ArticleBMJ public health2026
Changes in out-of-home food purchasing following the introduction of England's calorie labelling regulations: a population-level controlled interrupted time series analysis.
Article in BMJ public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Compliance With England's Calorie Labeling Regulations 3 Years After Policy Implementation.Public health reports (Washington, D.C. : 1974) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Large out-of-home (OOH) food businesses in England have been required by law to display calorie information on menus since 6 April 2022. This study investigated whether the implementation of this policy was associated with changes in calories purchased OOH by consumers. Methods: Controlled interrupted time series analysis was used to estimate changes in calories purchased from all OOH outlets in England (intervention group). Secondary outcomes included purchases from large chains, non-chain outlets and five subtypes of purchases (meals, lower-calorie coffee, higher-calorie coffee, sandwiches and fish and chip meals). The control series consisted of purchases from non-chain outlets in Scotland and Wales to avoid spillover labelling in chains across Great Britain. We aggregated self-reported itemised OOH food and non-alcoholic drink purchases from a rolling consumer panel of ~7500 individuals spanning 13 weeks pre intervention and 34 weeks post intervention to population-level average weekly per-person calorie (kcal) purchase estimates. Linear regression, adjusted for season and inflation, modelled level and trend changes compared with the counterfactual of no mandatory policy. Subgroup analyses explored effects by age, sex, occupational socioeconomic status, weight status and weekday/weekend purchases. Results: Compared with the counterfactual, we found no evidence of a change in overall calories purchased OOH associated with mandatory calorie labelling (level change -95.6 kcal, 95% CI -471.2 to 280.0; trend change 5.1 kcal, 95% CI -5.5 to 15.8). There was also no robust evidence of changes in calories purchased OOH for secondary outcomes and by subgroups compared with the counterfactual of no mandatory calorie labelling. Small changes observed in these analyses were sensitive to analytical choices. Conclusions: This study supports existing evidence that calorie labelling alone is unlikely to secure significant changes in food purchasing behaviour at population level. Possible changes to menus were not included in the study and warrant further investigation.
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.