Health Warnings and Beverage Purchase Behavior: Mediators of Impact

Background: To reduce diet-related chronic disease, policymakers have proposed requiring health warnings on sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs). Health warnings reduced purchases of these products by 22% in our recent randomized controlled trial, but the mechanisms remain unclear. Purpose: We sought to identify the psychological mechanisms that explain why SSB health warnings affect purchase behavior. Methods: In 2018, we recruited 400 adult SSB consumers to complete a shopping task in a naturalistic convenience store laboratory in North Carolina, USA. We randomly assigned participants to either a health warning arm (all SSBs in the store displayed a text health warning) or to a control arm (SSBs displayed a control label). Participants selected items to purchase with cash. Results: Compared to control labels, health warnings elicited more attention, negative affect, anticipated social interactions, and thinking about harms (range of ds = 0.63-1.34; all p <. 001). Health warnings also led to higher injunctive norms about limiting SSB consumption (d = 0.27, p =. 008). Except for attention, all of these constructs mediated the effect of health warnings on SSB purchases (all p <. 05). In contrast, health warnings did not influence other attitudes or beliefs about SSBs or SSB consumption (e.g., healthfulness, outcome expectations, and response efficacy). Conclusions: Health warnings on sugar-sweetened beverages affected purchase behavior by eliciting negative emotions, increasing anticipated social interactions, keeping SSBs' harms at top of mind, and shifting norms about beverage consumption. Results are consistent with recent studies of why tobacco warnings influence quitting behavior, pointing toward a general framework for understanding how health warnings affect behavior

How should sugar-sweetened beverage health warnings be designed? A randomized experiment

Health warnings are a promising strategy for reducing consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs), but uncertainty remains about how to design warnings to maximize their impact. Warnings already implemented in Latin America use nutrient disclosures, while proposed U.S. warnings would describe the health effects of consuming SSBs. We sought to determine whether warning characteristics influence consumers' reactions to SSB health warnings. A national convenience sample of U.S. adults (n = 1360) completed an online survey in 2018. In a factorial design, we randomly assigned participants to view SSB health warnings that differed in: 1) inclusion of health effects (“Drinking beverages with added sugar contributes to obesity, diabetes, and tooth decay”); 2) inclusion of a nutrient disclosure (“High in added sugar”); 3) inclusion of the marker word “WARNING;” and 4) shape (octagon vs. rectangle). The primary outcome was perceived message effectiveness (PME, range 1–5). PME was higher for warnings that included health effects (average differential effect [ADE] = 0.63, p < 0.001) or nutrient disclosures (ADE = 0.32, p < 0.001) compared to warnings without this information. However, adding a nutrient disclosure to a warning that already included health effects did not lead to higher PME compared to warnings with health effects alone. The marker “WARNING” (ADE = 0.21) and the octagon shape (ADE = 0.08) also led to higher PME compared to warnings without these characteristics (ps < 0.001). The same pattern of results held for the secondary outcomes, fear and thinking about harms. SSB health warnings may have more impact if they describe health effects, use the marker “WARNING,” and are octagon-shaped

Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Health Warnings and Purchases: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Introduction: Five U.S. states have proposed policies to require health warnings on sugar-sweetened beverages, but warnings’ effects on actual purchase behavior remain uncertain. This study evaluated the impact of sugar-sweetened beverage health warnings on sugar-sweetened beverage purchases. Study design: Participants completed one study visit to a life-sized replica of a convenience store in North Carolina. Participants chose six items (two beverages, two foods, and two household products). One item was randomly selected for them to purchase and take home. Participants also completed a questionnaire. Researchers collected data in 2018 and conducted analyses in 2019. Setting/participants: Participants were a demographically diverse convenience sample of 400 adult sugar-sweetened beverage consumers (usual consumption ≥12 ounces/week). Intervention: Research staff randomly assigned participants to a health warning arm (sugar-sweetened beverages in the store displayed a front-of-package health warning) or a control arm (sugar-sweetened beverages displayed a control label). Main outcome measures: The primary trial outcome was sugar-sweetened beverage calories purchased. Secondary outcomes included reactions to trial labels (e.g., negative emotions) and sugar-sweetened beverage perceptions and attitudes (e.g., healthfulness). Results: All 400 participants completed the trial and were included in analyses. Health warning arm participants were less likely to be Hispanic and to have overweight/obesity than control arm participants. In intent-to-treat analyses adjusting for Hispanic ethnicity and overweight/obesity, health warnings led to lower sugar-sweetened beverage purchases (adjusted difference, −31.4 calories; 95% CI= −57.9, −5.0). Unadjusted analyses yielded similar results (difference, −32.9 calories; 95% CI= −58.9, −7.0). Compared with the control label, sugar-sweetened beverage health warnings also led to higher intentions to limit sugar-sweetened beverage consumption and elicited more attention, negative emotions, thinking about the harms of sugar-sweetened beverage consumption, and anticipated social interactions. Trial arms did not differ on perceptions of sugar-sweetened beverages’ added sugar content, healthfulness, appeal/coolness, or disease risk. Conclusions: Brief exposure to health warnings reduced sugar-sweetened beverage purchases in this naturalistic RCT. Sugar-sweetened beverage health warning policies could discourage sugar-sweetened beverage consumption. Trial registration: This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT03511937

