Impact of different food label formats on healthiness evaluation and food choice of consumers: a randomized-controlled study

Abstract Background Front of pack food labels or signpost labels are currently widely discussed as means to help consumers to make informed food choices. It is hoped that more informed food choices will result in an overall healthier diet. There is only limited evidence, as to which format of a food label is best understood by consumers, helps them best to differentiate between more or less healthy food and whether these changes in perceived healthiness result in changes of food choice. Methods In a randomised experimental study in Hamburg/Germany 420 adult subjects were exposed to one of five experimental conditions: (1) a simple "healthy choice" tick, (2) a multiple traffic light label, (3) a monochrome Guideline Daily Amount (GDA) label, (4) a coloured GDA label and (5) a "no label" condition. In the first task they had to identify the healthier food items in 28 pair-wise comparisons of foods from different food groups. In the second task they were asked to select food portions from a range of foods to compose a one-day's consumption. Differences between means were analysed using ANOVAs. Results Task I: Experimental conditions differed significantly in the number of correct decisions (p Conclusion Different food label formats differ in the understanding of consumers. The current study shows, that German adults profit most from the multiple traffic light labels. Perceived healthiness of foods is influenced by this label format most often. Nevertheless, such changes in perceived healthiness are unlikely to influence food choice and consumption. Attempts to establish the informed consumer with the hope that informed choices will be healthier choices are unlikely to change consumer behaviour and will not result in the desired contribution to the prevention of obesity and diet related diseases.</p

EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition, and Allergies (NDA); Scientific Opinion on principles for deriving and applying Dietary Reference Values

This Opinion of the EFSA Panel on Dietetic products, Nutrition, and Allergies (NDA) deals with the general principles for development and application of Dietary Reference Values (DRVs). These quantitative reference values for nutrient intakes for healthy individuals and populations are based on health criteria. Derived from DRVs, nutrients goals and recommendations take into account other criteria such as food composition or dietary habits, and may be used for assessment and planning of diets. It is proposed to derive the following DRVs: 1) Population Reference Intakes (PRI), 2) Average Requirement (AR), 3) Lower Threshold Intake (LTI), 4) Adequate Intake (AI), 5) Reference Intake ranges for macronutrients (RI). Nutrient requirements differ with age, sex and physiological condition. The Panel proposes to define the age ranges used for each nutrient on a case-by-case basis depending on the available data. For the age group < 6 months requirements are considered to be equal to the supply from breast- milk, except in those cases where this does not apply. Separate reference values will be established for pregnant and lactating women. Interpolation or extrapolation between population groups will be used in instances where no data are available for defined age and sex groups

EFSA NDA Panel (EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies), 2013 . Scientific O pinion on Dietary Reference Values for molybdenum

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies (NDA) derived Dietary Reference Values (DRVs) for molybdenum. Molybdenum is efficiently and rapidly absorbed at a wide range of intakes, and the body is able to maintain homeostasis through the regulation of excretion via the urine. Molybdenum deficiency in otherwise healthy humans has not been observed and there are no biomarkers of molybdenum status. Various metabolic balance studies have been performed to establish molybdenum requirements. However, only one balance study, which was performed with a constant diet and under controlled conditions in adult men, was considered to be of sufficient duration. In this small study, balance was reported to be near zero when molybdenum intakes were 22 µg/day. Biochemical changes or symptoms suggestive of molybdenum deficiency were not observed, and it is possible that humans may be able to achieve molybdenum balance at even lower intakes. Data on molybdenum intakes and health outcomes were unavailable for the setting of DRVs for molybdenum. As the evidence required to derive an Average Requirement and a Population Reference Intake was considered insufficient, an Adequate Intake (AI) is proposed. Observed molybdenum intakes from mixed diets in Europe were taken into consideration in setting this value. An AI of 65 µg/day is proposed for adults; a figure that is based on molybdenum intakes at the lower end of the wide range of observed intakes. It is suggested that the adult AI also applies to pregnant and lactating women. An AI is also proposed for infants from seven months and for children based on extrapolation from the adult AI using isometric scaling and the reference body weights of the respective age groups

EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition, and Allergies (NDA); Scientific Opinion on Dietary Reference Values for fats, including saturated fatty acids, polyunsaturated fatty acids, monounsaturated fatty acids, trans fatty acids, and cholesterol

This Opinion of the EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition, and Allergies (NDA) deals with the setting of Dietary Reference Values (DRVs) for fats. A lower bound of the reference intake range for total fat of 20 energy % (E%) and an upper bound of 35 E% are proposed. Fat intake in infants can gradually be reduced from 40 E% in the 6-12 month period to 35-40 E% in the 2nd and 3rd year of life. For specific fatty acids the following is proposed: saturated fatty acid (SFA) and trans fatty acid intake should be as low as possible; not to set any DRV for cis-monounsaturated fatty acids; not to formulate a DRV for the intake of total cis-polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA); not to set specific values for the n-3/n-6 ratio; to set an Adequate Intake (AI) of 4 E% for linolenic acid; not to set any DRV for arachidonic acid; not to set an UL for total or any of the n-6 PUFA; to set an AI for alpha-linilenic acid (ALA) of 0.5 E%; not to set an UL for ALA; to set an AI of 250 mg for eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) plus docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) for adults; to set an AI of 100 mg DHA for infants (>6 months) and young children <24 months; to increase by 100-200 mg preformed DHA in addition to the AI for adults as an adequate supply of n-3 long chain PUFA during pregnancy and lactation; not to set any DRV for conjugated linoleic acid. For cholesterol it was decided not to propose a reference value beside the limitation on the intake of SF

EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition, and Allergies (NDA); Scientific Opinion on Dietary reference values for water

This Opinion of the EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition, and Allergies (NDA) deals with the setting of dietary reference values for water for specific age groups. Adequate Intakes (AI) have been defined derived from a combination of observed intakes in population groups with desirable osmolarity values of urine and desirable water volumes per energy unit consumed. The reference values for total water intake include water from drinking water, beverages of all kind, and from food moisture and only apply to conditions of moderate environmental temperature and moderate physical activity levels (PAL 1.6). AIs for infants in the first half of the first year of life are estimated to be 100-190 mL/kg per day. For infants 6-12 months of age a total water intake of 800-1000 mL/day is considered adequate. For the second year of life an adequate total water intake of 1100-1200 mL/day is defined by interpolation, as intake data are not available. AIs of water for children are estimated to be 1300 mL/day for boys and girls 2-3 years of age; 1600 mL/day for boys and girls 4-8 years of age; 2100 mL/day for boys 9-13 years of age; 1900 mL/day for girls 9-13 years of age. Adolescents of 14 years and older are considered as adults with respect to adequate water intake. Available data for adults permit the definition of AIs as 2.0 L/day (P 95 3.1 L) for females and 2.5 L/day (P95 4.0 L) for males. The same AIs as for adults are defined for the elderly. For pregnant women the same water intake as in non-pregnant women plus an increase in proportion to the increase in energy intake (300 mL/day) is proposed. For lactating women adequate water intakes of about 700 mL/day above the AIs of non-lactating women of the same age are derive