The US Food and Drug Administration recently revealed that it is considering modifying the Nutrition Facts Panels required on packaged foods. One proposed change is increasing serving sizes included on labels, which has two potential implications. Larger serving sizes could increase consumption if consumers use the serving sizes displayed as a reference point for their own consumption (McFerran et al., 2010). Alternatively, larger serving sizes that depict increased values of negative nutrients (e.g. calories) could lead consumers to perceive foods as less healthy, thereby reducing consumption (Russo et al., 1986). In study 1 (Online sample, N = 208, Mage = 32, SDage = 12), participants saw pictures of packaged food items and nutrition labels. The labels, depicted either the existing or larger serving size. Across all foods, larger serving sizes led to lower health perceptions. Labels with larger serving sizes were rated as more representative of typical consumption. Study 2 (Online sample, N = 347, Mage = 31, SDage = 10) used the same design as study 1, but required participants to virtually portion foods. While serving sizes did not impact the amount of food consumers portioned, those who saw labels with larger serving sizes estimated that they portioned out more calories. In study 3 (Student sample, N = 198, Mage = 20, SDage = 1), participants were given M&Ms to eat, paired with a nutritional label depicting either the current or a larger serving size, while participating in unrelated surveys. Participants presented with the larger serving size label consumed less than those presented with the current serving size label. Together, the results suggest that the proposed increase in serving sizes on Nutrition Facts Panels could lower consumption of high-calorie foods.
The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of nutritional labelling on energy intake, appetite perceptions and attitudes towards food. During a 10-d period, seventy normal-weight (BMI<25 kg/m2) and seventy-one obese women (BMI≥30 kg/m2) were given three meals per d under ad libitum conditions. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three experimental labelling groups in which the only difference was the label posted on lunch meal entrée: (1) low-fat label, (2) energy label (energy content of the entrée and average daily needs) and (3) no label (control). Average energy intake was calculated by weighing all foods before v. after daily consumption. Hunger and fullness perceptions were rated on visual analogue scales immediately before and after each meal. Satiety efficiency was assessed through the calculation of the satiety quotient (SQ). The appreciation and perceived healthiness of the lunch entrées were rated on eight-point Likert scales. There was no difference in energy intake, SQ and attitudes towards food between the three labelling groups. Fasting hunger perception was higher in the low-fat label group compared with the two others groups (P=0·0037). No interactions between labelling groups and BMI categories were observed. In conclusion, although labelling does not seem to influence energy intake, a low-fat label may increase women’s fasting hunger perceptions compared with an energy label or no label.
Research has shown that the bigger the portion that people are served, the more food they eat; this phenomenon is referred to as the portion-size effect. Providing objective serving-size information on food products has been shown to reduce the influence of external food cues on people's eating behavior. The current study examined whether providing objective serving-size information would also reduce the portion-size effect. 100 female participants were served either a small or large portion of pizza in the context of a taste test. The large portion was either unlabeled, labeled as "Contains 2 servings," or labeled as "Contains 4 servings." Food intake was lower when the large portion was labeled "Contains 4 servings" compared to when it was labeled "Contains 2 servings." Moreover, participants' intake in the large portion/4 servings condition was statistically similar to the intake of participants in the small portion condition. Thus, the standard portion-size effect was observed when the large portion was unlabeled or was labeled as "Contains 2 servings," but not when the large portion was labeled as "Contains 4 servings". These findings suggest that providing serving-size information can reduce the portion-size effect, but that the specific content (and not just the presence) of serving-size information is important in determining food intake.
Healthier meal selections at restaurants and canteens are often limited and not actively promoted. In this Danish study the effectiveness of a healthy labelling certification program in improving dietary intake and influencing edible plate waste was evaluated in a quasi-experimental study design. Employees from an intervention worksite canteen and a matched control canteen were included in the study at baseline (February 2012), after completing the certification process (end-point) and six month from end-point (follow-up) (total n=270). In order to estimate nutrient composition of the consumed lunch meals and plate waste a validated digital photographic method was used combining estimation of food intake with food nutrient composition data. Food satisfaction was rated by participants using a questionnaire. Several significant positive nutritional effects were observed at the intervention canteen including a mean decrease in energy density in the consumed meals from 561kJ/100g at baseline to 368 and 407kJ/100g at end-point and follow-up, respectively (P<0.001). No significant changes were seen with regard to food satisfaction and plate waste. In the control canteen no positive nutritional effects were observed. The results of the study highlight the potential of using healthy labelling certification programs as a possible driver for increasing both the availability and awareness of healthy meal choices, thereby improving dietary intake when eating out.
