How Salty Is Too Salty? Designing Sodium Warning Label Policies to Identify High-Sodium Items on Restaurant Menus in the United States.

Two U.S. cities require chain restaurants to label menu items that exceed 100% of the Daily Value (DV) for sodium, informing consumers and potentially prompting restaurant reformulation. To inform policy design for other localities, this study determined the percentage of the top 91 U.S. chain restaurants' menu items that would be labeled if a warning policy were established for menu items exceeding the thresholds of 20%, 33%, 50%, 65%, and 100% of the sodium DV for adults. We obtained U.S. chain restaurants' nutrition information from the 2019 MenuStat database and calculated the percentage of items requiring sodium warning labels across the food and beverage categories at all the restaurants and at the full- and limited-service restaurants separately. In total, 19,038 items were included in the analyses. A warning label covering items with >20%, >33%, >50%, >65%, and >100% of the sodium DV resulted in expected coverage of 42%, 30%, 20%, 13%, and 5% of menu items at all the restaurants, respectively. At each threshold, the average percentage of items labeled per restaurant was higher among the full-service restaurants than the limited-service restaurants. These results suggest that restaurant warning policies with a threshold of 100% of the sodium DV per item would cover a minority of high-sodium menu items and that lower thresholds should be considered to help U.S. consumers reduce their sodium consumption.

Online RCT of Icon Added-Sugar Warning Labels for Restaurant Menus.

INTRODUCTION: To reduce added-sugar consumption, jurisdictions are considering requiring restaurant menu labels to identify high-added-sugar items. This study examined the impacts of added-sugar warning labels on hypothetical choices, knowledge of items' added-sugar content, and perceptions of high-added-sugar items. STUDY DESIGN: The design was an online RCT. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: National sample of adults (N=15,496) was recruited to approximate the U.S. distribution of sex, age, race, ethnicity, and education. INTERVENTION: Participants viewed fast-food and full-service restaurant menus displaying no warning labels (control) or icon-only added-sugar warning labels next to high-added-sugar items (containing >50% of the daily recommended limit). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measures were hypothetical ordering of ≥1 high-added-sugar item, grams of added sugar ordered, and knowledge of items' added-sugar content assessed in 2021 and analyzed in 2021-2022. RESULTS: Warning labels reduced the relative probability of ordering ≥1 high-added-sugar item by 2.2% (probability ratio=0.978, 95% CI=0.964, 0.992; p=0.002); improved knowledge of added-sugar content (p<0.001); and led to a nonstatistically significant reduction of 1.5 grams of added sugar ordered, averaged across menus (p=0.07). The label modestly reduced the appeal of high-added-sugar items, increased perceptions that consuming such items often will increase Type 2 diabetes risk, increased perceived control over eating decisions, and increased injunctive norms about limiting consumption of high-added-sugar items (ps<0.001). However, in the warning condition, only 47% noticed nutrition labels, and 21% recalled seeing added-sugar labels. When restricting the warning condition to those who noticed the label, the result for grams of added sugar ordered was significant, with the warning condition ordering 4.9 fewer grams than the controls (95% CI= -7.3, -2.5; p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Added-sugar warning labels reduced the probability of ordering a high-added-sugar menu item and increased participants' knowledge of whether items contained >50% of the daily value for added sugar. The modest magnitudes of effects may be due to low label noticeability. Menu warning labels should be designed for noticeability. REGISTRATION: This study was registered at AsPredicted.org #65655.

Perceived effectiveness of added-sugar warning label designs for U.S. restaurant menus: An online randomized controlled trial.

Added-sugar consumption in the U.S. exceeds recommended limits. Policymakers are considering requiring restaurants to use menu warning labels to indicate items high in added sugar. We sought to determine whether icon-only and icon-plus-text added-sugar menu labels were (1) perceived as more effective at potentially reducing consumption of items high in added sugar and (2) increased knowledge of menu items' added-sugar content relative to control labels, and if effects differed by label design. A national sample of U.S. adults (n = 1327) participated in an online randomized experiment. Participants viewed menu items with either a control label, 1 of 6 icon-only labels, or 1 of 18 icon-plus-text labels with 3 text variations. For their assigned label, participants provided ratings of perceived message effectiveness (a validated scale of a message's potential to change behavior). Participants were also asked to classify menu items by their added-sugar content. The icon-only and icon-plus-text labels were perceived as more effective than the control label (means: 3.7 and 3.7 vs. 3.1, respectively, on a 5-point scale; p < 0.001). The icon-only and icon-plus-text groups each correctly classified 71% of menu items by added-sugar content vs. 56% in the control group (p < 0.001). All icons and text variations were perceived as similarly effective. In conclusion, relative to a control label, icon-only and icon-plus-text added-sugar menu labels were perceived as effective and helped consumers identify items high in added sugar. Menu warning labels may be a promising strategy for reducing added-sugar consumption from restaurants, but research on behavioral effects in real-world settings is needed. Clinical Trials Identifier:NCT04637412.

Perspectives on advancing preventative medicine through vaccinology at the comparative veterinary, human and conservation medicine interface: not missing the opportunities.

Vaccination has historically and remains one of the most cost-effective and safest forms of medicine today. Along with basic understanding of germ theory and sanitation, vaccination, over the past 50 years, has transformed lives and economies in both rich and poor countries by its direct impact on human and animal life--resulting in the eradication of small pox, huge reductions in the burden of previously common human and animal diseases such as polio, typhoid, measles in human medicine and contagious bovine pleuropneumonia, foot-and-mouth disease, screwworm and hog cholera and the verge of eradicating brucellosis, tuberculosis, and pseudorabies in veterinary medicine. In addition vaccination along with other animal production changes has provided the ability to produce otherwise unaffordable animal protein and animal health worldwide. The landscape however on which vaccinology was discovered and applied over the past 200 years, even in the past 10 years has and is undergoing continuous change. For vaccination as a public health tool to have its greatest impacts in human and veterinary medicine, these great medical sciences will have to come together, policy-relevant science for sustainable conservation in developing and developed countries needs to become the norm and address poverty (including lack of basic health care) in communities affected by conservation, and to consider costs and benefits (perceived or not) affecting the well-being of all stakeholders, from the local to the multinational. The need to return to and/or develop new education-based models for turning the tide from the heavily return-on-investment therapeutic era of the last century into one where the investment into the preventative sciences and medicine lead to sustainable cultural and cost-effective public health and economic changes of the future is never more evident than today. The new complex problems of the new millennium will require new educational models that train para- and professional people for thinking and solving complex inter-related biological, ecological, public-, political/economic problems. The single profession that is best positioned to impact vaccinology is Veterinary Medicine. It's melding with human medicine and their role in future comparative and conservation-based programs will be critical to the successful application of vaccines into the 21st century.