Examining the effects of brand and licensed characters on parents' perceptions of Children's breakfast cereals.

Brand and licensed characters frequently appear on children's breakfast cereal boxes and are known to affect children's product perceptions, selection, and consumption. However, less is known about their impact on parents' perceptions of foods they purchase for their child. The present study assessed the impact of brand and licensed characters featured on three children's breakfast cereal packages on parents' intentions and perceptions in an online experiment. Parents of children aged 2-12 years (n = 1013) were randomized into one of two conditions: breakfast cereals containing brand and licensed characters or breakfast cereals without any characters. Within each condition, participants viewed three breakfast cereal brands in random order per their assigned condition and reported their purchase intentions, healthfulness perceptions, and perceptions of appeal to children using 5-point Likert scales. No significant differences in purchase intentions (p = 0.91), perceived healthfulness (p = 0.52) or perceived child appeal (p = 0.59) were observed between the experimental and control groups. However, exploratory moderation analyses revealed that educational attainment moderated the impact of experimental condition on purchase intentions (p for interaction = 0.002) such that participants with a bachelor's degree in the character condition reported 0.36 points lower purchase intentions compared to the control with no difference between conditions for those with an associate's degree/trade school or high school degree or less. This study did not find an impact of brand and licensed characters on children's breakfast cereals, suggesting that their primary appeal is directly to children. Parents with higher educational attainment may be skeptical of characters on cereal brands. Additional research on the impact of brand and licensed characters on other products, in real-world settings, is needed.

Impact of taxes and warning labels on red meat purchases among US consumers: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Policies to reduce red meat intake are important for mitigating climate change and improving public health. We tested the impact of taxes and warning labels on red meat purchases in the United States. The main study question was, will taxes and warning labels reduce red meat purchases? METHODS AND FINDINGS: We recruited 3,518 US adults to participate in a shopping task in a naturalistic online grocery store from October 18, 2021 to October 28, 2021. Participants were randomized to one of 4 conditions: control (no tax or warning labels, n = 887), warning labels (health and environmental warning labels appeared next to products containing red meat, n = 891), tax (products containing red meat were subject to a 30% price increase, n = 874), or combined warning labels + tax (n = 866). We used fractional probit and Poisson regression models to assess the co-primary outcomes, percent, and count of red meat purchases, and linear regression to assess the secondary outcomes of nutrients purchased. Most participants identified as women, consumed red meat 2 or more times per week, and reported doing all of their household's grocery shopping. The warning, tax, and combined conditions led to lower percent of red meat-containing items purchased, with 39% (95% confidence interval (CI) [38%, 40%]) of control participants' purchases containing red meat, compared to 36% (95% CI [35%, 37%], p = 0.001) of warning participants, 34% (95% CI [33%, 35%], p < 0.001) of tax participants, and 31% (95% CI [30%, 32%], p < 0.001) of combined participants. A similar pattern was observed for count of red meat items. Compared to the control, the combined condition reduced calories purchased (-312.0 kcals, 95% CI [-590.3 kcals, -33.6 kcals], p = 0.027), while the tax (-10.4 g, 95% CI [-18.2 g, -2.5 g], p = 0.01) and combined (-12.8 g, 95% CI [-20.7 g, -4.9 g], p = 0.001) conditions reduced saturated fat purchases; no condition affected sodium purchases. Warning labels decreased the perceived healthfulness and environmental sustainability of red meat, while taxes increased perceived cost. The main limitations were that the study differed in sociodemographic characteristics from the US population, and only about 30% to 40% of the US population shops for groceries online. CONCLUSIONS: Warning labels and taxes reduced red meat purchases in a naturalistic online grocery store. Trial Registration: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ NCT04716010.

