Guideline Daily Amounts Research Articles

Guideline Daily Amount (GDA) outperforms Nutri-Score in assessing healthiness. Case study with breakfast cereals

AbstractNutritional information on packaging is becoming increasingly important in the food industry. Currently, labels are seen not only on the back of the packaging but also on the front. As there are many versions of front-of-pack labels (FoPLs), the research aims to determine which helps consumers the most in making decisions about which food to include in a healthier lifestyle. Nutri-Score, Guideline Daily Amount (GDA) and Multiple Traffic Lights (MTL) FoPLs on cereals were compared using eye-tracking (ET) and choice-based conjoint analysis (CBCA). CBCA was used to assess consumer preferences and the labels and products were also ranked. Based on the results, GDA type FoPL proved to be the most useful based on conjoint analysis, ranking and the analysis of ET parameters. This label helped participants the most in choosing the product that best fits into a healthier lifestyle. The Nutri-Score label, which offers little information on a product's nutritional content, was not favourably received by the Hungarian sample, who preferred more detailed FoP labels.

Impact of nutrient warning labels on Colombian consumers' selection and identification of food and drinks high in sugar, sodium, and saturated fat: A randomized controlled trial.

This study assessed the impact of nutrient warnings on product selection and ability to identify food products high in nutrients of concern in Colombia. In an online experiment (May-June 2023), Colombian adults were randomized to a nutrient warning, guideline daily amounts (GDA), Nutri-Score, or no-label condition (n = 8,004). Participants completed selection tasks between two fruit drinks labeled according to their condition, one high in sugar and one not. Next, participants answered questions about products high in sugar, sodium, and/or saturated fat ("high-in" product). Finally, they selected which label would most discourage them from consuming a high-in product. Fewer participants (17%) exposed to the nutrient warning indicated they would purchase the high-sugar fruit drink compared to Nutri-Score (27%, Holm-adjusted (adj) p<0.001) and no label conditions (31%, adj p<0.001); there were no differences between the nutrient warning and GDA label (14%, adj p = 0.087). Compared to the nutrient warning, the GDA label was slightly more effective at helping consumers identify which drink was high in sugar (89% versus 92%, adj p<0.001), while the Nutri-Score and no-label conditions were less effective. Compared to all other conditions, nutrient warnings were more effective at helping participants identify that products were high in nutrients of concern, were more effective at decreasing intentions to purchase these high-in products and were perceived as more effective. Nutrient warnings were most often selected as the label that most discouraged consumption. Nutrient warnings are a promising policy to help consumers identify and discourage consumption of products high in nutrients of concern. Trial Registration: NCT05783726.

Effects of front-of-package nutrition labelling systems on objective understanding and purchase intention in Panama: results from a multi-arm parallel-group randomised controlled trial.

To assess the effect of different front-of-package labelling (FOPL) schemes on the objective understanding of the nutritional content and intention to purchase products, in Panama. Single-blinded multi-arm parallel-group randomised controlled trial. Supermarkets across Panama. Participants were exposed to two-dimensional images of fifteen mock-up products presented at random and balanced orders. Participants assigned to the intervention groups were exposed to mock-ups featuring one FOPL scheme: black octagonal warning labels (OWL), traffic-light labelling (TFL) or guideline daily amounts (GDA). The control group was not exposed to any FOPL scheme. Adult supermarket shoppers (n 1200). Participants were blinded to group assignment. A similar number of participants were randomised and analysed in each group: OWL (n 300), TFL (n 300), GDA (n 300) and control (n 300). The odds of choosing to purchase the least harmful or none of the options more often was the highest in the OWL group. Compared with the control group, these odds were two times higher in the OWL group (OR 2·13, 95 % CI 1·60, 2·84) and 57 % higher in the TFL (1·57, 1·40-2·56), with no changes in the GDA (0·97, 0·73-1·29). OWL also resulted in the highest odds for correctly identifying the least harmful option and for correctly identifying a product with excessive amounts of sugars, sodium and/or saturated fats. OWL performed best in helping shoppers to correctly identify when a product contained excessive amounts of nutrients of concern, to correctly identify the least harmful option and to decide to purchase the least harmful or none of the options, more often.

Sociodemographic differences in nutrition labels effect on Chilean and Mexican youth.

