, Russell M Viner, Helen Croker

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial

In one paragraph

Trial report in Nutrients, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

3citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

Food label granularity and working memory: effects on food choice in a randomized controlled trial.Journal of health, population, and nutrition · 2025
Trial
Food Label Readability and Consumption Frequency: Isolating Content-Specific Effects via a Non-Equivalent Dependent Variable Design.Nutrients · 2026
Article
A Little Bird Told Me… Nutri-Score Panoramas from a Flight over Europe, Connecting Science and Society.Nutrients · 2023
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

7 authors.

Jessica PackerPopulation, Policy and Practice Research and Teaching Department, UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, University College London, London WC1N 1EH, UK.

Simon J RussellPopulation, Policy and Practice Research and Teaching Department, UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, University College London, London WC1N 1EH, UK.

Deborah RidoutPopulation, Policy and Practice Research and Teaching Department, UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, University College London, London WC1N 1EH, UK.

Anne ConollyNational Center for Social Research, London EC1V 0AX, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4953-2182

Curtis JessopNational Center for Social Research, London EC1V 0AX, UK.

Russell M VinerPopulation, Policy and Practice Research and Teaching Department, UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, University College London, London WC1N 1EH, UK.

Helen CrokerPopulation, Policy and Practice Research and Teaching Department, UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, University College London, London WC1N 1EH, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7247-6599

Funding

National Institute for Health Research PR-PRU-0916-21001

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Front-of-pack labels (FOPLs) provide simplified nutritional information that aims to inform consumer choice and encourage reformulation. We conducted an online randomised controlled experiment on a representative British sample to test the effectiveness of FOPLs across a range of outcomes. The primary outcomes have been published; here, we present the secondary outcomes: the ability to rank the healthiest product and the time to complete the rankings by comparing the FOPL groups and a no-label control, as well as a descriptive analysis of the perceptions. Participants from the NatCen panel were randomised to one of five experimental groups (Multiple Traffic Lights; Nutri-Score; Warning Label; Positive Choice tick; no-label control). Six food/drink categories were selected (pizza, drinks, cakes, crisps, yoghurts, breakfast cereals), and three products were created with varying healthiness. The participants (analytic sample = 4530) were asked to rank the products in order of healthiness twice (baseline: no label; follow-up: experimental group label). Compared to the control, the probability of correctly ranking the healthiest product at follow-up was significantly greater for the N-S, MTL and WL across all products. The time to correctly complete the ranking was fastest for the N-S, PC and no-label control. The descriptive analysis showed that the FOPLs were perceived favourably, and especially N-S and MTL. The findings were supportive of the primary analyses, with those results suggesting that N-S performed the best, and then MTL.

Indexed as

Consumer BehaviorFood LabelingChoice BehaviorFoodFood PreferencesHumansNutritive Valuecomprehensionfront-of-pack labelnutritional labellingnutrition policyrandomised controlled experiment

Identifiers

PMID35683988

DOI10.3390/nu14112188

PMCPMC9182518

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.