The Effect of Verbal and Iconic Messages in the Promotion of High-Quality Mountain Cheese: A Non-Hypothetical BDM Approach.

To ensure the sustainable development of mountain livestock farming, the adequate remuneration of high-quality dairy products is fundamental. In this sense, communication strategies aimed at promoting mountain products and ensure better positioning and higher market prices are fundamental. The present research seeks to expand the literature regarding consumers' willingness to pay for mountain foods by using an online real auction experiment aimed at evaluating the premium price that consumers are willing to pay for summer over winter mountain cheese, depending on the information provided concerning the taste anticipation or animal welfare. The results showed an overall small premium price given to the higher quality summer cheese; this could be, partially, due to a generally low degree of consumer knowledge about mountain dairy farming. With reference to communication strategies, the results provide evidence about the effectiveness of the rational messages founded upon sensorial characteristics and the anticipated taste of cheese. In addition, this study explored that adding a logo had no main effect on the price premium participants were willing to pay. This may be due to the fact that logos and claims, having a lower information content, are more indicated to lead the choice of consumers with a higher level of awareness. In the conclusion section, policy and agribusiness implications of the findings are provided.

The Impact of Environmental Sustainability Labels on Willingness-to-Pay for Foods: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments.

Food production is a major contributor to environmental damage. More environmentally sustainable foods could incur higher costs for consumers. In this review, we explore whether consumers are willing to pay (WTP) more for foods with environmental sustainability labels ('ecolabels'). Six electronic databases were searched for experiments on consumers' willingness to pay for ecolabelled food. Monetary values were converted to Purchasing Power Parity dollars and adjusted for country-specific inflation. Studies were meta-analysed and effect sizes with confidence intervals were calculated for the whole sample and for pre-specified subgroups defined as meat-dairy, seafood, and fruits-vegetables-nuts. Meta-regressions tested the role of label attributes and demographic characteristics on participants' WTP. Forty-three discrete choice experiments (DCEs) with 41,777 participants were eligible for inclusion. Thirty-five DCEs (n = 35,725) had usable data for the meta-analysis. Participants were willing to pay a premium of 3.79 PPP$/kg (95%CI 2.7, 4.89, p ≤ 0.001) for ecolabelled foods. WTP was higher for organic labels compared to other labels. Women and people with lower levels of education expressed higher WTP. Ecolabels may increase consumers' willingness to pay more for environmentally sustainable products and could be part of a strategy to encourage a transition to more sustainable diets.

The Availability and Quality of Food Labelling Components in the Canadian E-Grocery Retail Environment.

BACKGROUND: Although packaged foods sold in retail stores must follow food labelling regulations, there are no e-grocery food labelling regulations to mandate and standardize the availability and presentation of product information. Therefore, the objective of the study was to evaluate the availability and quality of food labelling components in the Canadian e-grocery retail environment. METHODS: A sample of fresh and pre-packaged products was identified on eight leading grocery retail websites in Canada, to assess the availability and quality of food labelling components. RESULTS: Out of 555 product searches, all products were accompanied by product images with front-of-pack images more readily available (96.0%) than back-of-pack (12.4%) and other side panel images (3.1%). The following mandatory nutrition information was available for 61.1% of the products: nutrition facts table (68.8%), ingredient (73.9%), and allergen (53.8%) information. The majority of the nutrition information was available after scrolling down, clicking additionally on the description page, or viewing only as an image. Date markings were not available; packaging material information was available for 2.0% of the products. CONCLUSIONS: There was wide variability and inconsistencies in the presentation of food labelling components in the e-grocery retail environment, which can be barriers in enabling Canadians to make informed purchasing decisions.

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Nutrition Facts Added-Sugar Labeling and Obesity-Associated Cancer Rates in the US.