To examine sociodemographic differences in the awareness, understanding, use and effect of nutrition labels among Mexican and Chilean youth. Online surveys among youth (10-17 years) were obtained in 2019 (n=2631). Participants reported their awareness, understanding, and use of their country-specific nutrition facts tables (NFT) and front-of-pack labels (FOPL) (Chile: warning labels [WLs]; Mexico: guideline daily amounts [GDA]). Additionally, participants reported their perceived healthfulness of a sweetened fruit drink after viewing one of six versions of it with different FOPL (no-label control, Health Star Rating, WLs, GDAs, Traffic Light, or Nutri-Score) during an experimental task. Higher self-reported nutrition knowledge was associated with higher NFT and FOPL awareness, understanding, and use, except for WL use. WLs were the most effective FOPL in decreasing the perceived healthfulness of the sweetened fruit drink compared to a no-label condition and other FOP labels. In Chile, the effect of GDA differed by income adequacy, while in Mexico Nutri-Score differed by age. Results suggest that nutrition label awareness, use, understanding, and impact differ across demographics, favoring higher income and nutrition knowledge. Despite this, WLs are likely to have a positive impact on nutrition-related knowledge and behaviors among Mexican and Chilean youth, independently of their socio-demographic groups.

The Effect of Nutrition Label Type and Consumer Characteristics on the Identification of Healthy Foods in Finland

Front-of-package (FOP) nutrition labels are gaining importance as healthy eating nudge. As a European Union-wide FOP system is under discussion, it is important to examine the understanding of FOPs in various European countries. This study investigates consumer understanding of four FOPs (Heart Symbol, Keyhole, Nutri-Score, Guideline Daily Amounts) and associated consumer characteristics (age, gender, household income, health interest, unhealthy = tasty belief, environmental concern in food choice) in Finland. In an online experiment, 2428 participants ranked products (yoghurt or granola) according to healthiness first without, then with a randomized FOP. Heart Symbol appeared as the most efficient FOP in nutritional assessment of yoghurts. In granolas, Heart Symbol and Nutri-Score performed equally. FOPs were less helpful for older consumers in both product categories and for men in yoghurts. There is a connection between FOP understanding and consumer attitudes. The results contribute to public policy and food industry in FOP implementation.

Consumer preference for nutrition front-of-pack-label formats in India: Evidence from a large-scale experimental survey

Global policy discourse emphasizes placing front-of-pack nutrition labels (FOPLs) on packaged foods, but debates continue to rage on the appropriate format. There are two key types of label formats, summary and informative. In developing countries, with mixed to low levels of education, it is advised that FOPLs need to be easily identifiable, understandable, and can influence purchase decisions. In this context, we tested the suitability of five FOPL formats in India through a randomized experimental design survey. Respondents were allocated to different groups representing the FOPLs and controls. A 15-treatment and 1 control cell between-subjects design was used for the study. Surveys were conducted on the field through face-to-face interactions with a total of 20,564 participants from all over India across regions, genders, age groups, and education levels. The results, which were validated using sub-sample tests, suggest that summary formats of Health Star Ratings and Warning Labels ranked higher on ease of identification and understanding and were also able to influence purchase intentions as compared to informative labels such as Multiple Traffic Lights, monochrome Guideline Daily Amounts, and Nutriscore. Our analysis reveals that summary FOPLs are more useful in influencing healthier food choices as compared to informative FOPL formats. The study's insights can help regulators design a policy that empowers consumers and nudges food brands toward healthier product reformulations.

Front-of-package label in Brazil: Comparison of guideline daily amounts, traffic-light and warning systems

Chronic non-communicable diseases (NCDs) are considered a global public health problem related to dietary factors. In this sense, front-of-package (FOP) labeling is a valuable tool to help consumers assess food products’ composition and make healthier choices. The mandatory FOP labeling adoption process in Brazil was initiated in 2014 and ended in 2020. This work aims to evaluate consumer’s perception and preference towards three different FOP label systems (Guideline Daily Amounts (GDA), Traffic-Light (TL), and Triangular Warnings (TW)) and identify which one is more effective in improving consumer’s understanding. An online survey with 1671 participants was conducted with a nutrient quiz, a healthiest product quiz, and questions about perception and preference. Data were analyzed using chi-square tests, analysis of variance, and logistic regression. TL performed better on the nutrient quiz than GDA. On the healthiest product quiz, TL and TW had a higher rate of correct answers. GDA was considered helpful in deciding which product to buy. TL was considered easy and quick to understand. TW was considered incomplete but helpful in deciding which product to buy. TL was the preferred label, followed by GDA and TW. The evidence from the present study highlights TL and TW’s potential to help consumers understand the products’ nutritional profile. However, any FOP label implementation must be accompanied by educational campaigns to ensure the population can understand and use it effectively.

