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

Alcohol intake and risk of colorectal cancer: results from the UK Dietary Cohort Consortium.

BACKGROUND: Epidemiological studies have suggested that excessive alcohol intake increases colorectal cancer (CRC) risk. However, findings regarding tumour subsites and sex differences have been inconsistent. METHODS: We investigated the prospective associations between alcohol intake on overall and site- and sex-specific CRC risk. Analyses were conducted on 579 CRC cases and 1996 matched controls nested within the UK Dietary Cohort Consortium using standardised data obtained from food diaries as a main nutritional method and repeated using data from food frequency questionnaire (FFQ). RESULTS: Compared with individuals in the lightest category of drinkers (>0-or=45 g per day. No clear associations were observed between site-specific CRC risk and alcohol intake in either sex. Analyses using FFQ showed similar results. CONCLUSION: We found no significantly increased risk of CRC up to 30 g per day of alcohol intake within the UK Dietary Cohort Consortium

De voedingsanamnese – Methoden voor voedselconsumptieonderzoek van bevolkingsgroepen en individuen

Voedingsanamnese is een verzamelnaam voor verschillende technieken om de voedselconsumptie van een persoon te schatten. Alle beschikbare technieken hebben voor- en nadelen. De keuze van een techniek hangt af van het doel, de doelgroep en de beschikbare middelen. Onderzoek naar de validiteit en reproduceerbaarheid van een techniek geeft inzicht in de kwaliteit. Om deze kwaliteit te verbeteren moet men de bronnen van fouten en variatie in de meting kennen. Belangrijke bronnen van variatie zijn de tussenpersoonsvariatie en de binnenpersoons- of dag-tot-dagvariatie in de voeding. Door het aantal personen en/of het aantal dagen per persoon te vergroten kan men de reproduceerbaarheid van een groepsgemiddelde verbeteren, maar niet de validiteit. Het verkrijgen van valide en reproduceerbare resultaten vereist een duidelijk onderzoeksprotocol en draaiboek voor het veldwerk.De voedingsanamnese wordt in de gezondheidszorg voor andere doelen gebruikt dan in het wetenschappelijk onderzoek. De kwaliteitseisen zijn daarom anders, maar voor een evaluatieonderzoek van het diëtistisch handelen worden kwaliteitseisen gesteld, vergelijkbaar met die voor wetenschappelijk onderzoek

Misunderstanding of Front-Of-Package Nutrition Information on US Food Products

Front-of-package nutrition symbols (FOPs) are presumably readily noticeable and require minimal prior nutrition knowledge to use. Although there is evidence to support this notion, few studies have focused on Facts Up Front type symbols which are used in the US. Participants with varying levels of prior knowledge were asked to view two products and decide which was more healthful. FOPs on packages were manipulated so that one product was more healthful, allowing us to assess accuracy. Attention to nutrition information was assessed via eye tracking to determine what if any FOP information was used to make their decisions. Results showed that accuracy was below chance on half of the comparisons despite consulting FOPs. Negative correlations between attention to calories, fat, and sodium and accuracy indicated that consumers over-relied on these nutrients. Although relatively little attention was allocated to fiber and sugar, associations between attention and accuracy were positive. Attention to vitamin D showed no association to accuracy, indicating confusion surrounding what constitutes a meaningful change across products. Greater nutrition knowledge was associated with greater accuracy, even when less attention was paid. Individuals, particularly those with less knowledge, are misled by calorie, sodium, and fat information on FOPs