The impact of pictorial health warnings on purchases of sugary drinks for children: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Pictorial warnings on tobacco products are promising for motivating behavior change, but few studies have examined pictorial warnings for sugary drinks, especially in naturalistic environments. This study aimed to examine the impact of pictorial warnings on parents' purchases of sugary drinks for their children in a naturalistic store laboratory. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Parents of children ages 2 to 12 (n = 325, 25% identifying as Black, 20% Hispanic) completed a shopping task in a naturalistic store laboratory in North Carolina. Participants were randomly assigned to a pictorial warnings arm (sugary drinks displayed pictorial health warnings about type 2 diabetes and heart damage) or a control arm (sugary drinks displayed a barcode label). Parents selected 1 beverage and 1 snack for their child, as well as 1 household good; one of these items was selected for them to purchase and take home. The primary outcome was whether parents purchased a sugary drink for their child. Secondary outcomes included reactions to the trial labels, attitudes toward sugary drinks, and intentions to serve their child sugary drinks. Pictorial warnings led to a 17-percentage point reduction in purchases of sugary drinks (95% CI for reduction: 7% to 27%), with 45% of parents in the control arm buying a sugary drink for their child compared to 28% in the pictorial warning arm (p = 0.002). The impact of pictorial warnings on purchases did not differ by any of the 13 participant characteristics examined (e.g., race/ethnicity, income, education, and age of child). Pictorial warnings also led to lower calories (kcal), purchased from sugary drinks (82 kcal in the control arm versus 52 kcal in the pictorial warnings arm, p = 0.003). Moreover, pictorial warnings led to lower intentions to serve sugary drinks to their child, feeling more in control of healthy eating decisions, greater thinking about the harms of sugary drinks, stronger negative emotional reactions, greater anticipated social interactions, lower perceived healthfulness of sugary drinks for their child, and greater injunctive norms to limit sugary drinks for their child (all p < 0.05). There was no evidence of difference between trial arms on noticing of the labels, appeal of sugary drinks, perceived amount of added sugar in sugary drinks, risk perceptions, or perceived tastiness of sugary drinks (all p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Pictorial warnings reduced parents' purchases of sugary drinks for their children in this naturalistic trial. Warnings on sugary drinks are a promising policy approach to reduce sugary drink purchasing in the US. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial design, measures, power calculation, and analytic plan were registered before data collection at www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT04223687.

Testing front-of-package warnings to discourage red meat consumption: a randomized experiment with US meat consumers.

BACKGROUND: Reducing red meat is a strategy to improve public health and mitigate climate change in the United States and other high-income countries. Policies requiring warnings on the front of red meat packages are a promising intervention to shift consumers towards healthier and more sustainable food choices. We aimed to explore participants' reactions to health and environmental warning messages about red meat. METHODS: Between June and July 2020, we recruited a national convenience sample of US red meat consumers (n = 1,235; mean age 44 years) for an online survey. Participants were randomly assigned to one of four label conditions: no-label control, health warning, environment warning, and combined health and environment warning (both warnings shown side-by-side). Participants viewed three types of burritos (red meat [steak], chicken, and vegetarian) and selected their preferred item (primary outcome), the item they perceived to be most damaging to health, and the item they perceived to be most damaging to the environment (secondary outcomes). Participants then viewed their assigned warning on a series of other red meat products (no-label control participants were randomly re-assigned to one of the warning conditions) and rated the warnings on perceived message effectiveness, believability, negative emotions, perceived risk, attention, and learning something new. Finally, participants reported their intentions to reduce red meat consumption. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in selection of the steak burrito between label conditions or in selection of the item most damaging to the environment. Those exposed to the health warning were more likely to select the steak burrito as most damaging to health compared to those exposed to other label conditions (health 73 %, combined 64 %, environment 60 %, no-label control 63 %, p < 0.05). The combined and health warnings elicited higher perceived message effectiveness ratings than the environment warning (combined mean 2.91, health 2.84, environment 2.61, p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Warnings did not have a significant effect on item preference in the choice experiment. However, combined and health warnings performed better than the environment warning across a variety of warning label reaction measures. More research will be needed to understand whether warnings elicit behavioral change in real-world environments. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Analyses and hypotheses were preregistered on https://aspredicted.org/ph7mb.pdf on 23 June 2020.

The impact of an eco-score label on US consumers' perceptions of environmental sustainability and intentions to purchase food: A randomized experiment.

Front-of-package labels indicating a product's environmental footprint (i.e., eco-score labels) offer promise to shift consumers towards more sustainable food choices. This study aimed to understand whether eco-score labels impacted consumers' perceptions of environmental sustainability and intentions to purchase sustainable and unsustainable foods. US parents (n = 1,013) completed an online experiment in which they were shown 8 food products (4 sustainable and 4 unsustainable). Participants were randomized to a control (n = 503, barcode on product packaging) or eco-score label group (n = 510, eco-score label on product packaging). The eco-score label was color-coded with a grade of A-F based on the product's environmental footprint, where "A" indicates relative sustainability and "F" indicates relative unsustainability. Participants rated each product's environmental sustainability and their future likelihood of purchase. We used multilevel mixed-effects linear regression models and examined moderation by product category and sociodemographic characteristics. The eco-score label lowered perceived sustainability of unsustainable products by 13% in relative terms or -0.4 in absolute terms (95% CI -0.5, -0.3; p<0.001). The eco-score label increased perceived sustainability of sustainable products by 16% in relative terms or 0.6 in absolute terms (95% CI 0.5, 0.7, p<0.001). Effects on purchase intentions were smaller, with a 6% decrease for unsustainable products (p = 0.001) and an 8% increase for sustainable products (p<0.001). For unsustainable products, the effect of eco-score labels on sustainability perceptions was greater for older adults, men, participants with higher educational attainment, and participants with higher incomes. For sustainable products, the effect of ecolabels on sustainability perceptions was greater for those with higher educational attainment. Eco-score labels have the potential to direct consumers towards more sustainable products. Future studies should investigate eco-score label effectiveness on behavioral outcomes.