Awareness, use and understanding of nutrition labels among children and youth from six countries: findings from the 2019 – 2020 International Food Policy Study

BackgroundNutrition facts tables (NFTs) on pre-packaged foods are widely used but poorly understood by consumers. Several countries have implemented front-of-package labels (FOPLs) that provide simpler, easier to use nutrition information. In October 2020, Mexico revised its FOPL regulations to replace industry-based Guideline Daily Amount (GDA) FOPLs with ‘Warning’ FOPLs, which display stop signs on foods high in nutrients of concern, such as sugar and sodium. This study examined self-reported awareness, use, and understanding of NFTs and FOPLs among young people in six countries with different FOPLs, with an additional focus on changes before and after implementation of Mexico’s FOPL warning policy.MethodsA ‘natural experiment’ was conducted using ‘pre-post’ national surveys in Mexico and five separate comparison countries: countries with no FOPL policy (Canada and the US), countries with voluntary FOPL policies (Traffic Lights in the UK and Health Star Ratings in Australia), and one country (Chile) with mandatory FOPL ‘warnings' (like Mexico). Population-based surveys were conducted with 10 to 17-year-olds in 2019 (n = 10,823) and in 2020 (n = 11,713). Logistic regressions examined within- and between-countries changes in self-reported awareness, use, and understanding of NFTs and FOPLs.ResultsAcross countries, half to three quarters of respondents reported seeing NFTs ‘often’ or ‘all the time’, approximately one quarter reported using NFTs when deciding what to eat or buy, and one third reported NFTs were ‘easy to understand’, with few changes between 2019 and 2020. In 2020, awareness, use and self-reported understanding of the Warning FOPLs in Mexico were higher than for NFTs in all countries, and compared with GDA FOPLs in Mexico (p < .001). Mandated Warning FOPLs in Mexico and Chile had substantially higher levels of awareness, use, and understanding than the voluntary Traffic Lights in the UK and Health Star Ratings in Australia (p < .001 for all).ConclusionsMandated easy-to-understand FOPLs are associated with substantially greater levels of self-reported awareness, use and understanding at the population-level compared to NFT and GDA-based labeling systems.

How do front-of-package labels influence the healthy evaluation of consumers?

PurposeThis study aims to examine the effects of front-of-package (FoP) labels on the healthy evaluation of Peruvian consumers. This relationship was examined in cases where snacks were healthy and unhealthy. In addition, the study included the role of three consumer purchase objectives (i.e. hedonic, healthy and weight loss) and two types of consumers (high and low use of labelling) in the healthy evaluation.Design/methodology/approachThe sample consisted of 628 Peruvian youngsters aged between 16 and 24 years who frequently consume processed food. The research panel “QueOpinas” oversaw the recruitment of the participants through social media and television. Four types of FoP labels were studied in depth: Nutritional Warnings, Monochrome Guideline Daily Amount (GDA), Polychrome Guideline Daily Amount (GDA-Semaphore) and Traffic Light Labelling. A paired sample t-test and MANOVA were performed to evaluate the research objectives.FindingsThe GDA FoP label was found to be insufficient to promote a healthy evaluation. In contrast, the Nutritional Warnings and GDA-Semaphore and Traffic Light FoP labels had a significant and positive effect on the healthy evaluation of the snacks at a 95% confidence level. However, a comparative analysis of the labels revealed that some can be more efficient than others in promoting healthy purchase decisions. For the nutritional warnings (NWs) and traffic light FoP labels, the results revealed that consumers better distinguish unhealthy and healthy cereal bars when these products display traffic light labels.Originality/valueThis research topic has not been investigated in Peru and relevant research in this region is still incipient. In addition, the findings are important for policymakers as the findings will be able to implement specific labelling systems that will help consumers make healthier choices and support the debate about the effectiveness of the main FoP systems.

Guideline Daily Amounts Versus Nutri-Score Labeling: Perceptions of Greek Consumers About Front-of-Pack Label.

