Availability of calorie information on online menus from chain restaurants in the USA: current prevalence and legal landscape.

OBJECTIVE: Federal law requires calorie information on chain restaurant menus. We sought to assess the prevalence of calorie disclosures on online menus and determine if the menus are controlled by restaurants subject to US labelling requirements. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. SETTING: Restaurant websites and mobile apps for restaurant located in New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Houston. PARTICIPANTS: US chain restaurants (top seventy-five by number of outlets) and third-party platforms (TPP): Grubhub, Uber Eats, DoorDash. RESULTS: There was at least one calorie disclosure (for at least one food or beverage, in at least one location) on sixty-eight of seventy-two (94 %) menus on restaurant websites or apps, thirty-two of fifty-five (58 %) menus on DoorDash, six of forty-nine (12 %) menus on Grubhub and thirty of fifty-nine (51 %) menus on Uber Eats. There was consistent calorie labelling (all foods and beverages, all locations) on forty-three of seventy-two (60 %) menus on restaurant websites or apps, fifteen of fifty-five (27 %) menus on DoorDash, three of forty-nine (6 %) menus on Grubhub and eleven of fifty-nine (19 %) menus on Uber Eats. Only four restaurant chains consistently labelled calories for all items, in all locations, on all platforms where their menus were found. All three TPP provided restaurants the ability to enter and modify menu items, making the menus subject to US labelling requirements. Only Uber Eats provided guidance to restaurants on entering calorie information. CONCLUSIONS: As consumers increasingly rely on TPP for restaurant ordering, menus on these platforms should include calories in order to promote transparency and nutrition.

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.

Effect of Front-of-Package Information, Fruit Imagery, and High-Added Sugar Warning Labels on Parent Beverage Choices for Children: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Fruit drinks are widely consumed by young children, and many parents mistakenly believe that these drinks are healthy, potentially due to front-of-package claims and imagery. Research is needed on the influence of this marketing and how labeling regulations could change behavior. Objective: To assess the effects of a front-of-package 100% vitamin C claim, fruit imagery, percentage juice and teaspoons of added sugar disclosures, and high-added sugar warnings on parents' choices, knowledge, and perceptions of beverages. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial was conducted May to July 2021 as a single-exposure (no follow-up) online survey of primary caregivers of children ages 0 to 5 years throughout the US. Interventions: Participants were shown no-, low-, and high-added sugar beverages and asked to choose 1 for their child. Participants were randomized to see high-added sugar beverages with 1 of 7 front-of-package conditions: (1) claim and imagery (control); (2) no claim; (3) no imagery; (4) no claim or imagery; (5) claim, imagery, and percentage juice disclosure; (6) claim, imagery, and warning; or (7) claim, imagery, warning, and teaspoons of added sugar disclosure. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were type of beverage chosen (eg, high-added sugar beverage) and resulting calories and added sugar (in grams). Secondary outcomes were fruit drink knowledge (added sugar and percent juice) and perceptions. Results: There were 5005 participants included in the final analysis (mean [SD] age, 31.5 [8.3] years; 3587 female participants [71.7%]), including 714 participants in group 1, 717 participants in group 2, 710 participants in group 3, 717 participants in group 4, 708 participants in group 5, 729 participants in group 6, and 710 participants in group 7. Compared with participants in the control group, who had a mean (standard error [SE]) of 9.4 (0.5) g of added sugar and 81.9 (1.6) kcal in chosen beverages, only participants who saw warnings with teaspoons of added sugar disclosures had significantly reduced added sugar (-1.3 g; 95% CI, -2.6 to -0.1 g [-14.2%; 95% CI, -26.7% to -1.8%]; P = .04) and calories (-5.3 kcal; 95% CI, -9.8 to -0.9 kcal [-6.5%; 95% CI, -11.8% to -1.3%]; P = .02) in selected beverages. In warning conditions (ie, 6 and 7) compared with the control group (mean [SE] 41.0% [1.8%]), the proportion of participants choosing high-added sugar beverages was significantly reduced, by 5.5 percentage points (95% CI, 0.5 to 10.5 percentage points [13.4%; 95% CI, 1.2% to 25.6%]; P = .03) and 6.4 percentage points (95% CI, 1.4 to 11.4 percentage points [15.6%; 95% CI, 3.3% to 27.8%]; P = .01), respectively. The no claim or imagery condition (4) significantly reduced the proportion of parents choosing high-added sugar beverages (-7.6 percentage points; 95% CI, -12.6 to -2.6 percentage points [-18.4%; 95% CI, -30.6% to -6.3%]; P = .003). Percentage juice disclosures did not affect beverage choice. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that added sugar warnings and prohibitions of front-of-package claims and imagery may reduce parents' purchases of high-added sugar beverages for their young children but that percentage juice disclosures may not change behavior. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04811690.

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.

Nutrition-related claims lead parents to choose less healthy drinks for young children: a randomized trial in a virtual convenience store.

