Methodological quality of front-of-pack labeling studies: A review plus identification of research challenges

Nutrition Reviews

Volumn 70, Issue 12, 2012, Pages 709-720

  Vyth, Ellis L ^a   Steenhuis, Ingrid H M ^a   Brandt, Hella E ^a   Roodenburg, Annet J C ^b   Brug, Johannes ^c   Seidell, Jacob C ^a,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^b UNILEVER RESEARCH VLAARDINGEN   (Netherlands)

^c VU UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Front of pack label; Health outcomes; Methodological review; Study quality

Indexed keywords

CONSUMER; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; FOOD PACKAGING; HUMAN; LONGITUDINAL STUDY; METHODOLOGY; PEER REVIEW; PUBLIC HEALTH; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); REVIEW; SELF REPORT; TYPES OF STUDY;

CHOICE BEHAVIOR; FOOD LABELING; HEALTH BEHAVIOR; HEALTH PROMOTION; HUMANS; NUTRITION POLICY; OUTCOME AND PROCESS ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE);

EID: 84870503975     PISSN: 00296643     EISSN: 17534887     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1753-4887.2012.00535.x     Document Type: Review

References (51)

1. Wartella E, Lichtenstein A, Boon C. Examination of Front-of-Package Nutrition Rating Systems and Symbols: Phase I Report. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine; 2010.
2. Mhurchu CN, Gorton D. Nutrition labels and claims in New Zealand and Australia: a review of use and understanding. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2007;31:105-112.
3. Stockley L. Review of "Front of Pack" Nutrition Schemes. Brussels: European Heart Network; 2007.
4. Storcksdieck Genannt Bonsmann S, Fernandez Celemin L, Grunert KG, etal., on behalf of the FLABEL Consortium. Penetration of nutrition information on food labels across the EU-27 plus Turkey. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2010;64:1379-1385.
5. th World Health Assembly. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2004.
6. European Parliament. Provision of Food Information to Consumers. 2011; Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/labellingnutrition/foodlabelling/proposed_legislation_en.htm. Accessed 27 December 2011.
7. Van Trijp HC. Consumer understanding and nutritional communication: key issues in the context of the new EU legislation. Eur J Nutr. 2009;48(Suppl 1):S41-S48.
8. Magnusson RS. Obesity prevention and personal responsibility: the case of front-of-pack food labelling in Australia. BMC Public Health. 2010;10:662.
9. White J, Thomson G, Signal L. Front-of-pack nutrition labelling: where to now? N Z Med J. 2010;123:12-16.
10. Food and Drug Administration. News Release: FDA Seeks Comment, Information, Data on Front-of-Package Labeling and Shelf-Tag Symbols. 2010:Available at: http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm209953.htm. Accessed 17 September 2012.
11. Lytton TD. Banning front-of-package food labels: First Amendment constraints on public health policy. Public Health Nutr. 2011;14:1123-1126.
12. Nestle M, Ludwig DS. Front-of-package food labels: public health or propaganda? JAMA. 2010;303:771-772.
13. Andrews J, Burton S, Kees K. Is simpler always better? Consumer evaluations of front-of-package nutrition symbols. J Public Policy Marketing. 2011;30:175-190.
14. Balcombe K, Fraser I, Di Falco S. Traffic lights and food choice: a choice experiment examining the relationship between nutritional food labels and price. Food Policy. 2010;35:211-220.
15. Borgmeier I, Westenhoefer J. Impact of different food label formats on healthiness evaluation and food choice of consumers: a randomized-controlled study. BMC Public Health. 2009;9:184.
16. Feunekes GI, Gortemaker IA, Willems AA, etal. Front-of-pack nutrition labelling: testing effectiveness of different nutrition labelling formats front-of-pack in four European countries. Appetite. 2008;50:57-70.
17. Gorton D, Ni Mhurchu C, Chen M, etal. Nutrition labels: a survey of use, understanding and preferences among ethnically diverse shoppers in New Zealand. Public Health Nutr. 2009;12:1359-1365.
18. Kelly B, Hughes C, Chapman K, etal. Consumer testing of the acceptability and effectiveness of front-of-pack food labelling systems for the Australian grocery market. Health Promot Int. 2009;24:120-129.
19. Larsson I, Lissner L. The "Green Keyhole" nutritional campaign in Sweden: do women with more knowledge have better dietary practices? Eur J Clin Nutr. 1996;50:323-328.
20. Larsson I, Lissner L, Wilhelmsen L. The "Green Keyhole" revisited: nutritional knowledge may influence food selection. Eur J Clin Nutr. 1999;53:776-780.
21. Moser A, Hoefkens C, van Camp J, etal. Simplified nutrient labelling: consumers' perceptions in Germany and Belgium. J Consum Prot Food Saf. 2010;5:169-180.
22. Signal L, Lanumata T, Robinson J, etal. Perceptions of New Zealand nutrition labels by Maori, Pacific and low-income shoppers. Public Health Nutr. 2008;11:706-713.
23. Vyth EL, Steenhuis IHM, Mallant SF, etal. A front-of-pack nutrition logo: a quantitative and qualitative process evaluation in the Netherlands. J Health Commun. 2009;14:631-645.
