Is purchasing of vegetable dishes affected by organic or local labels? Empirical evidence from a university canteen

Migliavada, Riccardo; Ricci, Federica Zoe; Denti, Francesco; Haghverdian, Derenik; Torri, Luisa

doi:10.1016/j.appet.2022.105995

Cited by 2 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 66 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The update of the literature search identified six studies meeting the inclusion criteria. In total, 11 studies (Biden et al, 2018; Cerezo‐Prieto & Frutos‐Esteban, 2021; Cinciripini, 1984; Feldman et al, 2015; Migliavada et al, 2022; Mora‐García et al, 2019; Oliveira et al, 2018; Roy & Alassadi, 2020; Seward et al, 2016; Sogari et al, 2019; Vermote et al, 2020) were included. Three studies reported the results from two different interventions, giving a total of 14 interventions.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Of the included studies, four were conducted in the United States (Cinciripini, 1984; Feldman et al, 2015; Seward et al, 2016; Sogari et al, 2019), one in Brazil (Oliveira et al, 2018), one in Colombia (Mora‐García et al, 2019), one in Canada (Biden et al, 2018), one in Belgium (Vermote et al, 2020), one in New Zealand (Roy & Alassadi, 2020), one in Italy (Migliavada et al, 2022) and one in Spain (Cerezo‐Prieto & Frutos‐Esteban, 2021) (Table 3). Thus, the results of this review mainly reflect the behaviours of university students in North and South America and Europe.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Only one study had a strong quality (Oliveira et al, 2018) ( n = 1; 9%) and five had moderate quality (Cerezo‐Prieto & Frutos‐Esteban, 2021; Feldman et al, 2015; Migliavada et al, 2022; Roy & Alassadi, 2020; Vermote et al, 2020) ( n = 5; 45.5%). All other studies were classified as having weak quality (Biden et al, 2018; Cinciripini, 1984; Mora‐García et al, 2019; Seward et al, 2016; Sogari et al, 2019) ( n = 5; 45.5%).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One of the two interventions that reported a negative direction of effect of menu labelling used daily intake values plus traffic light labelling (Oliveira et al, 2018) and the other used organic labels (Migliavada et al, 2022). Studies that did observe significant positive effects (Biden et al, 2018; Cerezo‐Prieto & Frutos‐Esteban, 2021; Feldman et al, 2015; Oliveira et al, 2018; Roy & Alassadi, 2020; Seward et al, 2016; Sogari et al, 2019; Vermote et al, 2020) used a variety of menu labelling models.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Students in the intervention group had higher odds of selecting healthy food than students in the control group (OR: 1.42; p = 0.16). In a cluster crossover quasi-experiment, Migliavada et al (2022) tested whether labelling vegetable items as organic, local or both tends to be associated with higher odds of purchasing at least one vegetable item for a lunch meal in a university canteen versus standard labelling (simple food plate name). For our analyses, only the organic label was considered as menu labelling, because this information refers to something intrinsic to the food.…”

Section: Moderate Qualitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Qualitative menu labelling in university restaurants and its influence on food choices: A systematic review and synthesis without meta‐analysis

Fogolari,

Souza,

Bernardo

et al. 2023

Nutrition Bulletin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Qualitative menu labelling can be defined as descriptive or non-numerical interpretive labels (e.g. traffic light labelling, healthy food symbols, messages or ingredient lists). Qualitative information seems to have a positive influence on consumers' food choices, particularly in institutional food service establishments, such as in universities. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the influence of different formats of qualitative menu labelling on food choices in university restaurants. This systematic review was guided by the Preferred Reported Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and Synthesis Without Meta-Analysis (SWiM) and conducted vote counting of studies based on the direction of effect. Studies were retrieved from Cochrane Library, Scopus, MEDLINE, LILACS, SciELO and Web of Science databases and reference lists of selected articles. Experimental and quasi-experimental studies were included. Two independent researchers searched and extracted the data and assessed the methodological quality using the Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP) Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies. From the initial search (460 records), four papers were selected, plus one paper identified in a previous study and a further six from an update search, totalling 11 included studies, reporting 14 different interventions (n = 499 174). Types of interventions included the use of symbols and the inclusion of traffic light labelling. Outcomes of interest were food choice, expressed as mean, median or percent healthy food choices or purchases. Qualitative menu labels increased healthy food choices and/or purchase behaviour, with 10 of 12 interventions favouring the intervention (83%; 95%CI 55-95%; p = 0.0386). Most of the studies favouring the intervention used healthy food symbols for healthier foods or food components, alone or in association with another intervention and were of moderate and weak quality. These findings may serve as a basis for the implementation of nutrition information policies in university restaurants.

show abstract