BACKGROUND: Consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages, including fruit drinks (i.e., fruit-flavored drinks containing added sugar), contributes to childhood obesity. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to examine whether nutrition-related claims on fruit drinks influence purchasing among parents and lead to misperceptions of healthfulness. METHODS: We conducted an experiment in a virtual convenience store with 2219 parents of children ages 1-5 y. Parents were randomly assigned to view fruit drinks displaying 1 of 3 claims ("No artificial sweeteners," "100% Vitamin C," and "100% All Natural") or no claim (i.e., control group). Parents selected among each of 2 drinks for their young child: 1) a fruit drink or 100% juice (primary outcome), and 2) a fruit drink or water. RESULTS: When choosing between a fruit drink and 100% juice, 45% of parents who viewed the fruit drink with the "No artificial sweeteners" claim, 51% who viewed the "100% Vitamin C" claim, and 54% who viewed the "100% All Natural" claim selected the fruit drink, compared with 32% in the no-claim control group (all P < 0.001). "No artificial sweeteners" (Cohen's d = 0.13, P < 0.05) and "100% All Natural" (d = 0.15, P < 0.05) claims increased the likelihood of parents choosing the fruit drink instead of water but "100% Vitamin C" did not (P = 0.06). All claims made parents more likely to incorrectly believe that the fruit drinks contained no added sugar and were 100% juice than the control (d ranged from 0.26 to 0.84, all P < 0.001), as assessed in a posttest survey. The impact of claims on selection of the fruit drink (compared with 100% juice) did not vary by any of the moderators examined (e.g., race/ethnicity, income; all moderation P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Nutrition-related claims led parents to choose less healthy beverages for their children and misled them about the healthfulness of fruit drinks. Labeling regulations could mitigate misleading marketing of fruit drinks.This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT04381481.

Front-of-package claims & imagery on fruit-flavored drinks and exposure by household demographics.

Young children regularly consume sugary fruit drinks, in part because parents may falsely believe they are healthful due to front-of-package (FOP) claims and imagery. The goal of this study was to assess: 1) the prevalence of FOP claims/imagery on fruit-flavored beverages purchased by U.S. households with 0-5-year-olds, and 2) proportional differences in beverages purchased with FOP claims/imagery across household demographic groups. A content analysis of FOP claims/imagery (e.g., nutrient claims, fruit imagery) on beverages (n = 1365) purchased by households with 0-5-year-olds was conducted by linking beverage sales with FOP marketing data. Results were merged with purchasing data from a nationally representative sample of households (FoodAPS), and survey-weighted logistic regression was used to assess differences in the proportions of 100% juices and fruit drinks with specific FOP claims/imagery purchased by household race/ethnicity, income, and SNAP/WIC participation. The most common claims on fruit-flavored beverages included nutrient claims (fruit drinks: 73%; 100% juices: 68%; flavored waters: 95%), which most commonly highlighted vitamin C (35-41% across beverage categories) and the absence of sugar (31-48%). Most beverages also contained implied-natural claims (fruit drinks: 60%; 100% juices: 64%; flavored waters: 95%) and natural imagery (fruit drinks: 97%; 100% juices: 96%; flavored waters: 73%). A large proportion of fruit drinks and 100% juices purchased by households across all demographic groups contained FOP claims and imagery, with a few minor differences between racial/ethnic groups. In conclusion, most fruit drinks, 100% juices, and flavored waters purchased by households with 0-5-year-olds contained FOP claims and imagery that may lead consumers to believe the beverages are healthy and natural. FDA regulations should ensure parents are not misled by this marketing.

Adverse events and labeling issues related to suspected sesame allergy reported in an online survey.

BACKGROUND: Allergen avoidance is critical for those with immunoglobulin E-mediated food allergy, but can only be successful with accurate product information. Although the Food and Drug Administration maintains the Center for Food Safety and Nutrition Adverse Event Reporting System to collect adverse event (AE) reports related to foods, there is substantial underreporting, and information regarding product labeling issues is limited. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to describe allergic reactions associated with accidental oral exposure to sesame and the role of product labeling. METHODS: A questionnaire was developed and disseminated to online communities focused on sesame allergy. The questionnaire included questions on clinical characteristics, treatments, outcomes, and labeling issues. RESULTS: A total of 360 clinical reactions related to sesame were reviewed in 327 individuals. Anaphylaxis occurred in 68.9% of reactions. Hospitalization occurred in 47.8% of events and epinephrine was administered in 36.4% of cases. Events involving a packaged food product occurred in 67.5% of AEs with only 43.8% of these using the term "sesame." An alternative name was noted in 46.0% of products that did not include "sesame" on labeling, most of which was "tahini." CONCLUSION: We determined considerable sesame food allergy morbidity, in part owing to inconsistent allergen labeling. Our findings support the development of a more rapid process for the Food and Drug Administration to update the major allergen list and formulation of an improved system for reporting AEs related to foods.