Importance: Obesity-associated cancer burdens are increasing in the US. Nutrition policies, such as the Nutrition Facts added-sugar labeling, may reduce obesity-associated cancer rates. Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Nutrition Facts added-sugar labeling and obesity-associated cancer rates in the US. Design, Setting, and Participants: A probabilistic cohort state-transition model was used to conduct an economic evaluation of added-sugar labeling and 13 obesity-associated cancers among 235 million adults aged 20 years or older by age, sex, and race/ethnicity over a median follow-up of 34.4 years. Policy associations were considered in 2 scenarios: with consumer behaviors and with additional industry reformulation. The model integrated nationally representative population demographics, diet, and cancer statistics; associations of policy intervention with diet, diet change and body mass index, and body mass index with cancer risk; and policy and health-related costs from established sources. Data were analyzed from January 8, 2019, to May 6, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Net costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio were estimated from societal and health care perspectives. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses incorporated uncertainty in input parameters and generated 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs). Results: Based on consumer behaviors, the policy was associated with a reduction of 30 000 (95% UI, 21 600-39 300) new cancer cases and 17 100 (95% UI, 12 400-22 700) cancer deaths, a gain of 116 000 (95% UI, 83 800-153 000) quality-adjusted life-years, and a saving of $1600 million (95% UI, $1190 million-$2030 million) in medical costs associated with cancer care among US adults over a lifetime. The policy was associated with a savings of $704 million (95% UI, $44.5 million-$1450 million) from the societal perspective and $1590 million (95% UI, $1180 million-$2020 million) from the health care perspective. Additional industry reformulation to reduce added-sugar amounts in packaged foods and beverages would double the impact. Greater health gains and cost savings were expected among young adults, women, and non-Hispanic Black individuals than other population subgroups. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that the added-sugar labeling is associated with reduced costs and lower rates of obesity-associated cancers. Policymakers may consider and prioritize nutrition policies for cancer prevention in the US.

Australian Consumers Are Willing to Pay for the Health Star Rating Front-of-Pack Nutrition Label.

The Australia and New Zealand Ministerial Forum on Food Regulation has supported the recommendations set out in the 2019 Health Star Rating System Five Year Review Report. Specifically, the forum supported, in principle, Recommendation 9, to mandate the Health Star Rating if clear uptake targets were not achieved while the system is voluntary. Given that mandatory labelling is being considered, it is important to investigate how much consumers value the Health Star Rating in order to understand potential consumer uptake and inform industry. The aim of this study was to assess consumers' valuation of the Health Star Rating system by analysing their willingness to pay for a packaged food product with the Health Star Rating label, utilising a double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation approach. The results indicate that almost two-thirds of Australian household grocery shoppers were willing to pay more for a product with the Health Star Rating, on average up to an additional 3.7% of the price of the product. However, public health nutrition benefits associated with consumers' willingness to pay more for products with the Health Star Rating is currently limited by the lack of guarantee of the systems' accuracy. Given consumer support, a well validated and comprehensive Health Star Rating labelling system can potentially improve health outcomes, cost effectiveness and reduce environmental impacts.

Front of pack nutritional labelling schemes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of recent evidence relating to objectively measured consumption and purchasing.

