Plain language summary
Nutrition labelling on the front of packaged food is a policy tool to help promote healthier food choices. Current research on the effectiveness of package labelling food-purchasing behaviour is both limited and mixed in results. The aim of this large-scale randomised trial was to compare Australia's new Health Star Rating (HSR) with five other front-of-pack labelling schemes with a focus on usability and impact on food choices. The 1578 participants were randomised to one of six experimental groups or the control group and food purchases were tracked by a smartphone application for four weeks. This study demonstrated that the HSR system was as good as other front-of-pack labelling schemes in many outcomes, and superior in terms of usefulness, however there was no evidence to show HSR improved food purchasing behaviour. Based on these results, the authors conclude that various package labelling systems are effective and HSR is one they would recommend.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Front-of-pack nutrition labelling may support healthier packaged food purchases. Australia has adopted a novel Health Star Rating (HSR) system, but the legitimacy of this choice is unknown. OBJECTIVE To define the effects of different formats of front-of-pack labelling on the healthiness of food purchases and consumer perceptions. DESIGN Individuals were assigned at random to access one of four different formats of nutrition labelling-HSR, multiple traffic light labels (MTL), daily intake guides (DIG), recommendations/warnings (WARN)-or control (the nutrition information panel, NIP). Participants accessed nutrition information by using a smartphone application to scan the bar-codes of packaged foods, while shopping. The primary outcome was healthiness defined by the mean transformed nutrient profile score of packaged foods that were purchased over four weeks. RESULTS The 1578 participants, mean age 38 years, 84% female recorded purchases of 148,727 evaluable food items. The mean healthiness of the purchases in the HSR group was non-inferior to MTL, DIG, or WARN (all p < 0.001 at 2% non-inferiority margin). When compared to the NIP control, there was no difference in the mean healthiness of purchases for HSR, MTL, or DIG (all p > 0.07), but WARN resulted in healthier packaged food purchases (mean difference 0.87; 95% confidence interval 0.03 to 1.72; p = 0.04). HSR was perceived by participants as more useful than DIG, and easier to understand than MTL or DIG (all p < 0.05). Participants also reported the HSR to be easier to understand, and the HSR and MTL to be more useful, than NIP (all p < 0.03). CONCLUSIONS These real-world data align with experimental findings and provide support for the policy choice of HSR. Recommendation/warning labels warrant further exploration, as they may be a stronger driver of healthy food purchases.
Methodological quality
Allocation concealment
:
Yes
