Effects of pictorial warnings on parents' purchases and perceptions of sugar-sweetened beverage categories.

BACKGROUND: Sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) consumption remains high among US children. Warning labels on SSBs hold promise for reducing consumption, but their impact may differ by SSB category. OBJECTIVES: This study examined the effects of pictorial warnings on parents' beverage purchases and perceptions across SSB categories. METHODS: Parents of children ages 2-12 (n = 326) visited a convenience store laboratory in North Carolina. Participants were randomly assigned to see SSBs carrying either pictorial warning labels or control labels. Parents purchased a beverage for their child and completed a survey. RESULTS: Responses from parents in the control arm suggest underlying perceptions of flavoured milk (2.8 on scale ranging from 1 to 5), flavoured water (2.6), and fruit-flavoured drinks (2.5) as the most healthful SSB categories. Compared to the control, pictorial warnings led to the largest reductions in purchases of fruit drinks (-61%), soda (-36%) and flavoured milk (-32%). Warnings also lowered the perceived healthfulness of flavoured water (d = -0.34), flavoured milk (d = -0.28), sports drinks (d = -0.25), and a reduction in intentions to give one's child sports drinks (d = -0.30), flavoured water (d = -0.24) and sweet tea (d = -0.22, all p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Warning labels may have heterogeneous effects across SSB categories. Future research should assess the psychological mechanisms underlying these heterogeneous effects.

Effect of alcohol label designs with different pictorial representations of alcohol content and health warnings on knowledge and understanding of low-risk drinking guidelines: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The UK low-risk drinking guidelines (LRDG) recommend not regularly drinking more than 14 units of alcohol per week. We tested the effect of different pictorial representations of alcohol content, some with a health warning, on knowledge of the LRDG and understanding of how many drinks it equates to. DESIGN: Parallel randomized controlled trial. SETTING: On-line, 25 January-1 February 2019. PARTICIPANTS: Participants (n = 7516) were English, aged over 18 years and drink alcohol. INTERVENTIONS: The control group saw existing industry-standard labels; six intervention groups saw designs based on: food labels (serving or serving and container), pictographs (servings or containers), pie charts (servings) or risk gradients. A total of 500 participants (~70 per condition) saw a health warning under the design. MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcomes: (i) knowledge: proportion who answered that the LRDG is 14 units; and (ii) understanding: how many servings/containers of beverages one can drink before reaching 14 units (10 questions, average distance from correct answer). FINDINGS: In the control group, 21.5% knew the LRDG; proportions were higher in intervention groups (all P < 0.001). The three best-performing designs had the LRDG in a separate statement, beneath the pictograph container: 51.1% [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 3.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 3.08-4.54], pictograph serving 48.8% (aOR = 4.11, 95% CI = 3.39-4.99) and pie-chart serving, 47.5% (aOR = 3.57, 95% CI = 2.93-4.34). Participants underestimated how many servings they could drink: control mean = -4.64, standard deviation (SD) = 3.43; intervention groups were more accurate (all P < 0.001), best performing was pictograph serving (mean = -0.93, SD = 3.43). Participants overestimated how many containers they could drink: control mean = 0.09, SD = 1.02; intervention groups overestimated even more (all P < 0.007), worst-performing was food label serving (mean = 1.10, SD = 1.27). Participants judged the alcohol content of beers more accurately than wine or spirits. The inclusion of a health warning had no statistically significant effect on any measure. CONCLUSIONS: Labels with enhanced pictorial representations of alcohol content improved knowledge and understanding of the UK's low-risk drinking guidelines compared with industry-standard labels; health warnings did not improve knowledge or understanding of low-risk drinking guidelines. Designs that improved knowledge most had the low-risk drinking guidelines in a separate statement located beneath the graphics.

Impact of health warning labels on snack selection: An online experimental study.

Excessive consumption of energy-dense food increases the risk of obesity, which in turn increases the risk of non-communicable diseases, including heart disease, type 2 diabetes and most non-smoking-related cancers. Health warning labels (HWLs) that communicate the adverse health consequences of excess energy consumption could reduce intake of energy-dense foods. The aim of the current study was to estimate the impact on selection of energy-dense snacks of (a) image-and-text HWLs (b) text-only HWLs and (c) calorie information. In a between-subjects, 3 (HWL: image-and-text, text-only, no label) x 2 (calorie information: present, absent), factorial experimental design, participants (N = 4134) were randomised to view a selection of energy-dense and non-energy-dense snacks with one of five label types or no label. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants selecting an energy-dense snack in a hypothetical vending machine task. The proportion of participants selecting an energy-dense snack was reduced in all label groups, relative to the no label group (no label: 59%; calories only: 54%; text-only HWL: 48%; text-only HWL with calories: 44%; image-and-text HWL: 37%; image-and-text HWL with calories: 38%). Compared to the no label group, participants were least likely to select an energy-dense snack in the image-and-text HWL group (OR = 0.46, 95%CI = 0.40, 0.54, p < 0.001). Health warning labels - particularly those including an image and text - have the potential to reduce selection of energy-dense snacks in an online setting. Their impact on selection and consumption in real-world settings awaits testing.

The impact of 'on-pack' pictorial health warning labels and calorie information labels on drink choice: A laboratory experiment.

Sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) are one of the largest added sugar sources to diets in the UK and USA. Health warning labels reduce hypothetical selection of SSBs in online studies but uncertainty surrounds their impact on selection of drinks for consumption. Calorie information labels are also promising but their impact on SSB selection is unclear. This laboratory study assessed the impact on SSB selection of 'on-pack' labels placed directly on physical products: i.a pictorial health warning label depicting an adverse health consequence of excess sugar consumption; and ii.calorie information labels. Potential moderation of any effects by socio-economic position (SEP) was also examined. Participants - 401 adults, resident in England, approximately half of whom were of lower SEP and half of higher SEP, were asked to select a drink from a range of two non-SSBs and four SSBs (subsequent to completing a separate study assessing the effects of food availability on snack selection). The drinks included 'on-pack' labels according to randomisation: Group 1: pictorial health warning label on SSBs; Group 2: calorie information label on all drinks; Group 3: no additional label. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants selecting an SSB. Compared to not having additional labels (39%), neither the pictorial health warning label (40%) nor calorie information labels (43%) affected the proportion of participants selecting an SSB. Lower SEP participants (45%) were more likely to select an SSB compared to those of higher SEP (35%), but SEP did not moderate the impact of labels on drink selection. In conclusion, pictorial health warning labels may be less effective in reducing SSB selection in lab-based compared with online settings, or depending on label design and placement. Findings suggest that effects might be absent when choosing from real products with actual 'on-pack' labels, positioned in a 'realistic' manner. Field studies are needed to further assess the impact of 'on-pack' SSB warning labels in real-world settings to rule out the possible contribution of study design factors.