Nutritioninformation is becoming more urgent than ever so that consumers can make informed choices when buying food. This study aimed to investigate consumers' perceptions and behavior of the front-of-pack label (FOPL), between two specific labeling systems, the Nutri-Score and the Guideline Daily Amounts (GDA). This is a post hoc analysis of data from a previous, more extensive cross-sectional study conducted from April 2021 to June 2021. A total of 510 participants were included in the study, of whom 49.6% were women. Participants' perceptions were assessed in nine questions on a five-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree). Multivariate variance analysis (MANOVA) was performed to test the effects of the label GDA vs. Nutri-Score on the overall positive and negative perceptions. We found that the Nutri-Score label was significantly more understandable (p=0.003), clear, visible, and preferable (p<0.001) than the GDA label, which required more time to be understood. The findings indicate that the interpretive label, Nutri-Score, was superior to the non-interpretive label GDA, in terms of consumers' perception, more visibility, less time-consuming, and reliability. The FOPL can improve the ability of consumers in Greece to understand the healthfulness of food products.

A five-country study of front- and back-of-package nutrition label awareness and use: patterns and correlates from the 2018 International Food Policy Study.

This study aimed to identify correlates of nutrition label awareness and use, particularly subgroup differences among consumers. Two label types were assessed: (1) nutrition facts tables (NFt) in Australia, Canada, Mexico, UK, and USA and (2) front-of-package (FOP) labels, including mandatory Guideline Daily Amounts (Mexico), voluntary Health Star Ratings (Australia) and voluntary Traffic Lights (UK). Respondents were recruited using Nielsen Consumer Insights Global Panel (n 21 586) and completed online surveys in November-December 2018. Linear regression and generalised linear mixed models examined differences in label use and awareness between countries and label type based on sociodemographic, knowledge-related and dietary characteristics. Australia, Canada, Mexico, UK and USA. Adults (≥18 years). Respondents from the USA, Canada and Australia reported significantly higher NFt use and awareness than those in Mexico and the UK. Mexican respondents reported the highest level of FOP label awareness, whereas UK respondents reported the highest FOP label use. NFt use was higher among females, 'minority' ethnic groups, those with higher nutrition knowledge and respondents with 'adequate literacy' compared with those with 'high likelihood of limited literacy'. FOP label use was higher among those with a 'high likelihood of limited literacy' compared with 'adequate literacy' across countries. Lower use of mandatory Guideline Daily Amount labels compared with voluntary FOP labelling systems provides support for Mexico's decision to switch to mandatory 'high-in' warning symbols. The patterns of consumer label use and awareness across sociodemographic and knowledge-related characteristics suggest that simple FOP labels may encourage broader use across countries.

Awareness, use and understanding of nutrition labels among adults from five countries: Findings from the 2018–2020 International Food Policy Study

Few studies have compared the effects of different front-of-package label (FOPL) systems in the ‘real world’. This study assessed adults’ awareness, use and understanding of nutrition facts labels (NFLs) and nationally implemented FOPLs such as Health Star Ratings (HSR), Traffic lights, and Guideline Daily Amounts (GDAs) in five countries, including before and after implementation of Mexico’s warning FOPLs in 2020. Data were from the International Food Policy Study, an annual repeat cross-sectional study conducted in 2018-2020 among adults (N=64,032) in Australia, Canada, Mexico, the UK and the US. Self-reported awareness, use, and understanding of NFLs (in all five countries) and FOPLs (in Australia, Mexico, and UK) were assessed over time, between countries, and between NFLs and FOPLs. Most respondents in all countries reported seeing their country’s NFLs (awareness) ‘often’ or ‘all the time’ across all three years, with one third to half of respondents using NFLs ‘often’ or ‘all the time’ (Australia: 43-45%; Canada: 47-50%; Mexico: 36-39%; UK: 32-34%; US: 47-49%), and approximately one half to two thirds finding NFLs ‘easy’ or ‘very easy to understand’ (56-57%; 67-69%; 51-54%; 48-51%; 70-71%). In 2020, awareness, use and self-reported understanding of the Warning FOPLs in Mexico were highest among all countries with a FOPL (p<0.001), whereas awareness and use were lowest for Australia’s HSR (p<0.001). In countries with FOPLs, self-reported understanding was higher for FOPLs than NFLs, except for the GDA FOPL in Mexico. Only modest changes were observed over time. Warning FOPLs were associated with greater levels of self-reported awareness, use and understanding among adults compared to NFLs and GDA-based FOPLs. FOPLs implemented on a voluntary basis, such as Australia’s HSR, may be less likely to be seen and used.

