ArticleBMC public health2023
Nutrition facts labels: who is actually reading them and does it help in meeting intake recommendations for nutrients of public health concern?
Article in BMC public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Factors influencing sodium restriction behavior among patients with chronic heart failure: a cross-sectional study based on the value co-creation theory.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2026Article
- Selected Consumer Behaviours in the Bread Market: Does Dietary Fibre Labelling Influence Consumer Decisions? A Preliminary Study.Nutrients · 2026Article
- Nutrition knowledge, label use, and dietary diversity among a sample of university students in Bangladesh: a cross-sectional investigation.Journal of nutritional science · 2026Article
- Nutrition Facts Label Use and Adherence to the DASH Dietary Pattern: Results From a National Health and Nutrition Survey.Preventing chronic disease · 2025Article
- Special Diets and Nutrient Intakes in Morbidly Obese US Adults in Comparison to the 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans.Nutrition journal · 2025Article
- University Students' Understanding and Utilization of Food Labels: A Cross-Sectional Study.International journal of food science · 2025Article
- Factors associated with food label use: focus on healthy aspects of orthorexia and orthorexia nervosa.Eating and weight disorders : EWD · 2024Article
- Association between nutritional literacy and nutrition label use in Chinese community residents.Frontiers in nutrition · 2024Article
- Food Components in Health Promotion and Disease Prevention.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Making America Healthy Again: Remedies for Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s Campaign against Chronic Disease.The Hastings Center reportArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFiber, potassium and calcium are nutrients of public health concern and their intakes in the United States are alarmingly low. The usage of nutrition facts labels has been reported to increase the odds for dietary reference intake of fiber in some studies. The overall evidence, however, is mixed, as some studies suggested that nutrition facts panels have little to no effect on average measures of diet quality. Here, we investigated whether the usage of nutrition facts labels was associated with meeting U.S. intake recommendations for three nutrients of public health concern: fiber, potassium and calcium.
methodsWe used cross-sectional multistage, stratified, clustered and probability sampling design data from the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys 2017-2020 cycle. The sample included 5,416 individuals aged 20 years or older, which may be extrapolated to represent 146,841,866 US Americans. Nutrient intakes were compared among individuals reading nutrition facts panels "frequently", "sometimes" or "rarely" using applied survey data analyses techniques (including multivariate logistic regression and marginsplots).
resultsWe observed substantial sociodemographic differences between the three groups. Frequent readers were significantly more likely to be female and had higher educational levels. On average, they were also significantly older as compared to rare readers. Fiber intake in g/d was highest in frequent readers (17.09) and lowest in rare readers (14.64). The proportion of participants that met dietary fiber intake recommendations was almost four times higher in the frequent readers group (12.69%) as compared to the rare readers group (3.69%). In a bivariate logistic regression model, frequent label reading significantly increased the odds for meeting the fiber recommendations in Dietary Guidelines for Americans (OR: 2.15, p < 0.001). Rarely reading labels decreased the odds (OR: 0.57, p = 0.003). These odds remained essentially unchanged after adjusting for sociodemographic covariates, diabetes status and body mass index (OR: 1.84, p = 0.004; and OR: 0.62, p = 0.022).
conclusionsNutrition facts panel reading associates with fiber intake. Our findings have potential implications for public health nutrition strategies that may center around educational work.
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.