CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 112Consumer Attitudes and Food LabelingConsumer Packaging Perceptions and TrendsConsumer behavior in food and health

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 42 of the 42 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effect of front-of-package nutrition labeling on food purchases: a systematic review

An, R., Shi, Y., Shen, J., Bullard, T., Liu, G., Yang, Q., Chen, N., Cao, L.·2021·Public Health
DOI 10.1016/j.puhe.2020.06.035
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objectives This study systematically reviewed evidence from interventions on the effect of front-of-package (FOP) nutrition labeling on food purchases. Study design The study design used in this study is a systematic review. Methods Keyword search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Library. Results Fifteen studies (10 randomized controlled trials, four pre-post studies, and one case-control study) met the eligibility criteria and were included in the review. Five studies were conducted in a controlled setting through the establishment of an online virtual supermarket or physical laboratory food store solely for the intervention. In contrast, the remaining ten studies were conducted in a naturalistic setting where people commonly purchase foods (e.g., supermarket, grocery store, school/hospital cafeteria, or vending machine). FOP labels assessed included traffic lights, health star rating, daily intake guides, health warnings, and high sugar symbol labels. Compared with the control, FOP labels were effective for helping participants make healthier food purchase decisions in five of the 12 studies that assessed traffic lights labels, in one of the two studies that assessed health warning labels, and in one study that assessed high sugar symbol labels. Three assessed health star ratings and one assessed daily intake guide labels, but none revealed an effect on food purchases compared with the control. Conclusions Findings on the effectiveness of FOP nu…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.puhe.2020.06.035

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 42 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
An, R., Shi, Y., Shen, J., Bullard, T., Liu, G., Yang, Q., Chen, N., & Cao, L.
Affiliations
  • Washington University in St. Louis (US)
  • University of California San Diego (US)
  • China University of Geosciences (Beijing) (CN)
  • University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
  • Beijing Normal University (CN)
  • University of Shanghai for Science and Technology (CN)
  • Tsinghua University (CN)
  • Shenyang Sport University (CN)
Corresponding author
Cao, L.
ORCID
Venue
Public Health
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-02
Volume
191
Pages
59-67
ISSN
0033-3506 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.puhe.2020.06.035
OpenAlex
W3127573106
Cited by
112
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 5
FWCI
3.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • Public Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Consumer Attitudes and Food Labeling
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Consumer Packaging Perceptions and Trends
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Consumer behavior in food and health
Keywords
food purchasing, traffic light labels, Health Star Rating, health warning labels, nudging, healthier food choices, consumer behavior, naturalistic settings, virtual supermarket
MeSH terms
Adult, Choice Behavior, Commerce, Consumer Behavior, Female, Food, Food Labeling, Food Preferences, Health Promotion, Humans, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Male, Nutritive Value, Product Labeling, Health Behavior

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review