Health Warnings on Sugar-Sweetened Beverages: Simulation of Impacts on Diet and Obesity Among U.S. Adults

Introduction: Overconsumption of sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) is a significant contributor to obesity. Policymakers have proposed requiring health warnings on SSBs to reduce SSB consumption. Randomized trials indicate that SSB warnings reduce SSB purchases, but uncertainty remains about how warnings affect population-level dietary and health outcomes. Methods: This study developed a stochastic microsimulation model of dietary behaviors and body weight using the 2005–2014 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys, research on SSB health warnings, and a validated model of weight change. In 2019, the model simulated a national SSB health warning policy's impact on SSB intake, total energy intake, BMI, and obesity among U.S. adults over 5 years. Sensitivity analyses varied assumptions about: (1) how warning efficacy changes over time, (2) the magnitude of warnings’ impact on SSB intake, and (3) caloric compensation. Results: A national SSB health warning policy would reduce average SSB intake by 25.3 calories/day (95% uncertainty interval [UI]= −27.0, −23.6) and total energy intake by 31.2 calories/day (95% UI= −32.2, −30.1). These dietary changes would reduce average BMI by 0.64 kg/m2 (95% UI= −0.67, −0.62) and obesity prevalence by 3.1 percentage points (95% UI= −3.3%, −2.8%). Obesity reductions persisted when assuming warning efficacy wanes over time and when using conservative estimates of warning impact and caloric compensation. Benefits were larger for black and Hispanic adults than for white adults, and for adults with lower SES than for those with higher SES. Conclusions: A national SSB health warning policy could reduce adults’ SSB consumption and obesity prevalence. Warnings could also narrow sociodemographic disparities in these outcomes

Barriers and facilitators to achieving food security during the COVID-19 pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic has considerably increased food insecurity. To identify where intervention and policy solutions are most needed, we explored barriers to obtaining food and predictors of experiencing food insecurity due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Between May and July 2020, we conducted cross-sectional online surveys with two convenience samples of U.S. adults (Study 1: n = 2,219, Study 2: n = 810). Roughly one-third of participants reported experiencing food insecurity due to the COVID-19 pandemic (Study 1: 32%, Study 2: 35%). Between one-third and half reported using the charitable food system (Study 1: 36%, Study 2: 46%). The majority of participants experienced barriers to getting food (Study 1: 84%, Study 2: 88%), of which the most commonly reported were not having enough money to buy food (Study 1: 48%; Study 2: 53%) and worrying about getting COVID-19 at the store (Study 1: 50%; Study 2: 43%). Higher education was associated with greater risk of food insecurity in both studies (all p < 0.05). Receipt of aid from SNAP buffered against the association between financial struggles and food insecurity in Study 1 (p = 0.03); there was also some evidence of this effect in Study 2 (p = 0.05). Our findings suggest that food insecurity might be reduced by mitigating financial struggles (e.g., by increasing access to SNAP) and by addressing barriers to obtaining food (e.g., by expanding accessibility of food delivery programs)

Impact of taxes and warning labels on red meat purchases among US consumers: A randomized controlled trial

Background AU Policies: Pleaseconfirmthatallheadinglevelsarerepresentedcorrectly to reduce red meat intake are important for mitigating : climate change and improving public health. We tested the impact of taxes and warning labels on red meat purchases in the United States. The main study question was, will taxes and warning labels reduce red meat purchases? Methods and findings We recruited 3,518 US adults to participate in a shopping task in a naturalistic online grocery store from October 18, 2021 to October 28, 2021. Participants were randomized to one of 4 conditions: control (no tax or warning labels, n = 887), warning labels (health and environmental warning labels appeared next to products containing red meat, n = 891), tax (products containing red meat were subject to a 30% price increase, n = 874), or combined warning labels + tax (n = 866). We used fractional probit and Poisson regression models to assess the co-primary outcomes, percent, and count of red meat purchases, and linear regression to assess the secondary outcomes of nutrients purchased. Most participants identified as women, consumed red meat 2 or more times per week, and reported doing all of their household's grocery shopping. The warning, tax, and combined conditions led to lower percent of red meat-containing items purchased, with 39% (95% confidence interval (CI) [38%, 40%]) of control participants' purchases containing red meat, compared to 36% (95% CI [35%, 37%], p = 0.001) of warning participants, 34% (95% CI [33%, 35%], p < 0.001) of tax participants, and 31% (95% CI [30%, 32%], p < 0.001) of combined participants. A similar pattern was observed for count of red meat items. Compared to the control, the combined condition reduced calories purchased (−312.0 kcals, 95% CI [−590.3 kcals, −33.6 kcals], p = 0.027), while the tax (−10.4 g, 95% CI [−18.2 g, −2.5 g], p = 0.01) and combined (−12.8 g, 95% CI [−20.7 g, −4.9 g], p = 0.001) conditions reduced saturated fat purchases; no condition affected sodium purchases. Warning labels decreased the perceived healthfulness and environmental sustainability of red meat, while taxes increased perceived cost. The main limitations were that the study differed in sociodemographic characteristics from the US population, and only about 30% to 40% of the US population shops for groceries online. Conclusions Warning labels and taxes reduced red meat purchases in a naturalistic online grocery store. Trial Registration: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/NCT04716010