Online retail nudges to help parents with lower-income choose healthy beverages for their children: A randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Nudges offer a promising tool to reduce sugary drink intake among children who are most at risk for diet-related disease. OBJECTIVE: To examine the impact of online store nudges on purchases of sugary drinks for children in lower-income households. METHODS: Caregivers with lower-income were recruited to an online shopping experiment and instructed to spend $10-$30 on three beverages for their child aged 1-5 years. Participants were randomized to navigate an online supermarket in its standard version (n = 1106) or a version with nudges (n = 1135), including a product placement nudge (i.e. placing healthy beverages in prominent positions) and a swap nudge (i.e. offering a swap of water, plain milk and/or 100% fruit juice upon selection of sugary drinks). RESULTS: On average, participants purchased 1887 (SD = 2113) and 620 (SD = 1528) calories from sugary drinks per basket in the control and experimental conditions, respectively. Model-based results indicate that those in the experimental condition purchased 1267 (95% CI: 1419, 1114) fewer calories from sugary drinks, and fewer grams of total sugar (ß = -253.5 g (95% CI: -286.3, -220.6)) and added sugar (ß = -287.8 g (95% CI: -323.1, -252.5)) purchased from sugary drinks. CONCLUSION: Nudges may be an effective, acceptable, scalable strategy for leading caregivers in lower-income households to purchase fewer sugary drinks for their children.

Understanding Whether Price Tag Messaging Can Amplify the Benefits of Taxes: An Online Experiment.

INTRODUCTION: Excise taxes on unhealthy products like sugary drinks and tobacco can reduce purchases of these products. However, little research has investigated whether messages at the point of purchase, such as enhanced price tags, can increase the effects of taxes by heightening psychological reactions. This study aimed to examine whether including messages about taxes on price tags could amplify the benefits of excise taxes on unhealthy products. METHODS: In 2022, an online study recruited 1,013 U.S. parents to view seven price tag messages (e.g., "includes a 19% sugary drink tax") and a control (i.e., standard price tag with the tax included in the price) displayed in random order alongside sugary drinks. Participants were randomly assigned to view a caution-symbol icon or no icon on price tags. Analyses were conducted in 2023. RESULTS: All seven messages discouraged parents from buying sugary drinks for their children compared to control (average differential effects [ADEs] ranged from 0.28 to 0.48, all p<0.001). All messages led to greater attention to the price tag (ADEs ranged from 0.24 to 0.41, all p<0.001) and greater consideration of the cost of sugary drinks (ADEs ranged from 0.31 to 0.50, all p<0.001). Icons elicited higher cost consideration than text-only price tags (ADE=0.15, p<0.010), but not discouragement (p=0.061) or attention (p=0.079). CONCLUSIONS: Messaging on price tags could make excise taxes more effective. Policymakers should consider requiring messaging on price tags when implementing taxes.

Consumer behaviour and experiences in a naturalistic online grocery store: implications for nutrition research.

Naturalistic online grocery stores could provide a novel setting for evaluating nutrition interventions. In 2021-2022, we recruited US adults (n 144, 59% low-income) to complete two weekly study visits: one in a naturalistic ('mock') online grocery store developed for research and one in a real online grocery store. Participants selected groceries and responded to survey questions. Analyses examined survey responses and expenditures on fifteen food categories (e.g., bread, sugar-sweetened beverages). Nearly all enrolled participants completed both visits (98% retention). Moreover, nearly participants all reported that their selections in the naturalistic store were similar to their usual purchases (95%) and that the naturalistic store felt like a real store (92%). Participants' spending on food categories in the naturalistic store were moderately-to-strongly correlated with their spending in the real store (range of correlation coefficients: 0⋅36-0⋅67, all P-values < 0⋅001). Naturalistic online grocery stores may offer a promising platform for conducting nutrition research.

Differences in Dietary Quality by Sexual Orientation and Sex in the United States: NHANES 2011-2016.