BACKGROUND: Front of pack labelling (FOPL) provides visible nutritional information and appears to influence knowledge and reformulation. However, a recent Cochrane review found limited and inconsistent evidence for behaviour change. The present review aimed to examine studies published subsequent the Cochrane review, focusing on prepackaged foods, examining the impact of FOPL on purchasing and consumption. METHODS: Controlled experimental/intervention and interrupted time series (ITS) studies were included, with no age/geography restrictions. Exposures were FOPL with objectively measured consumption/purchasing outcomes. Thirteen databases were searched (January 2017 to April 2019) and forward citation searching was undertaken on the included studies. Purchasing data from experimental studies were meta-analysed. Two series of meta-analyses were undertaken; combined FOPL versus no-FOPL and specific FOPL scheme versus no-FOPL. Outcomes were sugar (g 100 g-1 ), calories (kcal 100 g-1 ), saturated fat (g 100 g-1 ) and sodium (mg 100 g-1 ). RESULTS: We identified 14 studies, reporting consumption (experimental; n = 3) and purchasing (n = 8, experimental; n = 3, ITS). Meta-analysis of experimental studies showed sugar and sodium content of purchases was lower for combined FOPL versus no-FOPL (-0.40 g sugar 100 g-1 , P < 0.01; -24.482 mg sodium 100 g-1 , P = 0.012), with a trend for lower energy and saturated fat (-2.03 kcal 100 g-1 , P = 0.08; -0.154 g saturated fat 100 g-1 , P = 0.091). For specific FOPL, products purchased by 'high in' FOPL groups had lower sugar (-0.67 g sugar 100 g-1 , P ≤ 0.01), calories (-4.43 kcal 100 g-1 , P < 0.05), sodium (-33.78 mg 100 g-1 , P = 0.01) versus no-FOPL; Multiple Traffic Light had lower sodium (-34.94 mg 100 g-1 , P < 0.01) versus no-FOPL. Findings regarding consumption were limited and inconsistent. FOPL resulted in healthier purchasing in ITS studies. CONCLUSIONS: This review provides evidence from experimental and 'real-life' studies indicating that FOPL encourages healthier food purchasing. PROSPERO CRD42019135743.

Barriers and facilitators to implementation of menu labelling interventions from a food service industry perspective: a mixed methods systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Eating outside the home contributes to poor dietary habits worldwide and is associated with increased body fat and weight gain. Evidence shows menu labelling is effective in promoting healthier food choices; however, implementation issues have arisen. The purpose of this systematic review was to synthesise the evidence on the perceived barriers and facilitators to implementation of menu labelling interventions from the perspective of the food service industry. METHODS: Peer-reviewed and grey literature were searched using databases, specialised search engines and public health organisation websites. Screening reference lists, citation chaining and contacting authors of all included studies were undertaken. Primary research studies relevant to direct supply-side stakeholders were eligible for inclusion. There were no restrictions on menu labelling scheme or format, study methods, publication year or language. At least two independent reviewers performed study selection, data extraction and quality appraisal. The results were synthesised using the 'best fit' framework synthesis approach, with reference to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). RESULTS: Seventeen studies met the eligibility criteria, with the majority rated as average quality (n = 10). The most frequently cited barriers were coded to the CFIR constructs 'Consumer Needs & Resources' (e.g. lack of customer demand for/interest in menu labelling, risk of overwhelmed/confused customers) and 'Compatibility' with organisation work processes (e.g. lack of standardised recipes, limited space on menus). Frequently cited facilitators were coded to the CFIR constructs 'Relative Advantage' of menu labelling (e.g. improved business image/reputation) and 'Consumer Needs & Resources' (e.g. customer demand for/interest in menu labelling, providing nutrition information to customers). An adapted framework consisting of a priori and new constructs was developed, which illustrates the relationships between domains. CONCLUSION: This review generates an adapted CFIR framework for understanding implementation of menu labelling interventions. It highlights that implementation is influenced by multiple interdependent factors, particularly related to the external and internal context of food businesses, and features of the menu labelling intervention. The findings can be used by researchers and practitioners to develop or select strategies to address barriers that impede implementation and to leverage facilitators that assist with implementation effort. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42017083306.

How Consumers in the UK and Spain Value the Coexistence of the Claims Low Fat, Local, Organic and Low Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

This study investigates the substitution and complementary effects for beef mince attributes drawing on data from large choice experiments conducted in the UK and Spain. In both countries, consumers were found to be willing to pay a price premium for the individual use of the labels "Low Fat" (UK: €3.41, Spain: €1.94), "Moderate Fat" (UK: €2.23, Spain: €1.57), "Local" (UK: €1.54, Spain: €1.61), "National" (UK: €1.33, Spain: €1.37), "Organic" (UK: €1.02, Spain: €1.09) and "Low Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG)" (UK: €2.05, Spain: €0.96). The results showed that consumers in both countries do not treat desirable food attributes as unrelated. In particular, consumers in Spain are willing to pay a price premium for the use of the labels "Local", "Organic" and "Low GHG" on beef mince that is also labelled as having low or moderate fat content. By contrast, consumers in the UK were found to discount the coexistence of the labels "Low Fat" and "Organic", "Low Fat" and "Low GHG" and "Moderate Fat" and "Low GHG". The results, however, suggest that in the UK the demand for beef mince with moderate (low) fat content can be increased if it is also labelled as "Organic" or "Low GHG" ("Local").