The goal of the current study was to determine whether provision of brand and caloric information affects sensory perception and consumption of a food in restrained (n=84) and unrestrained eaters (n=104). Using a between-subjects 2 × 2 × 3 design, female restrained and unrestrained eaters were asked to taste and rate a cookie that was labeled with a brand associated with healthful eating (Kashi(®)) or one associated with unhealthful eating (Nabisco(®)). Additionally, some participants were presented with a nutrition label alongside the brand name indicating that one serving contained 130 calories (Low-Calorie Condition), or 260 calories (High-Calorie Condition). The remaining participants were not shown a nutrition label (No Label Condition). Results indicated that those in the No Label or the High-Calorie Condition perceived the healthful branded cookie to have a better flavor than those who received the unhealthful branded cookie regardless of their restraint status. However, restrained eaters in the No Label Condition consumed more of the healthful than the unhealthful branded cookie, whereas those in the Low-Calorie Condition consumed more of the unhealthful than the healthful branded cookie. In contrast, unrestrained eaters ate more of the healthful branded cookie regardless of the caloric information provided. Thus, although restrained and unrestrained eaters' perceptions are similarly affected by branding and caloric information, brands and caloric information interact to affect restrained eaters' consumption. This study reveals that labeling foods as low calorie may create a halo effect which may lead to over-consumption of these foods in restrained eaters.
BACKGROUND: Food consumed outside the home accounts for a growing proportion of the North American diet and has been associated with increased obesity.
PURPOSE: To examine the effect of nutrition labeling on menus on awareness, use, and food consumption, including the impact of "traffic light" labeling and adding other nutrients.
METHODS: Blinded, randomized trial with 635 Canadian adults conducted in 2010-2011. Participants ordered a free meal from one of four experimental menus: 1) no nutritional information shown, 2) calorie amounts only, 3) calorie amounts in "traffic lights", and 4) calorie, fat, sodium, and sugar shown in "traffic lights". Recall of nutrition information, knowledge of calorie content and nutrient consumption were assessed.
RESULTS: Participants in the calorie conditions were more likely to recall the calorie content of meals and to report using nutrition information when ordering. The calorie content of meals was not significantly different across conditions; however, calorie consumption was significantly lower among participants in the Calorie-only condition compared to the No information condition (mean=-96 kcal, p=.048).
CONCLUSIONS: Menu labeling increased awareness and use of nutrition information and reduced consumption. Adding "traffic lights", fat, sodium, and sugar amounts to menus had little impact compared to calorie-only labeling.
The US Food and Drug Administration recently revealed that it is considering modifying the Nutrition Facts Panels required on packaged foods. One proposed change is increasing serving sizes included on labels, which has two potential implications. Larger serving sizes could increase consumption if consumers use the serving sizes displayed as a reference point for their own consumption (McFerran et al., 2010). Alternatively, larger serving sizes that depict increased values of negative nutrients (e.g. calories) could lead consumers to perceive foods as less healthy, thereby reducing consumption (Russo et al., 1986). In study 1 (Online sample, N = 208, Mage = 32, SDage = 12), participants saw pictures of packaged food items and nutrition labels. The labels, depicted either the existing or larger serving size. Across all foods, larger serving sizes led to lower health perceptions. Labels with larger serving sizes were rated as more representative of typical consumption. Study 2 (Online sample, N = 347, Mage = 31, SDage = 10) used the same design as study 1, but required participants to virtually portion foods. While serving sizes did not impact the amount of food consumers portioned, those who saw labels with larger serving sizes estimated that they portioned out more calories. In study 3 (Student sample, N = 198, Mage = 20, SDage = 1), participants were given M&Ms to eat, paired with a nutritional label depicting either the current or a larger serving size, while participating in unrelated surveys. Participants presented with the larger serving size label consumed less than those presented with the current serving size label. Together, the results suggest that the proposed increase in serving sizes on Nutrition Facts Panels could lower consumption of high-calorie foods.