Rapid review of the front‐of‐pack labelling schemes in Thailand

AbstractThailand has used front‐of‐pack labelling (FoPL) policies to support its public health objectives of improving consumer nutrition to reduce the risk of noncommunicable disease. A rapid literature review explored the current types of FoPL systems in Thailand and how they are understood by consumers. Twelve studies were included, most of which examined the mandatory Guideline Daily Amount (GDA) label. Evidence showed gaps in consumer comprehension of the GDA—consistent with international literature demonstrating the GDA is not as effective at improving identification and choice of healthier foods as interpretive labels. Thai consumers reported somewhat better comprehension when colors or text were added to the GDA. Thai stakeholders should consider supplementing or replacing the GDA with one of the newer FoPL systems shown to be more effective in other countries. More rigorous research is necessary to ensure potential FoPL schemes have intended effects among Thai consumers to inform policy action.

Perception and Understanding of Guideline Daily Amount and Warning Labeling among Mexican Adults during the Law Modification Period.

Front-of-pack labeling (FOPL) is a tool that enables consumers to compare foods and select healthier options. Due to low understanding of the Guideline Daily Amount (GDA) labeling among Mexicans, a law was implemented in October 2020 that modified the FOPL to a warning labeling (WL) system. The purpose of this study was to compare the perception and understanding of GDA and WL during the law modification period. We conducted a panel design with two measurements: (1) using GDA label (September 2020) and (2) using WL (October–November). We estimated differences in GDA vs. WL through multinomial logistic regression models and changes were measured through predictive margin contrasts and Wald tests. When comparing the same products with different labels, the participants reported that it would be unlikely/very unlikely that they would consume products packaged with the WL (81.5%; 95%CI: 79.2, 83.8) compared to those with GDA (24.2%; 95%CI: 21.7, 26.7). Consumers’ perception was that the quantities of packaged products they should consume was small or very small when they used the WL (93.8%; 95%CI: 92.4, 95.5) compared to GDA (41.6%; 95%CI: 39.7, 44.6). When comparing food groups, participants were more confident about choosing healthy products when using the WL compared to the GDA. During the implementation of WL in Mexico, the studied population had a better perception and understanding of less healthy packaged foods when using WL, compared to the GDA label.

Front-of-Package Labels on Unhealthy Packaged Foods in India: Evidence from a Randomized Field Experiment.

Policies to require front-of-package labels (FOPLs) on packaged foods may help Indian consumers to better identify foods high in nutrients of concern, including sugar, saturated fat, and sodium, and discourage their consumption, which are outcomes that are critical for preventing rises in diet-related non-communicable disease. The objective was to test whether FOPLs helped Indian consumers identify “high-in” packaged foods and reduce intentions to purchase them. We conducted an in-person randomized experiment (n = 2869 adults between ages 18 and 60 years old) in six states of India in 2022. Participants were randomized to one of five FOPLs: a control label (barcode), warning label (octagon with “High in [nutrient]”), Health Star Rating (HSR), Guideline Daily Amount (GDA), or traffic light label. Participants then viewed a series of packaged foods high in sugar, saturated fat, or sodium with the assigned FOPL, and rated product perceptions and label reactions. Fewer than half of participants in the control group (39.1%) correctly identified all products high in nutrient(s) of concern. All FOPLs led to an increase in this outcome, with the biggest differences observed for the warning label (60.8%, p < 0.001), followed by the traffic light label (54.8%, p < 0.001), GDA (55.0%, p < 0.001), and HSR (45.0%, p < 0.01). While no FOPLs led to a reduction in intentions to purchase the packaged foods, the overall pattern of results suggested that warning labels are the most effective FOPL to help Indian consumers identify unhealthy foods.

The preference for Front-of-Pack Labeling and its association with the understanding of Nutrition Facts Panel among residents aged 18 to 70: results of a survey in 6 provinces of China