Menu engineering to encourage sustainable food choices when dining out: An online trial of priced-based decoys.

Menu-based 'nudges' hold promise as effective ways to encourage a shift away from ruminant meat and towards more environmentally friendly plant-based food when dining out. One example of a menu-based nudge is including an inferior 'decoy' option to existing items on menus. Decoys have been shown to influence decision-making in other domains (e.g. Lichters, Bengart, Sarstedt, & Vogt, 2017), but have yet to be used to promote sustainable food choices. Two online randomized controlled trials tested whether the addition of higher priced 'decoy' vegetarian options on menus influenced the number of diners choosing a 'target' vegetarian option. Adjusted Generalized Estimating Equations on data from four menu conditions showed no main effect of the intervention in study 1 (decoy absent vs. decoy present; Odds Ratio (OR) 1.08 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.45 to 2.57). Replicating the trial in study 2 across seven menu conditions and testing a more expensive decoy also showed no main effect of the intervention decoy absent vs. decoy present; OR 0.68 (95% CI 0.41 to 1.12). Further analyses revealed that our price-based decoy strategy (a 30% price increase) did not significantly influence the number of people choosing the inferior decoy dish, possibly because dish choices were purely hypothetical. Further research is needed to clarify which attributes of a dish (e.g. taste, portion size, signature ingredients etc.) are optimal candidates for use as decoys and testing these in real world choice contexts.

Understanding price incentives to upsize combination meals at large US fast-food restaurants.

OBJECTIVE: To understand price incentives to upsize combination meals at fast-food restaurants by comparing the calories (i.e. kilocalories; 1 kcal = 4·184 kJ) per dollar of default combination meals (as advertised on the menu) with a higher-calorie version (created using realistic consumer additions and portion-size changes). DESIGN: Combination meals (lunch/dinner: n 258, breakfast: n 68, children's: n 34) and their prices were identified from online menus; corresponding nutrition information for each menu item was obtained from a restaurant nutrition database (MenuStat). Linear models were used to examine the difference in total calories per dollar between default and higher-calorie combination meals, overall and by restaurant. SETTING: Ten large fast-food chain restaurants located in the fifteen most populous US cities in 2017-2018. PARTICIPANTS: None. RESULTS: There were significantly more calories per dollar in higher-calorie v. default combination meals for lunch/dinner (default: 577 kJ (138 kcal)/dollar, higher-calorie: 707 kJ (169 kcal)/dollar, difference: 130 kJ (31 kcal)/dollar, P < 0·001) and breakfast (default: 536 kJ (128 kcal)/dollar, higher-calorie: 607 kJ (145 kcal)/dollar, difference: 71 kJ (17 kcal)/dollar, P = 0·009). Results for children's meals were in the same direction but were not statistically significant (default: 536 kJ (128 kcal)/dollar, higher-calorie: 741 kJ (177 kcal)/dollar, difference: 205 kJ (49 kcal)/dollar, P = 0·053). Across restaurants, the percentage change in calories per dollar for higher-calorie v. default combination meals ranged from 0·1 % (Dunkin' Donuts) to 55·0 % (Subway). CONCLUSIONS: Higher-calorie combination meals in fast-food restaurants offer significantly more calories per dollar compared with default combination meals, suggesting there is a strong financial incentive for consumers to 'upsize' their orders. Future research should test price incentives for lower-calorie options to promote healthier restaurant choices.

Consumer Preferences for Traceable Food with Different Functions of Safety Information Attributes: Evidence from a Menu-Based Choice Experiment in China.

