<b>BACKGROUND: </b>This study assessed the impact of kilojoule (kJ) labelling alone or accompanied by a social marketing campaign on food sales and selection of less energy-dense meals by young adults from a university food outlet.<b>METHODS: </b>There were two kJ labelling intervention phases each of five weeks: (1) kJ labelling alone (2) kJ labels with marketing materials ("8700 kJ campaign"). Food sales of labelled items were tracked during each intervention and five weeks after. Food sales during interventions were also compared with historical sales of foods in the same 10-week period in the previous year. A sub sample of young adults (n = 713; aged 19-24) were surveyed during both the interventions to assess awareness, influence, sentiment and anticipated future impact of kJ labels and the social marketing campaign respectively.<b>RESULTS: </b>There were no differences in sales between the kJ labelling with social marketing and the 5-weeks of labelling before and after. The percentage sale of chicken Caesar burger (3580 kJ, P = 0.01), steak and chips (4000 kJ, P = 0.02) and the grill burger (5500 kJ, P = 0.00) were lower in the year with menu labelling and social marketing campaign. Only 30 % students were initially aware of the kJ labels on the menu but 75 % of students were accepting of kJ labelling, after they were made aware. Respondents viewing the marketing campaign elements and then using kJ values on the menu selected meals with a lower mean energy content; constituting a reduction of 978 kJ (p < 0.01) even though the majority claimed that the 8700 kJ campaign would not impact their food choices.<b>CONCLUSIONS: </b>Point-of-purchase energy labelling may be an effective method to encourage better food choices when eating out among young adults. However, further efforts to increase awareness and provide education about energy requirements to prevent weight gain will be needed.
BACKGROUND: Despite legislation that requires restaurants to post nutritional labels on their products or menu items, the scientific literature provides inconsistent support for the idea that adding labels to foods will change buying patterns. Lack of success of previous research may be that sample sizes have been too small and durations of studies too short.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of nutrition labeling on pre-packaged food purchases in university dining facilities.
DESIGN: Weekly sales data for a sample of pre-packaged food items were obtained and analyzed, spanning three semesters before and three semesters after nutritional labels were introduced on to the sample of foods. The labels summarized caloric content and nutrient composition information. Mean nutrient composition purchased were calculated for the sample of foods. Labeled food items were categorized as high-calorie, low-calorie, high-fat, or low-fat foods and analyzed for change as a function of the introduction of the labels.
SETTING: Data were obtained from all retail dining units located at Cornell University, Ithaca, NY where the pre-packaged food items were sold.
RESULTS: Results indicated that the introduction of food labels resulted in a 7% reduction of the mean total kcals purchased per week (p < 0.001) from the labeled foods. Total fat purchased per week were also reduced by 7% (p < 0.001). Percent of sales from "low-calorie" and "low-fat" foods (p < 0.001) increased, while percent of sales from "high-calorie" and "high-fat" foods decreased (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that nutrition labels on pre-packaged foods in a large university dining hall produces a small but significant reduction of labeled high calorie and high fat foods purchased and an increase in low calorie, low fat foods.
PURPOSE: Determine the effect of menu labels displaying the energy content of food items or the exercise equivalent on energy ordered and consumed at lunch and energy intake for the remainder of the day in young adults.
DESIGN: Subjects were randomized to a menu with no labels (no-labels), menu with kilocalorie labels displaying the energy content of the food items (kcal-labels), or menu with exercise labels displaying the minutes of brisk walking needed to burn the food energy (exercise-labels).
SETTING: The study was conducted in one dining area located in a metabolic kitchen at the Texas Christian University and another located in a residence occupied by graduate students.
SUBJECTS: Of the 300 subjects, 55.7% were female, 77.3% were college students, 88% were white, and 88% were non-Hispanic. Mean body mass index and age were 24.2 ± 4.5 kg/m(2) and 21.9 ± 2.3 years, respectively.
INTERVENTION: All menus contained the same food/beverage choices. Subjects ordered and consumed foods/beverages for lunch from the menu to which they were assigned. Subjects were blinded to study purpose.
MEASURES: Energy ordered and consumed at lunch were assessed from the weight of the food ordered and consumed, respectively, and the energy content of the same foods available on the restaurant Web site. Postlunch energy intake was assessed by food recall.
ANALYSIS: Analysis of covariance, adjusted for premeal hunger levels and gender, determined the effect of menu type on energy ordered and consumed and postlunch energy intake.
RESULTS: Significant menu effect was observed for energy ordered (p = .008) and consumed (p = .04) at lunch. The exercise-labels group ordered significantly (p = .002) less energy (adjusted mean [confidence intervals]: 763 [703, 824] kcal) at lunch, compared to the no-labels group (902 [840, 963] kcal) but not compared to the kcal-labels group (827 [766, 888] kcal). The exercise-labels group also consumed significantly (p = .01) less energy (673 [620, 725] kcal) at lunch, compared to the no-labels group (770 (717, 823) kcal) but not compared to the kcal-labels group (722 [669, 776] kcal). Energy ordered and consumed were not different between kcal-labels and no-labels groups. There was no difference in postlunch energy intake by menu type.
