The effect of menu labeling with calories and exercise equivalents on food selection and consumption

Platkin, Charles; Yeh, Ming-Chin; Hirsch, Kimberly; Wiewel, Ellen W.; Lin, Chang-Yun; Tung, Ho-Jui; Castellanos, Victoria H.

doi:10.1186/s40608-014-0021-5

Cited by 24 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Of the 28 studies included in the review, 17 were RCTs: 16 of these were randomised by individual (Cavanagh 2014; Crockett 2014; Ebneter 2013; Ellison 2013; Ellison 2014a; Girz 2012 - study 1; Girz 2012 - study 2; Girz ongoing; Hammond 2013; Harnack 2008a; James 2015; Platkin 2014; Roberto 2010; Roberto 2012; Temple 2010; VanEpps 2016), while one was randomised by cluster, with vending machines being the unit of randomisation (Bergen 2006). In addition, there were five Q-RCTs (Allan 2015; Kral 2002; Vermeer 2011; Wansink 2006 - study 1; Wansink 2006 - study 3), plus six ITS studies (Balasubramanian 2002; Bollinger 2011; Chu 2009; Cioffi 2015; Dubbert 1984; Holmes 2013).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Fourteen studies recruited university students or staff (Bergen 2006; Cavanagh 2014; Chu 2009; Cioffi 2015; Ebneter 2013; Girz 2012 - study 1; Girz 2012 - study 2; Girz ongoing; James 2015; Kral 2002; Platkin 2014; Temple 2010; Wansink 2006 - study 1; Wansink 2006 - study 3), six recruited university students or staff as well as members of the general population (Allan 2015; Ellison 2013; Ellison 2014a; Hammond 2013; Roberto 2010; Roberto 2012), and six recruited from general population groups (Balasubramanian 2002; Bollinger 2011; Dubbert 1984; Harnack 2008a; VanEpps 2016; Vermeer 2011). Of the remaining two studies, Holmes 2013 recruited participants from a high-income population, while Crockett 2014 actively sought to include lower income groups by recruiting in more socially deprived areas.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All of the included studies compared at least one form of labelling with no labelling, with most (20/28) evaluating labelling on menus or menu boards, or nutritional labelling placed on, or adjacent to, a range of foods from which participants could choose (Allan 2015; Balasubramanian 2002; Bergen 2006; Bollinger 2011; Chu 2009; Cioffi 2015; Dubbert 1984; Ellison 2013; Ellison 2014a; Girz 2012 - study 1; Girz 2012 - study 2; Girz ongoing, Hammond 2013; Harnack 2008a; Holmes 2013; James 2015; Platkin 2014; Roberto 2010; Temple 2010; VanEpps 2016). The remaining eight studies provided participants with only one food or drink option to choose from (Cavanagh 2014; Crockett 2014; Ebneter 2013; Kral 2002; Roberto 2012; Wansink 2006 - study 1; Wansink 2006 - study 3; Vermeer 2011).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…traffic light format) (Allan 2015; Bollinger 2011; Cavanagh 2014; Ebneter 2013; Ellison 2013; Ellison 2014a; Girz 2012 - study 1; Girz ongoing, Hammond 2013; Platkin 2014; Roberto 2010; VanEpps 2016). Four of these studies also included an intervention arm that assessed energy information with traffic light format interventions (Ellison 2013; Ellison 2014a; Hammond 2013; VanEpps 2016). Six studies evaluated energy labelling plus other information (e.g.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Nutritional labelling for healthier food or non-alcoholic drink purchasing and consumption