It is of great value to study consumer demand for safe foods in promoting the development of a safe food market system and the reduction of food safety risks, as well as foodborne diseases in China. This paper takes traceable pork as an example and constructs food safety information attributes with ex ante quality verification and ex post traceability. Interactions between safety information attributes and the consumer's response to cost-driven price changes were investigated for 345 consumers in Wuxi City, Jiangsu Province, China, using a menu-based choice (MBC) experiment and multivariate probit (MVP) model as analysis tools. The results suggest that food safety information attributes are important to consumers, as the consumers preferred pork quality inspection attributes to pre-incident quality assurance functions. Therefore, it is beneficial to include pork quality inspection attributes in the traceable pork attribute systems during the initial construction of traceable pork markets in China. Attribute price was an important factor that affected consumers' choice of information attributes. When customization cannot be achieved, a profile composed of elastic pork quality inspection attribute and supply chain-internal traceability attribute would be the most preferred traceable pork product in the market based on the need of building a fully functional traceable food system and reducing food safety risks. In addition, there was a strong substitution relationship between different information attributes, and there was heterogeneity in consumers' choice of information attributes. Therefore, the government should support manufacturers in producing multi-level safe food to meet diverse consumer demand.

The effect of 'Traffic-Light' nutritional labelling in carbonated soft drink purchases in Ecuador.

Overweight and obesity have become global concerns in developed and developing countries due to their rise in recent years and their association with the prevalence of non-communicable diseases including diabetes, hypertension and cardiovascular diseases. In fact, it is estimated that roughly 39% of adults worldwide are overweight and 13% are obese. Ecuador is an example of a developing country concerned with the overweight and obesity problem, where it is estimated that 30% of children, 26% of teenagers and 63% of adults are either overweight or obese and where 1 in 4 deaths are attributed to chronic diseases. To address the overweight and obesity problem via the promotion of healthy eating habits, in 2013 the country approved technical regulation for the labelling of packed processed food products. The regulation included a mandatory traffic-light (TL) supplemental nutritional information labelling system to be displayed on the package of all processed foods for sale in the country. This new labelling system displays a traffic light panel for the product content of sugar, fat and salt in addition to the traditional nutrient declaration label. The objective of this paper was to evaluate the effect of the TL supplemental nutritional information on consumers' buying behavior in Ecuador. More specifically, we concentrated on the purchasing behavior of carbonated soft drinks. For our analysis, we used monthly aggregated purchase data (total expenditures, quantities and average prices) of carbonated soft drinks from January 2013 to December 2015 obtained from Kantar World Panel-Ecuador. We estimated a non-linear Almost Ideal Demand System where we model the demand for high sugar and low sugar carbonated soft drinks. We found that the introduction of the traffic light supplemental nutrition labelling did not have the expected effect of reducing purchases of carbonated soft drinks during its first year of implementation, especially those high in sugar. Additionally, we found that lower income-status households tend to spend more on and consume more calories from CSD than households with higher socio-economic status. Finally, we identified that over time purchases of high sugar soft drinks decreased while purchases of low and no sugar soft drinks increased. Beyond our contribution of evaluating the effect of the traffic light on the purchases of carbonated soft drinks, we also estimated price and income elasticities of carbonated soft drinks which can be useful in the evaluation of fiscal policies.

Cost-Effectiveness of the US Food and Drug Administration Added Sugar Labeling Policy for Improving Diet and Health.