CONCLUSION: The menu with exercise-labels resulted in less energy ordered and consumed and this did not lead to greater energy consumption post lunch, compared to the menu with no-labels in young adults largely made up of normal-weight, non-Hispanic white college students.
In 2010, the United States (US) enacted a restaurant menu labeling law. The law also applied to vending machine companies selling food. Research suggested that providing nutrition information on menus in restaurants might reduce the number of calories purchased. We tested the effect of providing nutrition information and 'healthy' designations to consumers where vending machines were located in college residence halls. We conducted our study at one university in Southeast US (October-November 2012). We randomly assigned 18 vending machines locations (residence halls) to an intervention or control group. For the intervention we posted nutrition information, interpretive signage, and sent a promotional email to residents of the hall. For the control group we did nothing. We tracked sales over 4 weeks before and 4 weeks after we introduced the intervention. Our intervention did not change what the residents bought. We recommend additional research about providing nutrition information where vending machines are located, including testing formats used to present information.
OBJECTIVE: Calorie-labeling has been suggested as an anti-obesity measure but there is no evidence for its effect, to date. Early adulthood is a critical life-cycle period for unwanted weight gain and obesity development. This study examined whether providing calorie information would help young adults to avoid weight gain.
METHODS: Using a pragmatic interrupted time-series study design, weight changes over 36 weeks were reported among two year-groups, each of 120 young adults, similar in age, gender, and ethnicity, living in fully-catered accommodation. Year 1: subjects were observed without calorie-labeling, apart from a 5-week pilot. Year 2: calorie-labeling was present prominently and consistently at main meals for 30 of the 36 weeks.
RESULTS: Mean weight changes over 36 weeks, per protocol, were +3.5 kg (95% CI = 2.8-4.1 kg) (n = 64) in Year 1 and -0.15 kg (95% CI = -0.7-0.3 kg) (n = 87) in Year 2. Weight changes were significantly different between years, for males and females (both P < 0.001). Intention-to-treat analysis showed similar results. Relative Risk for weight gain in Year 2, compared to Year 1, was 0.5 (P < 0·0001).
CONCLUSIONS: Calorie-labeling was associated with a 3.5 kg less weight gain, representing a low-cost "nudging" approach to combat the rapid weight gain seen in young adults.
OBJECTIVE: Obesity is the biggest challenge facing preventive medicine. Calorie-labelling has been suggested as a way of changing the architecture of an 'obesogenic' environment without limiting consumer choice. This study examined the effect of calorie-labelling on sales of food items at catering outlets on a city-centre university campus.
METHODS: Sales data were collected for two consecutive months in 2013 on three UK university sites (two with calorie-labelling during second month, one control) and analysed with chi-square 'Goodness-of-Fit' tests. A questionnaire seeking consumers' views and use of the calorie-labelling was administered and analysed at group-level with chi-square tests.
RESULTS: In intervention vs control sites, total sales of all labelled items fell significantly (-17% vs -2%, p<0.001) for the month with calorie-labelling. Calorie-labelling was associated with substantially reduced sales of high-calorie labelled items, without any compensatory changes in unlabelled alternative items. Among 1166 student- and 646 staff-respondents, 56% reported using the calorie-labels, 97% of them to make lower-calorie choices. More females (63%) than males (40%) reported being influenced by calorie-labels when choosing foods (p=0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence, beyond that from single-meal exposures, for the acceptability of meal calorie-labelling and its potential as an effective low-cost anti-obesity measure.
This study assessed the impact of kilojoule (kJ) labelling alone or accompanied by a social marketing campaign on food sales and selection of less energy-dense meals by young adults from a university food outlet.
METHODS:
There were two kJ labelling intervention phases each of five weeks: (1) kJ labelling alone (2) kJ labels with marketing materials ("8700 kJ campaign"). Food sales of labelled items were tracked during each intervention and five weeks after. Food sales during interventions were also compared with historical sales of foods in the same 10-week period in the previous year. A sub sample of young adults (n = 713; aged 19-24) were surveyed during both the interventions to assess awareness, influence, sentiment and anticipated future impact of kJ labels and the social marketing campaign respectively.
RESULTS:
There were no differences in sales between the kJ labelling with social marketing and the 5-weeks of labelling before and after. The percentage sale of chicken Caesar burger (3580 kJ, P = 0.01), steak and chips (4000 kJ, P = 0.02) and the grill burger (5500 kJ, P = 0.00) were lower in the year with menu labelling and social marketing campaign. Only 30 % students were initially aware of the kJ labels on the menu but 75 % of students were accepting of kJ labelling, after they were made aware. Respondents viewing the marketing campaign elements and then using kJ values on the menu selected meals with a lower mean energy content; constituting a reduction of 978 kJ (p < 0.01) even though the majority claimed that the 8700 kJ campaign would not impact their food choices.
CONCLUSIONS:
Point-of-purchase energy labelling may be an effective method to encourage better food choices when eating out among young adults. However, further efforts to increase awareness and provide education about energy requirements to prevent weight gain will be needed.
