Effects of 4 Interpretive Front-of-Package Labeling Systems on Hypothetical Beverage and Snack Selections
Authors: Grummon Anna H. , Gibson Laura A. , Musicus Aviva A. , Stephens-Shields Alisa J. , Hua Sophia V. , Roberto Christina A. 
Published: September 2023

ImportancePolicymakers and researchers have proposed a variety of interpretative front-of-package food labeling systems, but it remains unclear which is most effective at encouraging people to choose healthier foods and beverages, including among people with less education.ObjectiveTo test the effects of 4 interpretative front-of-package food labeling systems on the healthfulness of beverage and snack selections, overall and by education level.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis randomized clinical trial of a national sample of US adults 18 years and older was conducted online from November 16 to December 3, 2022.InterventionParticipants were randomized to view products with 1 of 5 food labeling systems, including control (calorie labels only) or 1 of 4 interpretative labeling systems: green (“choose often”) labels added to healthy foods; single traffic light labels added to healthy, moderately healthy, and unhealthy foods; physical activity calorie equivalent labels added to all products; and nutrient warning labels added to products high in calories, sugar, saturated fat, or sodium. All conditions had calorie labels on all products.Main Outcomes and MeasuresParticipants selected 1 of 16 beverages and 1 of 16 snacks that they wanted to hypothetically purchase. The primary outcomes were calories selected from beverages and from snacks. Secondary outcomes included label reactions and perceptions.ResultsA total of 7945 participants completed the experiment and were included in analyses (4078 [51%] female, 3779 [48%] male, and 88 [1%] nonbinary or another gender; mean [SD] age, 47.5 [17.9 years]). Compared with the control arm, exposure to the green (average differential effect [ADE], −34.2; 95% CI, −42.2 to −26.1), traffic light (ADE, −31.5; 95% CI, −39.5 to −23.4), physical activity (ADE, −39.0; 95% CI, −47.0 to −31.1), or nutrient warning labels (ADE, −28.2; 95% CI, −36.2 to −20.2) led participants to select fewer calories from beverages (all P &amp;lt; .001). Similarly, compared with the control label, exposure to the green (ADE, −12.7; 95% CI, −17.3 to −8.2), traffic light (ADE, −13.7; 95% CI, −18.2 to −9.1), physical activity (ADE, −18.5; 95% CI, −23.1 to −13.9), or nutrient warning labels (ADE, −14.2; 95% CI, −18.8 to −9.6) led participants to select fewer calories from snacks (all P &amp;lt; .001). These effects did not differ by education level. The green labels were rated as less stigmatizing than the other interpretative systems but otherwise generally received the least favorable label reactions and perceptions (eg, elicited less attention, were perceived as less trustworthy), while the nutrient warnings and physical activity labels received the most favorable ratings.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this randomized clinical trial of front-of-package food labeling systems, all 4 interpretative labeling systems reduced calories selected from beverages and from snacks compared with calorie labels, with no differences by education level.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05432271