Science-Based Recommendations for Front of Package Labeling. Kelly D. Brownell, Ph.D. Yale University

Transcription

1 Science-Based Recommendations for Front of Package Labeling Kelly D. Brownell, Ph.D. Yale University

2

3 DIRECTOR Kelly Brownell DEPUTY DIRECTOR Marlene Schwartz WEIGHT STIGMA Rebecca Puhl LEGAL Jennifer Pomeranz SCHOOLS Kathryn Henderson PUBLIC POLICY Roberta Friedman FOOD MARKETING Jennifer Harris ECONOMICS Tatiana Andreyeva COMMUNICATIONS Rebecca Oren

4 Recent Review Informed Food Choices: Science-Based Recommendations for a Front-of-Package Food Label Hawley, Roberto, Bragg, Liu, Schwartz, Brownell, under review

5 Meaningful Outcomes Consumer knowledge Consumer behavior Consumer s right to know Industry reformulation

6 Which Current System Has the Most Support? Multiple Traffic Light Better ratings of healthfulness Better choices of two products

7 Key FOP Questions What should be on a FOP label? Calories per serving Daily caloric requirements Specific nutrient levels with high/medium/low text Nutrients associated with key health problems Total calories in products consumed in one sitting What should not be on a FOP label? Too much information Percentages Health phrases or exercise information

8 More FOP Questions Label size & placement Prominent Displayed on top-right Applicable to most products Is an information campaign needed? Yes Some people do not understand colors Symbols not clear to some (e.g., Choices)

9 A Key FOP Question Will industry reformulate? Yes Pick the Tick (New Zealand) 33 fewer tons of salt over a year Trans fat decline in US Changes in the Netherlands after Choices

10 Test of Different FOP Labels Study Design: Internet Survey Chose Between Two Products Evaluated Individual Products Saw PSA Announcement Randomized to 1 of 5 Conditions

11 Public Service Announcement

12 Four FOP Labels Tested MTL MTL with Daily Calorie Info MTL with Specific Problem Nutrients Choices Symbol

13 Which Product is Healthier? versus versus

14 Rate Individual Products Health Taste Intent to Buy Amount of Specific Nutrients Calories per Serving

15 Products Selected from 8 Categories Beverages Breads & Grains Cereals Condiments & Dressings Desserts Fats, Oils & Spreads Snacks Soups

16 Product Selection Compared both known and unknown brands (from UK or Canada) Chose clear and ambiguous comparisons Based right answer on NPM scores vs vs vs vs

17 Preliminary Results Study Sample: 379 Participants No significant demographic differences

18 Total Number of Correct Healthier Product Selections Label conditions differ significantly One-way ANOVA, post-hoc Scheffe F(4,372)=8.24, p=.000, η p2 =.081 Findings hold when controlling for BMI, Income, Race/Ethnicity, Age, Gender F(4,323)=14.69, p=.000, η p2 =.154

19 Post-Hoc Comparisons On Total # Correct p =.016 Choices Symbol Mean (SE.212) No Label Mean (SE.211) p =.000 p =.000 MTL Mean (SE.211) MTL with Daily Calorie Info Mean (SE.215) p =.296 MTL with Problem Nutrients Mean (SE.209)

20 Other Significant Comparisons MTL with Daily Calorie Info Mean (SE.215) p =.009 Choices Symbol Mean (SE.212) MTL with Daily Calorie Info Mean (SE.215) p =.000 MTL with Problem Nutrients Mean (SE.209) MTL with Daily Calorie Info Mean (SE.215) No Sig Diff MTL Mean (SE.211)

21 Cranberry vs. Orange Juice BEST Χ 2 (4) = 13.82, p =.008

22 Aunt Hattie s Potato Bread vs. Kingsmill 50/50 Bread BEST Χ 2 (4) = 17.55, p =.002

23 Mini Wheats vs. Cheerios BEST Χ 2 (4) = 29.50, p =.000

24 Frosted Shredded Wheat vs. Toasted Whole Wheat Flakes BEST Χ 2 (4) = 34.67, p =.000

25 Conclusions Multiple traffic light helped consumers make healthier choices Daily calorie info helps in some cases Data collected on labels influence of health, nutrient levels & taste perceptions and intent to buy Analyses forthcoming

26 Additional Studies Internet-Based Surveys Same survey with larger, more representative sample & more products Test Other Labels 6 Nutrients Calorie Information Only Indicator of Carb Quality and/or Fat Quality

27 Other Current Studies Lab-Based Study Testing FOP Labels on 20 oz Soda How do labels on soda bottles affect the amount people pour and drink? 100 Calories per Serving, 2.5 Servings per Bottle 240 Calories per Bottle 16 Teaspoons of Sugar 100 Calories per Serving & Serving Size Lines on Bottle

28 Context & Alerts Proceeding with imperfect data Industry inevitabilities

29 JAMA, 2009

30 Risks of Acting Prematurely Damage credibility Move down wrong path Use resources unwisely Unintended consequences

31 Risks of Inaction Policy makers turn elsewhere Scientists seen as indecisive Gateway opportunities missed The window closes

32 Involve Industry? Clear conflicts of interest Protect business as usual Seek weak or confusing standards

33 Involve Industry? Oppose eat less labels

34 Undermining FOP With Health Claims

35

36 Smart Choices Case Study

37

38 How Smart Were Smart Choices? How many Smart Choices products are healthy based on Nutrient Profile Model? Scored 100 Smart Choices products

39 Results 64% did not meet NPM criteria

40 Impact of Smart Choices Symbol Recruited for Consumer Market Cereal Research (n = 217) Focus group guise Randomized to 3 different labels Ate cereal with milk for breakfast

41 Test of Smart Choices Symbol No Label

42 Results Smart Choices boxes perceived as healthier No differences in perceptions of taste or intention to buy Those with labeled cereal boxes were more accurate at recalling calories per serving information No difference in amount of cereal poured or eaten

43 Conclusions Label = healthier product Did not affect taste expectation Increased knowledge Knowledge & consumption can diverge

44 Key Dates Critical NY Times article Conn. Atty General Investigation FDA Call Smart Choices Closed Down Sept 4, 2009 Oct 14, 2009 Oct 20, 2009 Oct 23, 2009

45

46 EU Lobbing Against Traffic Lights 1 Billion Euros

47