Objective: To investigate the preference for Front-of-Pack Labeling (FOP) and its association with the understanding of the Nutrition Facts Panel among Chinese residents. Methods: A multi-stage sampling strategy was adopted to select 3 002 people aged between 18 and 70 years old from the eastern region of China (Beijing, Jiangsu Province, Guangdong Province), the northeast region (Heilongjiang Province), the central region (Henan Province) and the western region (Sichuan Province) from July 2020 to March 2021. Socio-demographic characteristics of participants and their understanding of the Nutrition Facts Panel and preference for FOP were collected. The χ² test was conducted to compare the preference for FOP in different groups of population, and multivariate logistic regression was used to analyze the association between the preference for FOP and the understanding of the Nutrition Facts Panel. Results: The mean age of 3 002 participants was (42.3±13.4) years, of which 1 914 (63.8%) were females and 69.3% could not understand the Nutrition Facts Panel. About 2 458 respondents (81.9%) suggested that FOP could be promoted. The top three nutrients that should be labeled were sugar (68.4%), salt (68.2%) and total fat (62.4%). The number of participants who believed that the Multiple Traffic Lights (MTL) could be easier to help consumers to quickly choose healthy food, attract attention and provide the most needed information was 1 064 (35.4%), 1 026 (34.2%) and 1 140 (38.0%), respectively. The multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that, compared with the Guideline Daily Amount (GDA) system, participants who could not understand the Nutrition Facts Panel preferred (1) Nutri-Score, Warning labels, and Health logos: Smart Choice in terms of"Which format of FOP could quickly help you choose food more easily?"[OR (95%CI): 2.21 (1.62-3.02), 1.64 (1.22-2.22), 1.79 (1.31-2.45), respectively]; (2) Nutri-Score, Warning labels, and Health logos: Smart Choice in terms of"Which format of FOP could attract your attention the most?"[OR (95%CI): 2.62 (1.92-3.59), 1.96 (1.45-2.66), 2.25 (1.66-3.04), respectively]; and (3) Nutri-Score, Warning labels, and Health logos: Smart Choice in terms of"Which format of FOP could provide you with the most needed information?"[OR (95%CI): 2.33 (1.70-3.21), 2.21 (1.66-2.95), 2.01 (1.50-2.71), respectively]. Conclusion: The residents from six provinces in China have a supportive attitude towards FOP. The interpretive FOP with color information, specific nutrient information and summary indicator can be launched. The nutrition information of sugar, salt and total fat could be prioritized to be labeled on the FOP.

Understanding of front of package nutrition labels: Guideline daily amount and warning labels in Mexicans with non-communicable diseases.

One strategy for the prevention and treatment of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) is the implementation of the front-of-pack labeling (FoPL) in foods and beverages. In 2020, Mexico adopted the warning label system (WL) as a new public health policy, whose aim is to help consumers make healthier food choices. Previously, the Guideline Daily Amount (GDA) was the labelling used it. This paper aims to compare the understanding of two FoPL, the GDA and the WL, through the identification of unhealthy products in Mexicans with NCDs. We analyzed data from 14,880 Mexican adults older than 20 years old with NCDs (overweight-obesity (OW/O), self-reported diabetes mellitus 2 (DM2), or/and hypertension (HT), or/and dyslipidemia (Dys)). Participants were randomly assigned to one of two groups: the GDA labeling or WL. Each group had to respond to a survey and had to classify food products images as healthy or unhealthy according to the labelling system to which they were assigned. The correct classification was determined according to the criteria of Chile’s labeling nutrient profile stage 3. To evaluate the correct classification in each one of the groups we evaluated the differences in proportions. Logistic regression models were used to assess the likelihood to correctly classify the product according to participants’ number of diseases and WL information, taking GDA label as a reference. Participants who used the information contained in the GDA label misclassified food product labels in greater proportion (70%), mostly participants with three or more NCDs (participants with OW/O+ HT+ Dys, represent 42.3% of this group); compared with those who used WL (50%). The odds of correct classification of food products using WL image were two times greater compared to GDA image in participants with NCDs; being greater in participants with three or more NCDs. The study results highlight the usefulness of WL as it helps Mexicans with NCDs to classify unhealthy food products more adequately compared with GDA.

Effects of food nutrition labels on the health awareness of school-age children

BackgroundOverweight and obesity have been described as a global epidemic that seriously affects the health of adults and children. Front of Package (FOP) Nutrition Labeling can increase consumers’ awareness of unhealthy foods. The purpose of this study is to find effective deterrence and improve children’s health awareness via the FOP.MethodsThis study examined children’s health awareness of snack packaging using the four labels: guideline daily amounts (GDA), traffic light system (TLS), Apple label (designed in this study), and Warning label. This study recruited 343 children in the sixth grade, including 223 children living in cities and 120 children living in rural areas. First, 30 children in grades 3 to 6 selected 8 snacks that they often buy. Then, each snack was synthesized into these four labels according to their nutritional content for a total of 32 samples. Finally, a questionnaire was used to evaluate the health of snack packaging and the visibility of nutrition labels.ResultsFour results can be drawn: (1) GDA, Apple label and TLS can help children determine healthier snack choices, (2) black Warning label cannot induce children to make healthier choices, (3) children who often buy snacks have low health awareness, and (4) rural children have weak health awareness of snack packaging.ConclusionsThese results can provide a packaging label design, which can effectively improve children’s health awareness.

