ArticleBMC public health2026
Parents' subjective understanding, use, reasons for non-use and perceived effectiveness of food labelling formats in Germany: a cross-sectional study of the Nutri-score, nutrition information panel and ingredients list.
Article in BMC public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFood labels are intended to support healthier food choices, yet little is known about how parents engage with different labelling formats in Germany. This study examined parents' subjective understanding and use of three food labelling formats in Germany, the Nutri-Score, the Nutrition Information Panel (NIP) and the list of ingredients and identified factors associated with subjective understanding and use, reasons for non-use and perceptions of label effectiveness.
methodsCross-sectional data were obtained from an online survey of parents in Germany (n = 978). Participants were adults responsible for at least 50% of household food shopping, who lived with children under 18 years. Quota-based sampling approximated the distribution of parents by household income and municipality size. Descriptive analyses were used to summarize subjective understanding, use, reasons for non-use and evaluative aspects of the three food labelling formats. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify characteristics associated with subjective understanding and use, and generalized estimating equations were used to compare evaluative aspects across the three food labelling formats.
resultsMost parents reported subjective understanding of the Nutri-Score (84.8%), the NIP (83.7%) and the ingredients list (80.5%) and 73.7% reported subjective understanding of all three formats. Overall, 70.3% used the Nutri-Score, 74.2% the NIP and 70.6% the ingredients list, while 58.8% reported using all three. Stronger beliefs in the effectiveness of healthy eating were positively associated with subjective understanding and use, whereas higher perceived overload from nutrition information was negatively associated. Men were less likely than women to report subjective understanding or use of the NIP and the ingredients list. Lack of interest was the most frequently reported reason for non-use. More participants agreed that the Nutri-Score was easy to use, whereas more agreed they understood the information provided by the NIP.
conclusionA high proportion of German parents in this quota-based sample reported subjective understanding and use of multiple food labelling formats. Subjective understanding and use were consistently associated with beliefs about the effectiveness of healthy eating and perceived nutrition information overload. These findings may help inform future public health communication on food labelling. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.