BACKGROUND: Excess added sugars, particularly from sugar-sweetened beverages, are a major risk factor for cardiometabolic diseases including cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes mellitus. In 2016, the US Food and Drug Administration mandated the labeling of added sugar content on all packaged foods and beverages. Yet, the potential health impacts and cost-effectiveness of this policy remain unclear. METHODS: A validated microsimulation model (US IMPACT Food Policy model) was used to estimate cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes mellitus cases averted, quality-adjusted life-years, policy costs, health care, informal care, and lost productivity (health-related) savings and cost-effectiveness of 2 policy scenarios: (1) implementation of the US Food and Drug Administration added sugar labeling policy (sugar label), and (2) further accounting for corresponding industry reformulation (sugar label+reformulation). The model used nationally representative demographic and dietary intake data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, disease data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Wonder Database, policy effects and diet-disease effects from meta-analyses, and policy and health-related costs from established sources. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis accounted for model parameter uncertainties and population heterogeneity. RESULTS: Between 2018 and 2037, the sugar label would prevent 354 400 cardiovascular disease (95% uncertainty interval, 167 000-673 500) and 599 300 (302 400-957 400) diabetes mellitus cases, gain 727 000 (401 300-1 138 000) quality-adjusted life-years, and save $31 billion (15.7-54.5) in net healthcare costs or $61.9 billion (33.1-103.3) societal costs (incorporating reduced lost productivity and informal care costs). For the sugar label+reformulation scenario, corresponding gains were 708 800 (369 200-1 252 000) cardiovascular disease cases, 1.2 million (0.7-1.7) diabetes mellitus cases, 1.3 million (0.8-1.9) quality-adjusted life-years, and $57.6 billion (31.9-92.4) and $113.2 billion (67.3-175.2), respectively. Both scenarios were estimated with >80% probability to be cost saving by 2023. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing the US Food and Drug Administration added sugar labeling policy could generate substantial health gains and cost savings for the US population.

Nutrient profiling and food prices: what is the cost of choosing healthier products?

BACKGROUND: The Health Star Rating (HSR) is a front-of-pack label designed to help Australian consumers identify healthier packaged foods. Price is an important determinant of food choice and yet no previous studies have examined the relationship between HSR and price. In the present study, we investigated whether (i) healthier packaged food products, as determined by HSR, are more expensive than less healthy alternatives and (ii) products displaying the HSR are more expensive than similar products that do not. METHODS: Prices of three packaged foods categories (breakfast cereals, cereal-based bars and fruit juices) and nutrient data (to calculate HSR) were obtained from shopping receipts of approximately 1600 Australians between June 2014 and September 2016. Associations between HSR and price [per energy ($/100 kJ) and per unit ($/100 g)] for products of comparable package sizes were assessed by linear regression and the results are presented as differences in average price over the theoretical maximum range of HSR from 0.5 to 5 stars. RESULTS: The HSR of products was not consistently related to price. Small positive associations were observed for juice ($0.08/100 mL; P = 0.03) and for cereal-based bars ($0.04/100 kJ; P = 0.02). No other associations between HSR and price were observed (P ≥ 0.23). Products that displayed the HSR were no more expensive on average than products that received a similar HSR but did not display the HSR (P ≥ 0.16). CONCLUSIONS: In summary, the findings of the present study suggest that healthier packaged food products were not consistently more expensive than less healthy products and also that price is unlikely to be a barrier for consumers to use the HSR to select healthier packaged foods.

The Nutritional Quality of Gluten-Free Products for Children.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the nutritional quality of gluten-free (GF) products specifically marketed for children. METHODS: All child-targeted food products were purchased from 2 major supermarket chains in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Using the Pan American Health Organization Nutrient Profile Model, the nutritional quality of products with a GF claim was compared with those without such a claim. A secondary analysis further compared the nutrient profile of child-targeted GF products to their product "equivalents." RESULTS: Overall, child-targeted GF products had lower levels of sodium, total fat, and saturated fat but also had less protein and a similar percentage of calories from sugar compared with child-targeted products without a GF claim. According to the Pan American Health Organization criteria, both GF products and "regular" products designed for children can be classified as having poor nutritional quality (88% vs 97%; P < .001). When analyzed in light of their product equivalents without a GF claim, both had similarly high levels of sugar (79% vs 81%; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: GF supermarket foods that are targeted at children are not nutritionally superior to regular child-targeted foods and may be of greater potential concern because of their sugar content. The health halo often attributed to the GF label is not warranted, and parents who substitute GF products for their product equivalents (assuming GF products to be healthier) are mistaken. Parents of children with gluten intolerance and/or sensitivity, along with parents who purchase GF products for other health reasons, need to carefully assess product labels when making purchases.