BACKGROUND: There are persistent disparities in weight- and diet-related diseases by sexual orientation. Lesbian and bisexual females have a higher risk of obesity and cardiovascular disease compared with heterosexual females. Gay and bisexual males have a higher risk of diabetes and cardiovascular disease compared with heterosexual males. However, it remains unknown how sexual orientation groups differ in their dietary quality. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine whether dietary quality differs by sexual orientation and sex among US adults. DESIGN: This was a cross-sectional study of 24-hour dietary recall data from a nationally representative sample of adults aged 20 through 65 years participating in the 2011-2016 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. PARTICIPANTS/SETTING: Study participants were adults (n = 8,851) with complete information on dietary intake, sexual orientation, and sex. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measures were daily energy intake from 20 specific food and beverage groups and Healthy Eating Index-2015 (HEI-2015) scores for sexual orientation groups (heterosexual vs gay/lesbian/bisexual). STATISTICAL ANALYSES PERFORMED: Ordinary least squares regressions were used to calculate adjusted means for each food and beverage group and HEI-2015, stratified by sex and controlling for covariates (eg, age and race/ethnicity) and survey cycles (2011-2012, 2013-2014, and 2015-2016). RESULTS: Among males, red and processed meat/poultry/seafood (P = .01) and sandwiches (P = .02) were smaller contributors to energy intake for gay/bisexual males compared with heterosexual males. Among females, cereals (P =.04) and mixed dishes (P = .02) were smaller contributors to energy intake for lesbian/bisexual females compared with heterosexual females. Gay/bisexual males had significantly higher total HEI-2015 scores than heterosexual males (mean ± standard deviation 53.40 ± 1.36 vs 49.29 ± 0.32, difference = 4.14; P = .004). Lesbian/bisexual females did not differ in total or component HEI-2015 scores from heterosexual females. CONCLUSIONS: Although gay/lesbian/bisexual groups were similar for a variety of dietary outcomes compared with heterosexual groups, gay and bisexual men displayed healthier dietary quality for processed meat (by consuming smaller amounts) and overall dietary quality (according to HEI-2015) compared with heterosexual males.

Developing health and environmental warning messages about red meat: An online experiment.

INTRODUCTION: The United States has among the highest per capita red meat consumption in the world. Reducing red meat consumption is crucial for minimizing the environmental impact of diets and improving health outcomes. Warning messages are effective for reducing purchases of products like sugary beverages but have not been developed for red meat. This study developed health and environmental warning messages about red meat and explored participants' reactions to these messages. METHODS: A national convenience sample of US red meat consumers (n = 1,199; mean age 45 years) completed an online survey in 2020 for this exploratory study. Participants were randomized to view a series of either health or environmental warning messages (between-subjects factor) about the risks associated with eating red meat. Messages were presented in random order (within-subjects factor; 8 health messages or 10 environmental messages). Participants rated each warning message on a validated 3-item scale measuring perceived message effectiveness (PME), ranging from 1 (low) to 5 (high). Participants then rated their intentions to reduce their red meat consumption in the next 7 days. RESULTS: Health warning messages elicited higher PME ratings than environmental messages (mean 2.66 vs. 2.26, p<0.001). Health warning messages also led to stronger intentions to reduce red meat consumption compared to environmental messages (mean 2.45 vs. 2.19, p<0.001). Within category (health and environmental), most pairwise comparisons of harms were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Health warning messages were perceived to be more effective than environmental warning messages. Future studies should measure the impact of these messages on behavioral outcomes.

Using a Naturalistic Store Laboratory for Clinical Trials of Point-of-Sale Nutrition Policies and Interventions: A Feasibility and Validation Study.

Point-of-sale policies such as warnings and taxes are promising tools for improving the nutritional quality of food purchases. Research studies conducted in naturalistic store laboratories could improve the quality of evidence about point-of-sale interventions by allowing for realistic exposure in a controlled setting. This study aimed to assess whether purchasing behavior in a naturalistic store laboratory setting was similar to real-life purchasing behavior and to evaluate participants' perceptions of store realism and the acceptability of research study protocols in this setting. In a longitudinal observational study in 2019, Latinx parents in North Carolina (n = 61) attended five weekly visits at the UNC Mini Mart, a naturalistic store laboratory that resembled a small convenience store. At each visit, participants purchased a week's supply of beverages. Purchases of beverages in the Mini Mart were compared to participants' purchases from receipts submitted the week prior to the study. Analyses compared the percentage of participants buying sugary drinks and non-sugary drinks in the Mini Mart vs. in real stores using Chi-Square tests with Fisher's p. The percentage of parents who purchased sugary drinks in the Mini Mart (93%) was not significantly different from the percentage who purchased sugary drinks during the week before the study (74%, p = 0.28). The percentage purchasing non-sugary drinks was similar in the two settings (85% in the Mini Mart vs. 85% from receipts, p = 0.33). Nearly all participants reported that their Mini Mart purchases were similar to real-life purchases (96%); the Mini Mart felt like a real store (94%); they could find all the beverages they were looking for (92%); and they could imagine doing their real-life beverage shopping in the Mini Mart (92%). Moreover, retention was high, with 97% of participants attending the final study visit. These results indicate that naturalistic store laboratories are a promising method for increasing the ecological validity of trials to evaluate point-of-sale interventions.