Trial reportThe international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity2024
"Warning: ultra-processed": an online experiment examining the impact of ultra-processed warning labels on consumers' product perceptions and behavioral intentions.
Trial report in The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05842460 (Testing the Impact of an "Ultraprocessed" Front-of-package Warning Label Among Brazilian Consumers), which is not on this map. Cited by 7 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.
Testing the Impact of an "Ultraprocessed" Front-of-package Warning Label Among Brazilian Consumers
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Warning Labels for Nonnutritive Sweeteners: A Randomized Controlled Trial with Chilean Parents.Current developments in nutrition · 2026Article
- Article
- Perceptions of ultra-processed foods, food processing and food healthfulness among a cross-sectional national sample of US adults: do perceptions align with the evidence?Public health nutrition · 2026Article
- Ultra processed foods and their inputs increasingly dominate New Zealand's food and beverage imports: a retrospective analysis.Globalization and health · 2026Article
- The politics of processed foods: Consumer perceptions of policies targeting ultra-processed foods.PloS one · 2026Article
- Association between out-of-pocket health expenditure and the disease burden of diabetes mellitus: insights from GBD 2021.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Ultra-processed food intake and impairment across multiple cognitive domains in nationally representative older U.S. adults.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNutrient content and degree of processing are complementary but distinct concepts, and a growing body of evidence shows that ultra-processed foods (UPFs) can have detrimental health effects independently from nutrient content. 10 + countries currently mandate front-of-package labels (FOPL) to inform consumers when products are high in added sugars, saturated fat, and/or sodium. Public health advocates have been calling for the addition of ultra-processed warning labels to these FOPLs, but the extent to which consumers would understand and be influenced by such labels remains unknown. We examined whether the addition of ultra-processed warning labels to existing nutrient warning labels could influence consumers' product perceptions and purchase intentions.
methodsIn 2023, a sample of adults in Brazil (n = 1,004) answered an open-ended question about the meaning of the term "ultra-processed," followed by an online experiment where they saw four ultra-processed products carrying warning labels. Participants were randomly assigned to view either only nutrient warning labels or nutrient plus ultra-processed warning labels. Participants then answered questions about their intentions to purchase the products, product perceptions, and perceived label effectiveness.
resultsMost participants (69%) exhibited a moderate understanding of the term "ultra-processed" prior to the experiment. The addition of an ultra-processed warning label led to a higher share of participants who correctly identified the products as UPFs compared to nutrient warning labels alone (Cohen's d = 0.16, p = 0.02). However, the addition of the ultra-processed warning label did not significantly influence purchase intentions, product healthfulness perceptions, or perceived label effectiveness compared to nutrient warning labels alone (all p > 0.05). In exploratory analyses, demographic characteristics and prior understanding of the concept of UPF did not moderate the effect of ultra-processed warning labels.
conclusionsUltra-processed warning labels may help consumers better identify UPFs, although they do not seem to influence behavioral intentions and product perceptions beyond the influence already exerted by nutrient warning labels. Future research should examine how ultra-processed warning labels would work for products that do and do not require nutrient warnings, as well as examine the benefits of labeling approaches that signal the health effects of UPFs.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05842460. Prospectively registered March 15th, 2023.
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.