Trial reportBMC public health2025
Testing the effect of ecolabels on the environmental impact of food purchases in worksite cafeterias: a randomised controlled trial.
Trial report in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Does the range of ecolabels on offer alter their impact on meal selection? An online randomised control trial.BMC public health · 2025Trial
- [Choice architecture in institutional food services: strategies to promote sustainable nutrition].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2025Review
- 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundReducing the environmental impact of foods consumed is important for meeting climate goals. We aimed to conduct a randomised controlled trial to test whether ecolabels reduce the environmental impact of food selected in worksite cafeterias, alone or in combination with increased availability of more sustainable meal options.
methodsWorksite cafeterias (n = 96) were randomised to one of three study groups, with 54 included for final analysis. One group was intended to increase the availability of meat-free options, but no change was implemented. Therefore, this group was treated as part of the control, creating two groups: (1) control (no ecolabels) (n = 35), and (2) ecolabels (n = 19). Regression analysis assessed the primary outcome of total environmental impact of hot meals sold over a 6-week period. Secondary outcome analyses explored the individual environmental indicators that composed the total environmental impact score (i.e., greenhouse gas emissions, biodiversity loss, eutrophication, and water scarcity). The mean weekly environmental impact scores of hot meal options over the full 12-week trial period were assessed using hierarchical mixed effects models.
resultsThere was no significant effect of the intervention on the environmental impact scores of meals sold (mean difference between control and intervention sites: -1.4%, 95%CI: -33.6%, + 30.8%). There was no evidence of an effect in mean weekly environmental impact score (-5.4%, 95%CI: -12.6%, + 2.5%), nor in any of the four individual environmental indicators (greenhouse gas emissions: -3.6%, 95%CI: -30.7%, 34.3%; biodiversity loss: 2.0%, 95%CI: -25.8%, 40.2%; eutrophication: -2.4%, 95%CI: -29.3%, 34.7%; water scarcity: -0.4%, 95%CI: -28.7%, 39.1%).
conclusionsEcolabels may not be an effective tool to shift consumer behaviour in worksite cafeterias towards meals with lower environmental impact.
trial registrationThe study was pre-registered prospectively on ISRCTN ( https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN10268258 ; 06/01/2022).
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.