Correlates of Self-Reported and Functional Understanding of Nutrition Labels across 5 Countries in the 2018 International Food Policy Study

BackgroundNutrition labels on prepackaged foods are an important source of nutrition information; however, differences in comprehension of varying label formats can limit their use and effectiveness. ObjectivesThis study examined levels and correlates of consumers’ self-reported understanding of Nutrition Facts tables (NFts) and front-of-package (FOP) labels, as well as functional NFt understanding. MethodsAdults (≥18 y) in Australia (n = 3901), Canada (n = 4107), Mexico (n = 4012), the United Kingdom (n = 5121), and the United States (n = 4445) completed online surveys in November/December 2018. Descriptive statistics summarized sample profiles by country. Linear regression models examined the association between label understanding (self-reported NFt and FOP, functional NFt) and consumer dietary behaviors, functional nutrition knowledge, and sociodemographic characteristics. NFt understanding was measured in all countries, with FOP labeling assessed only in Mexico, Australia, and the United Kingdom. ResultsSelf-reported and functional NFt understanding was significantly higher in the United States and Canada (P < 0.0001). In adjusted analyses, functional NFt understanding was significantly higher among women compared to men (P < 0.0001); respondents from the “majority” ethnic group in their respective countries compared with minority ethnic groups (P < 0.0001); those with higher education levels (P < 0.0001) and functional nutrition knowledge compared with their lower education and nutrition knowledge counterparts (P < 0.0001), respectively; and those making efforts to consume less sodium, sugar, or fat compared with those not reporting dietary efforts (P < 0.0001). Self-reported FOP label understanding was significantly higher for interpretive labeling systems in Australia (health star ratings) and the United Kingdom (traffic lights) compared with Mexico's Guideline Daily Amounts (GDAs) (P < 0.0001). ConclusionsNutrition labels requiring greater numeracy skills (i.e., NFts, GDAs) were more difficult for consumers to understand than interpretive FOP labels (i.e., traffic lights). Differences in NFt and FOP label understanding by income adequacy and education suggest potential disparities in labeling policy effects among vulnerable subgroups.

Comparison of healthfulness of conventional meats and edible insects in Sub-Saharan Africa using three nutrient profiling models

BackgroundMeat and meat products have been blamed for a myriad of problems facing human kind like lifestyle illnesses, environmental degradation, and climate change. Edible insects have been suggested as the suitable alternatives to conventional meats in order to ameliorate these drawbacks. Healthfulness is the ability for a given food to impart health benefits to the consumer. Evidence is however scanty on the healthfulness of both the meats and edible insects in order to have grounds for replacing meats with insects in the diet. This study aimed to comparatively evaluate the healthfulness of meats and edible insects in Sub-Saharan Africa using modern nutrient profiling models.Materials and methodsNutritional data for meats and edible insects were obtained from Food Composition Tables (FCTs) and a systematic review, respectively. The data was applied to three nutrient profiling models: the WXYfm (Ofcom) model that was designed to regulate advertising of foods to children, the RRR (Ratio of Recommended to Restricted) model that assesses the ratio of positive to negative nutrients in foods, and the GDA (Guideline Daily Amounts) model which has been used to regulate health claims on foods. Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test (The SAS System) was used to check for significance in differences of healthfulness using mean scores.ResultsThe WXYfm model classified all foods as healthful, and Nasutitermes spp. was significantly more healthful than duck (P = 0.05). The RRR classified all foods as healthful, and Nasutitermes spp. was significantly more healthful than all other foods except Macrotermes bellicosus and tilapia (P = 0.05). Duck (for women and men) and pork (for women), were classified as unhealthful by the GDA scoring system, and duck was significantly less healthful than all other foods (P < 0.0001), except for pork and mutton.ConclusionEdible insects are promising alternatives to conventional meats, but the choice should be on a species-to-species basis. This would be significant in broadening the choice of protein sources to cater for an ever-increasing world population.