International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity (Oct 2024)

“Warning: ultra-processed”: an online experiment examining the impact of ultra-processed warning labels on consumers’ product perceptions and behavioral intentions

  • Aline D’Angelo Campos,
  • Shu Wen Ng,
  • Ana Clara Duran,
  • Neha Khandpur,
  • Lindsey Smith Taillie,
  • Fernanda O. Christon,
  • Marissa G. Hall

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-024-01664-w
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 21, no. 1
pp. 1 – 13

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Background Nutrient content and degree of processing are complementary but distinct concepts, and a growing body of evidence shows that ultra-processed foods (UPFs) can have detrimental health effects independently from nutrient content. 10 + countries currently mandate front-of-package labels (FOPL) to inform consumers when products are high in added sugars, saturated fat, and/or sodium. Public health advocates have been calling for the addition of ultra-processed warning labels to these FOPLs, but the extent to which consumers would understand and be influenced by such labels remains unknown. We examined whether the addition of ultra-processed warning labels to existing nutrient warning labels could influence consumers’ product perceptions and purchase intentions. Methods In 2023, a sample of adults in Brazil (n = 1,004) answered an open-ended question about the meaning of the term “ultra-processed,” followed by an online experiment where they saw four ultra-processed products carrying warning labels. Participants were randomly assigned to view either only nutrient warning labels or nutrient plus ultra-processed warning labels. Participants then answered questions about their intentions to purchase the products, product perceptions, and perceived label effectiveness. Results Most participants (69%) exhibited a moderate understanding of the term “ultra-processed” prior to the experiment. The addition of an ultra-processed warning label led to a higher share of participants who correctly identified the products as UPFs compared to nutrient warning labels alone (Cohen’s d = 0.16, p = 0.02). However, the addition of the ultra-processed warning label did not significantly influence purchase intentions, product healthfulness perceptions, or perceived label effectiveness compared to nutrient warning labels alone (all p > 0.05). In exploratory analyses, demographic characteristics and prior understanding of the concept of UPF did not moderate the effect of ultra-processed warning labels. Conclusions Ultra-processed warning labels may help consumers better identify UPFs, although they do not seem to influence behavioral intentions and product perceptions beyond the influence already exerted by nutrient warning labels. Future research should examine how ultra-processed warning labels would work for products that do and do not require nutrient warnings, as well as examine the benefits of labeling approaches that signal the health effects of UPFs. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05842460. Prospectively registered March 15th, 2023.

Keywords