Cost-Effectiveness of Product Reformulation in Response to the Health Star Rating Food Labelling System in Australia.

The Health Star Rating (HSR) system is a voluntary front-of-pack labelling (FoPL) initiative endorsed by the Australian government in 2014. This study examines the impact of the HSR system on pre-packaged food reformulation measured by changes in energy density between products with and without HSR. The cost-effectiveness of the HSR system was modelled using a proportional multi-state life table Markov model for the 2010 Australian population. We evaluated scenarios in which the HSR system was implemented on a voluntary and mandatory basis (i.e., HSR uptake across 6.7% and 100% of applicable products, respectively). The main outcomes were health-adjusted life years (HALYs), net costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). These were calculated with accompanying 95% uncertainty intervals (95% UI). The model predicted that HSR-attributable reformulation leads to small changes [corrected] in mean population energy intake (voluntary: -0.98 kJ/day; mandatory: -11.81 kJ/day). [corrected]. These are likely to result in changes in mean body weight (voluntary: -0.01 kg [95% UI: -0.012 to -0.006]; mandatory: -0.11 kg [95% UI: -0.14 to -0.07, and HALYs gained [corrected] (voluntary: 4207 HALYs gained [corrected] [95% UI: 2438 to 6081]; mandatory: 49,949 HALYs gained [95% UI: 29,291 to 72,153]). The HSR system [corrected] could be considered cost-effective relative to a willingness-to-pay threshold of A$50,000 per HALY (incremental cost effectiveness ratio for voluntary: [corrected] A$1728 per HALY [95% UI: dominant to 10,445] and mandatory: A$4752 per HALY [95% UI: dominant to 16,236]).

The impact of price and nutrition labelling on sugary drink purchases: Results from an experimental marketplace study.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of front-of-package (FOP) nutrition labelling and sugary drink taxation on consumer beverage purchases. METHODS: A total of 675 respondents aged 16 years and older participated in an experimental marketplace study using a 4 × 5 within-between group design. Participants were randomised to one of four labelling conditions (no label; star rating; high sugar symbol; health warning) and completed five within-subject purchase tasks. Beverage prices in each task corresponded to 'tax' conditions: 0%, 10%, 20%, 30% and a variable tax proportional to free sugar level. In each task, participants selected from 20 commercially available beverages; upon conclusion, one of five selections was randomly chosen for purchase. RESULTS: As price increased, participants were significantly less likely to select a sugary drink, and selected drinks with fewer calories and less free sugar (p < 0.001 for all). The overall effect of labelling was not statistically significant, although there was a trend for the 'high sugar' label to reduce the likelihood of selecting a sugary drink (p = 0.11) and encouraging participants to select drinks with less free sugar (p = 0.11). CONCLUSIONS: Increasing price was associated with reduced sugary drink purchases. Enhanced FOP labelling results highlight the need for further research to investigate their potential impact. The study adds empirical support for taxation to reduce sugary drink consumption.

The impact of interpretive and reductive front-of-pack labels on food choice and willingness to pay.

