The influence of front‐of‐pack portion size images on children's serving and intake of cereal

Background: Consumption of large portions of energy‐dense foods promotes weight gain in children. Breakfast cereal boxes often show portions much larger than the recommended serving size. Objective: This experimental study investigated whether front‐of‐package portion size depictions influence children's self‐served portions and consumption. Methods: In a between‐subjects design, 41 children aged 7‐11 years (M= 9.0 ± 1.5y) served themselves breakfast cereal from a box, the front of which depicted either a recommended serving size of cereal (30g) or a larger, more typical front‐of‐ pack portion (90g). Cereal served and consumed and total caloric intake (including milk) was recorded. Height and weight, demographic information and measures of children's food responsiveness and enjoyment of food were collected. Results: MANOVA revealed that children exposed to the larger portion size served themselves (+7g, 37%) and consumed (+6g, 63%) significantly more cereal than those exposed to the smaller portion. Despite this, overall caloric intake (milk included) did not differ between conditions, and no other measured variables (hunger, BMI) significantly affected the outcomes. Conclusion: This study provides novel evidence of the influence portion‐size depictions on food packaging have on children's eating behaviour. This offers possible avenues for intervention and policy change; however, more research is needed

Do front-of-pack ‘green labels’ increase sustainable food choice and willingness-to-pay in U.K. consumers?

Aim: In a series of pre-registered online studies, we aimed to elucidate the magnitude of the effect of general sustainability labels on U.K. consumers’ food choices. Methods: Four labels were displayed: ‘Sustainably sourced’, ‘Locally sourced’, ‘Environmentally friendly’, and ‘Low greenhouse gas emissions’. To ensure reliable results, contingency valuation elicitation was used alongside a novel analytical approach to provide a triangulation of evidence: Multilevel-modelling compared each label vs. no-label; Poisson-modelling compared label vs. label. Socioeconomic status, environmental awareness, health motivations, and nationalism/patriotism were included in our predictive models. Results: Exp.1 Multilevel-modelling (N = 140) showed labelled products were chosen 344% more than non-labelled and consumers were willing-to-pay ∼£0.11 more, although no difference between label types was found. Poisson-modelling (N = 735) showed consumers chose Sustainably sourced and Locally sourced labels ∼20% more often but were willing-to-pay ∼£0.03 more only for Locally sourced products. Exp.2 was a direct replication. Multilevel-modelling (N = 149) showed virtually identical results (labels chosen 344% more, willingness-to-pay ∼£0.10 more), as did Poisson-modelling (N = 931) with Sustainably sourced and Locally sourced chosen ∼20% more and willingness-to-pay ∼£0.04 more for Locally sourced products. Environmental concern (specifically the ‘propensity to act’) was the only consistent predictor of preference for labelled vs. non-labelled products. Conclusions: Findings suggest front-of-pack ‘green labels’ may yield substantive increases in consumer choice alongside relatively modest increases in willingness-to-pay for environmentally-sustainable foods. Specifically, references to ‘sustainable’ or ‘local’ sourcing may have the largest impact