The impact of pictorial health warnings on purchases of sugary drinks for children: A randomized controlled trial

Background Pictorial warnings on tobacco products are promising for motivating behavior change, but few studies have examined pictorial warnings for sugary drinks, especially in naturalistic environments. This study aimed to examine the impact of pictorial warnings on parents' purchases of sugary drinks for their children in a naturalistic store laboratory. Methods and findings Parents of children ages 2 to 12 (n = 325, 25% identifying as Black, 20% Hispanic) completed a shopping task in a naturalistic store laboratory in North Carolina. Participants were randomly assigned to a pictorial warnings arm (sugary drinks displayed pictorial health warnings about type 2 diabetes and heart damage) or a control arm (sugary drinks displayed a barcode label). Parents selected 1 beverage and 1 snack for their child, as well as 1 household good; one of these items was selected for them to purchase and take home. The primary outcome was whether parents purchased a sugary drink for their child. Secondary outcomes included reactions to the trial labels, attitudes toward sugary drinks, and intentions to serve their child sugary drinks. Pictorial warnings led to a 17-percentage point reduction in purchases of sugary drinks (95% CI for reduction: 7% to 27%), with 45% of parents in the control arm buying a sugary drink for their child compared to 28% in the pictorial warning arm (p = 0.002). The impact of pictorial warnings on purchases did not differ by any of the 13 participant characteristics examined (e.g., race/ethnicity, income, education, and age of child). Pictorial warnings also led to lower calories (kcal), purchased from sugary drinks (82 kcal in the control arm versus 52 kcal in the pictorial warnings arm, p = 0.003). Moreover, pictorial warnings led to lower intentions to serve sugary drinks to their child, feeling more in control of healthy eating decisions, greater thinking about the harms of sugary drinks, stronger negative emotional reactions, greater anticipated social interactions, lower perceived healthfulness of sugary drinks for their child, and greater injunctive norms to limit sugary drinks for their child (all p 0.05). Conclusions Pictorial warnings reduced parents' purchases of sugary drinks for their children in this naturalistic trial. Warnings on sugary drinks are a promising policy approach to reduce sugary drink purchasing in the US

Reactions to messages about smoking, vaping and COVID-19: Two national experiments

Introduction The pace and scale of the COVID-19 pandemic, coupled with ongoing efforts by health agencies to communicate harms, have created a pressing need for data to inform messaging about smoking, vaping, and COVID-19. We examined reactions to COVID-19 and traditional health harms messages discouraging smoking and vaping. Methods Participants were a national convenience sample of 810 US adults recruited online in May 2020. All participated in a smoking message experiment and a vaping message experiment, presented in a random order. In each experiment, participants viewed one message formatted as a Twitter post. The experiments adopted a 3 (traditional health harms of smoking or vaping: Three harms, one harm, absent) × 2 (COVID-19 harms: one harm, absent) between-subjects design. Outcomes included perceived message effectiveness (primary) and constructs from the Tobacco Warnings Model (secondary: Attention, negative affect, cognitive elaboration, social interactions). Results Smoking messages with traditional or COVID-19 harms elicited higher perceived effectiveness for discouraging smoking than control messages without these harms (all p <0.001). However, including both traditional and COVID-19 harms in smoking messages had no benefit beyond including either alone. Smoking messages affected Tobacco Warnings Model constructs and did not elicit more reactance than control messages. Smoking messages also elicited higher perceived effectiveness for discouraging vaping. Including traditional harms in messages about vaping elicited higher perceived effectiveness for discouraging vaping (p <0.05), but including COVID-19 harms did not. Conclusions Messages linking smoking with COVID-19 may hold promise for discouraging smoking and may have the added benefit of also discouraging vaping