BACKGROUND: This study examined how front-of-pack labels and product healthfulness affect choice and willingness to pay across a range of foods. It was hypothesized that: (i) product choice and (ii) willingness to pay would be more aligned with product healthfulness when healthfulness was expressed through the Health Star Rating, followed by the Multiple Traffic Light, then the Daily Intake Guide, and (iii) the Nutrition Facts Panel would be viewed infrequently. METHODS: Adults and children aged 10+ years (n = 2069) completed an online discrete choice task involving mock food packages. A 4 food type (cookies, corn flakes, pizza, yoghurt) × 2 front-of-pack label presence (present, absent) × 3 front-of-pack label type (Daily Intake Guide, Multiple Traffic Light, Health Star Rating) × 3 price (cheap, moderate, expensive) × 3 healthfulness (less healthy, moderately healthy, healthier) design was used. A 30 s time limit was imposed for each choice. RESULTS: Of the three front-of-pack labels tested, the Health Star Rating produced the largest differences in choices, with 40% (95% CIs: 38%-42%) of respondents selecting the healthier variant, 33% selecting the moderately healthy variant (95% CIs: 31%-35%), and 23% (95% CIs: 21%-24%) selecting the less healthy variant of the four products included in the study. The Multiple Traffic Light led to significant differences in choices between healthier (35%, 95% CIs: 33%-37%) and less healthy products (29%, 95% CIs: 27%-31%), but not moderately healthy products (32%, 95% CIs: 30%-34%). No significant differences in choices were observed by product healthfulness when the Daily Intake Guide was present. Only the Health Star Rating resulted in a significantly greater willingness to pay for healthier versus less healthy products. The Nutrition Facts Panel was viewed for only 7% of all mock packages. CONCLUSIONS: Front-of-pack labels that are more interpretive, such as the Health Star Rating, can be more effective at directing consumers towards healthier choices than reductive front-of-pack labels such as the Daily Intake Guide. The study results provide policy makers with clear guidance on the types of front-of-pack labels that are most likely to achieve positive health outcomes at a population level.

Modelled Cost-Effectiveness of a Package Size Cap and a Kilojoule Reduction Intervention to Reduce Energy Intake from Sugar-Sweetened Beverages in Australia.

Interventions targeting portion size and energy density of food and beverage products have been identified as a promising approach for obesity prevention. This study modelled the potential cost-effectiveness of: a package size cap on single-serve sugar sweetened beverages (SSBs) >375 mL ( package size cap ), and product reformulation to reduce energy content of packaged SSBs ( energy reduction ). The cost-effectiveness of each intervention was modelled for the 2010 Australia population using a multi-state life table Markov model with a lifetime time horizon. Long-term health outcomes were modelled from calculated changes in body mass index to their impact on Health-Adjusted Life Years (HALYs). Intervention costs were estimated from a limited societal perspective. Cost and health outcomes were discounted at 3%. Total intervention costs estimated in AUD 2010 were AUD 210 million. Both interventions resulted in reduced mean body weight ( package size cap : 0.12 kg; energy reduction : 0.23 kg); and HALYs gained ( package size cap : 73,883; energy reduction : 144,621). Cost offsets were estimated at AUD 750.8 million ( package size cap ) and AUD 1.4 billion ( energy reduction ). Cost-effectiveness analyses showed that both interventions were "dominant", and likely to result in long term cost savings and health benefits. A package size cap and kJ reduction of SSBs are likely to offer excellent "value for money" as obesity prevention measures in Australia.

The economic burden of gluten-free products and gluten-free diet: a cost estimation analysis in Greece.

BACKGROUND: Adherence to a gluten-free diet (GFD) demonsrates various difficulties, including the high cost of the diet. The present study aimed to (i) compare the cost of gluten-free products (GFP) from supermarkets and pharmacies with the cost of their conventional counterparts and (ii) estimate the weekly economic burden of a GFD. METHODS: The prices of all food products labelled as 'gluten-free' available at four supermarket chains in Athens, as well as the prices of all similar conventional food products, were recorded. The prices of the pharmacy GFP were recorded from the official list of the National Health Service Organisation. For every product, the price per 100 g was calculated. All products were classified into 24 categories, which consisted of three subcategories: conventional, supermarket GFP and pharmacy GFP. Three weekly menus were designed for children, adolescents and adults, selecting the upper levels of energy intake, to cover the majority of the patients. For all three weekly menus, the price difference between conventional and GFP, both from supermarkets and pharmacies, was calculated. RESULTS: Compared with conventional food products, all supermarket GFP, except for one, were more expensive by 22-334% (P < 0.05) and all pharmacy GFP were more expensive by 88-476% (P < 0.05). The weekly economic burden of a GFD ranged from €12 to €28 per week, depending on age and GFP place of purchase. CONCLUSIONS: The present study confirms the higher cost of GFP compared to their conventional equivalents in Greece, leading to a weekly economic burden for people on a gluten-free diet.