Crockett

King

Marteau

et al. 2018

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

159

195

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Nutritional labelling is advocated as a means to promote healthier food purchasing and consumption, including lower energy intake. Internationally, many different nutritional labelling schemes have been introduced. There is no consensus on whether such labelling is effective in promoting healthier behaviour. Objectives To assess the impact of nutritional labelling for food and non‐alcoholic drinks on purchasing and consumption of healthier items. Our secondary objective was to explore possible effect moderators of nutritional labelling on purchasing and consumption. Search methods We searched 13 electronic databases including CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase to 26 April 2017. We also handsearched references and citations and sought unpublished studies through websites and trials registries. Selection criteria Eligible studies: were randomised or quasi‐randomised controlled trials (RCTs/Q‐RCTs), controlled before‐and‐after studies, or interrupted time series (ITS) studies; compared a labelled product (with information on nutrients or energy) with the same product without a nutritional label; assessed objectively measured purchasing or consumption of foods or non‐alcoholic drinks in real‐world or laboratory settings. Data collection and analysis Two authors independently selected studies for inclusion and extracted study data. We applied the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool and GRADE to assess the quality of evidence. We pooled studies that evaluated similar interventions and outcomes using a random‐effects meta‐analysis, and we synthesised data from other studies in a narrative summary. Main results We included 28 studies, comprising 17 RCTs, 5 Q‐RCTs and 6 ITS studies. Most (21/28) took place in the USA, and 19 took place in university settings, 14 of which mainly involved university students or staff. Most (20/28) studies assessed the impact of labelling on menus or menu boards, or nutritional labelling placed on, or adjacent to, a range of foods or drinks from which participants could choose. Eight studies provided participants with only one labelled food or drink option (in which labelling was present on a container or packaging, adjacent to the food or on a display board) and measured the amount consumed. The most frequently assessed labelling type was energy (i.e. calorie) information (12/28). Eleven studies assessed the impact of nutritional labelling on purchasing food or drink options in real‐world settings, including purchases from vending machines (one cluster‐RCT), grocery stores (one ITS), or restaurants, cafeterias or coffee shops (three RCTs, one Q‐RCT and five ITS). Findings on vending machines and grocery stores were not interpretable, and were rated as very low quality. A meta‐analysis of the three RCTs, all of which assessed energy labelling on menus in restaurants, demonstrated a statistically signific...

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Nutritional labelling for healthier food or non-alcoholic drink purchasing and consumption

Crockett

King

Marteau

et al. 2018

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

159

195

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Por exemplo, um hambúrguer de 300 calorias equivale a uma caminhada de aproximadamente 75 minutos (Platkin et al, 2014). Recentemente, uma iniciativa da Royal Society for Public Health (RSPH, 2016) promoveu o uso de activity equivalent labels nas embalagens dos alimentos com a intenção de informar melhor o consumidor e, consequentemente, reduzir o consumo de calorias.…”

Section: Mecanismos Que Auxiliam Na Manutenção Da Dieta 33unclassified

Potencializando os efeitos do goal priming: um estudo experimental sobre a influência de diet reminders e activity equivalent labels na redução do consumo calórico

Kusters¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A Systematic Review of Calorie Labeling and Modified Calorie Labeling Interventions: Impact on Consumer and Restaurant Behavior

Bleich

Economos

Spiker

et al. 2017

Obesity

152

142

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Evidence on the effects of restaurant calorie labeling on consumer and restaurant behavior is mixed. This paper examined: 1) consumer responses to calorie information alone or compared to modified calorie information, and 2) changes in restaurant offerings following or in advance of menu labeling implementation. Methods We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Policy File and PAIS International to identify restaurant calorie labeling studies through October 1, 2016, that measured calories ordered, consumed, or available for purchase on restaurant menus. We also searched reference lists of calorie labeling articles. Results Fifty-three studies were included: 18 in real-world restaurants, 9 in cafeterias, and 21 in laboratory or simulation settings. Five examined restaurant offerings. Conclusion Due to a lack of well-powered studies with strong designs, the degree to which menu labeling encourages lower calorie purchases and whether that translates to a healthier population is unclear. Although there is limited evidence that menu labeling affects calories purchased at fast-food restaurants, some evidence demonstrates that it lowers calories purchased at certain types of restaurants and in cafeteria settings. The limited data on modified calorie labels find that such labels can encourage lower-calorie purchases, but may not differ in effects relative to calorie labels alone.

show abstract

The effect of menu labeling with calories and exercise equivalents on food selection and consumption

Cited by 24 publications

References 27 publications

Nutritional labelling for healthier food or non-alcoholic drink purchasing and consumption

Nutritional labelling for healthier food or non-alcoholic drink purchasing and consumption

Potencializando os efeitos do goal priming: um estudo experimental sobre a influência de diet reminders e activity equivalent labels na redução do consumo calórico

A Systematic Review of Calorie Labeling and Modified Calorie Labeling Interventions: Impact on Consumer and Restaurant Behavior

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About