Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35956305›Full record

Trial reportNutrients2022

Front-of-Package Labels on Unhealthy Packaged Foods in India: Evidence from a Randomized Field Experiment.

S K Singh, Lindsey Smith Taillie, Ashish Gupta, Maxime Bercholz, Barry Popkin, Nandita Murukutla

Open access · goldAbstract 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 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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.

S K SinghDepartment of Survey Research and Data Analytics, International Institute for Population Sciences, Deemed University, Mumbai 400088, India.ORCID 0000-0003-0824-9073
Lindsey Smith TaillieDepartment of Nutrition, Gillings School of Global Public Health, Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27516, USA.
Ashish GuptaVital Strategies, New York, NY 27599, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1735-3323
Maxime BercholzCarolina Population Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27516, USA.
Barry PopkinDepartment of Nutrition, Gillings School of Global Public Health, Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27516, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9495-9324
Nandita MurukutlaVital Strategies, New York, NY 27599, USA.
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · USVital Strategies · USInternational Institute for Population Sciences · IN

Funding

UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CLINICAL NUTRITION RESEARCH UNITP30DK056350 · NIDDK · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI Venkata Saroja Voruganti · 1999 to 2026
$31.6M
Bloomberg Philanthropies 46129NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK056350Resolve to Save Lives N/A
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Policies to require front-of-package labels (FOPLs) on packaged foods may help Indian consumers to better identify foods high in nutrients of concern, including sugar, saturated fat, and sodium, and discourage their consumption, which are outcomes that are critical for preventing rises in diet-related non-communicable disease. The objective was to test whether FOPLs helped Indian consumers identify “high-in” packaged foods and reduce intentions to purchase them. We conducted an in-person randomized experiment (n = 2869 adults between ages 18 and 60 years old) in six states of India in 2022. Participants were randomized to one of five FOPLs: a control label (barcode), warning label (octagon with “High in [nutrient]”), Health Star Rating (HSR), Guideline Daily Amount (GDA), or traffic light label. Participants then viewed a series of packaged foods high in sugar, saturated fat, or sodium with the assigned FOPL, and rated product perceptions and label reactions. Fewer than half of participants in the control group (39.1%) correctly identified all products high in nutrient(s) of concern. All FOPLs led to an increase in this outcome, with the biggest differences observed for the warning label (60.8%, p < 0.001), followed by the traffic light label (54.8%, p < 0.001), GDA (55.0%, p < 0.001), and HSR (45.0%, p < 0.01). While no FOPLs led to a reduction in intentions to purchase the packaged foods, the overall pattern of results suggested that warning labels are the most effective FOPL to help Indian consumers identify unhealthy foods.

Indexed as

Consumer BehaviorFood LabelingAdolescentAdultChoice BehaviorFood PreferencesHumansIndiaMiddle AgedNutritive ValueSodiumSugarsYoung AdultSodiumSugarsfood policyGDAHealth Star Ratingnon-communicable diseasesNutriscoreobesity preventionwarning labels

Identifiers

PMID35956305
PMCPMC9370292
OpenAlexW4289205084

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.