24. Bialkova S, van Trijp HC. What determines consumer attention to nutrition labels? Food Qual Prefer. 2010;21:1042-1051.
25. Grunert KG, Fernández-Celemín L, Wills JM, etal. Use and understanding of nutrition information on food labels in six European countries. Z Gesundh Wiss. 2010;18:261-277.
26. Grunert KG, Wills JM, Fernandez-Celemin L. Nutrition knowledge, and use and understanding of nutrition information on food labels among consumers in the UK. Appetite. 2010;55:177-189.
27. Jones G, Richardson M. An objective examination of consumer perception of nutrition information based on healthiness ratings and eye movements. Public Health Nutr. 2007;10:238-244.
28. Rayner M, Boaz A, Higginson C. Consumer use of health-related endorsements on food labels in the United Kingdom and Australia. J Nutr Educ. 2001;33:24-30.
29. Reid RD, Slovinec D'Angelo ME, Dombrow CA, etal. The Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada's Health Check food information program: modelling program effects on consumer behaviour and dietary practices. Can J Public Health. 2004;95:146-150.
30. Steenhuis IHM, Kroeze W, Vyth EL, etal. The effects of using a nutrition logo on consumption and product evaluation of a sweet pastry. Appetite. 2010;55:707-709.
31. Visschers VH, Hess R, Siegrist M. Health motivation and product design determine consumers' visual attention to nutrition information on food products. Public Health Nutr. 2010;13:1099-1106.
32. Vyth EL, Steenhuis IHM, Vlot JA, etal. Actual use of a front-of-pack nutrition logo in the supermarket: consumers' motives in food choice. Public Health Nutr. 2010;13:1882-1889.
33. Vyth EL, Steenhuis IHM, Roodenburg AJC, etal. Front-of-pack nutrition label stimulates healthier product development: a quantitative analysis. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2010;7:65.
34. Williams P, McMahon A, Boustead R. A case study of sodium reduction in breakfast cereals and the impact of the Pick the Tick food information program in Australia. Health Promot Int. 2003;18:51-56.
35. Young L, Swinburn B. Impact of the Pick the Tick food information programme on the salt content of food in New Zealand. Health Promot Int. 2002;17:13-19.
36. Sacks G, Rayner M, Swinburn B. Impact of front-of-pack "traffic-light" nutrition labelling on consumer food purchases in the UK. Health Promot Int. 2009;24:344-352.
37. Sutherland LA, Kaley LA, Fischer L. Guiding Stars: the effect of a nutrition navigation program on consumer purchases at the supermarket. Am J Clin Nutr. 2010;91:S1090-S1094.
38. Vyth EL, Steenhuis IHM, Heymans MW, etal. Influence of placement of a nutrition logo on cafeteria menu items on lunchtime food Choices at Dutch work sites. J Am Diet Assoc. 2011;111:131-136.
39. Ireland DM, Clifton PM, Keogh JB. Achieving the salt intake target of 6g/day in the current food supply in free-living adults using two dietary education strategies. J Am Diet Assoc. 2010;110:763-767.
40. Roodenburg AJC, Schlatmann A, Dotsch-Klerk M, etal. Potential effects of nutrient profiles on nutrient intakes in the Netherlands, Greece, Spain, USA, Israel, China and South Africa. PLoS ONE. 2011;6:e14721.
41. Roodenburg AJC, Temme EHM, Howell Davies O, etal. Potential impact of the Choices Programme on nutrient intakes in the Dutch population. Nutr Bull. 2009;34:318-323.
42. Sacks G, Veerman JL, Moodie M, etal. "Traffic-light" nutrition labelling and "junk-food" tax: a modelled comparison of cost-effectiveness for obesity prevention. Int J Obes. (Lond) 2011;35:1001-1009.
43. Temme EHM, van der Voet H, Roodenburg AJC, etal. Impact of foods with health logo on saturated fat, sodium and sugar intake of young Dutch adults. Public Health Nutr. 2011;14:635-644.
44. Sirriyeh R, Lawton R, Gardner P, etal. Reviewing studies with diverse designs: the development and evaluation of a new tool. J Eval Clin Pract. 2012;18:746-752.
45. Hawkes C. Sales promotions and food consumption. Nutr Rev. 2009;67:333-342.
46. Geleijnse JM, Witteman JC, Stijnen T, etal. Sodium and potassium intake and risk of cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality: the Rotterdam Study. Eur J Epidemiol. 2007;22:763-770.
47. Grunert KG, Wills JM. A review of European research on consumer response to nutrition information on food labels. J Public Health. 2007;15:384-399.
48. Steptoe A, Pollard TM, Wardle J. Development of a measure of the motives underlying the selection of food: the Food Choice Questionnaire. Appetite. 1995;25:267-284.
49. Verhagen AP, de Vet HC, de Bie RA, etal. The art of quality assessment of RCTs included in systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2001;54:651-654.
50. Wong WC, Cheung CS, Hart GJ. Development of a quality assessment tool for systematic reviews of observational studies (QATSO) of HIV prevalence in men having sex with men and associated risk behaviours. Emerg Themes Epidemiol. 2008;5:23.
51. Ryan R, Hill S, Broclain D, etal. Cochrane Consumers and Communication Review Group: Study Quality Guide. 2011:Available at: http://www.latrobe.edu.au/chcp/assets/downloads/StudyQualityGuide_May2011.pdf. Accessed 17 September 2012.