Cited by 126Consumer Attitudes and Food LabelingNutrition, Health and Food BehaviorConsumer Packaging Perceptions and Trends

Smart food policy for healthy food labeling: Leading with taste, not healthiness, to shift consumption and enjoyment of healthy foods

Open access
Turnwald, Bradley P., Crum, Alia J.·2019·Preventive Medicine

Abstract

Smart food policy models for improving dietary intake recommend tailoring interventions to people's food preferences. Yet, despite people citing tastiness as their leading concern when making food choices, healthy food labels overwhelmingly emphasize health attributes (e.g., low caloric content, reductions in fat or sugar) rather than tastiness. Here we compared the effects of this traditional health-focused labeling approach to a taste-focused labeling approach on adults' selection and enjoyment of healthy foods. Four field studies (total N = 4273) across several dining settings in northern California in 2016-2017 tested whether changing healthy food labels to emphasize taste and satisfaction rather than nutritional properties would encourage more people to choose them (Studies 1-2), sustain healthy purchases over the long-term (Study 3), and improve both the perceived taste of and mindsets about healthy foods (Study 4). Compared to health-focused labeling, taste-focused labeling increased choice of vegetables (OR = 1.73, 95% CI: 1.32, 2.26), salads (OR = 2.06, 95% CI: 1.06, 4.06), and vegetable wraps (OR = 3.09, 95% CI: 1.73, 5.65) in Studies 1-2. In Study 3, taste-focused labeling sustained vegetarian entrée purchases over a two-month period, while health-focused labeling led to a 45.1% decrease. In Study 4, taste-focused labeling significantly enhanced post-consumption ratings of vegetable deliciousness and improved mindsets about the deliciousness of healthy foods compared to health-focused labeling. These studies demonstrate that taste-focused labeling is a low-cost strategy that increased healthy food selection by 38% and outperforms health-focused labeling on multiple smart food policy mechanisms.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ypmed.2018.11.021

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Initial evidence suggests that taste-focused labeling leads more people to choose vegetables than health-focused and basic labels do.

    “Initial evidence suggests that taste-focused labeling leads more people to choose vegetables than health-focused and basic (nondescriptive) labels do (Turnwald, Boles, & Crum, 2017; Turnwald & Crum, 2019)”

    From Increasing Vegetable Intake by Emphasizing Tasty and Enjoyable Attributes: A Randomized Controlled Multisite Intervention for Taste-Focused Labeling (2019) · cites this paper as Turnwald & Crum, 2019

    Study 1 (page not available in our copy) reports that more diners chose vegetables with taste-focused labels than with health-focused labels (33.11% versus 22.27%). The paper does not report a comparison with basic, nondescriptive labels, so it supports only the health-focused comparison attributed to it. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 39

  1. Bleich SN, Economos CD, Spiker ML,, 2017a A systematic review of calorie labeling and modified calorie labeling interventions: impact on consumer and restaurant behavior. Obesity, 25 (12), 2018– 2044. 29045080 PMC5752125
  2. Bleich SN, Wolfson JA, Jarlenski MP, 2017b Calorie changes in large chain restaurants from 2008 to 2015. Prev. Med 100, 112– 16. 28389331
  3. Block JP, Roberto CA, 2014 Potential benefits of calorie labeling in restaurants. JAMA 312, 887– 888. 25077460 PMC4451934
  4. Campos S, Doxey J, Hammond D, 2011 Nutrition labels on pre-packaged foods: a systematic review. Public Health Nutr. 14 (8), 1496– 1506. 21241532
  5. Chen X, Jahns L, Gittelsohn J, Wang Y, 2012 Who is missing the message? Targeting strategies to increase food label use among US adults. Public Health Nutr. 15 (5), 760– 772. 21899793
  6. Crum A, Zuckerman B, 2017 Changing Mindsets to Enhance Treatment Effectiveness. JAMA 317 (20), 2063– 2064. 28418538 PMC7608684
  7. Crum AJ, Leibowitz KA, Verghese A, 2017 Making mindset matter. BMJ 356, j674. 28202443
  8. Donnelly GE, Zatz LY, Svirsky D, John LK, 2018 The Effect of Graphic Warnings on Sugary-Drink Purchasing. Psychol. Sci 29 (8), 1321– 1333. 29912624 PMC6088502
  9. Dweck CS, 2008 Can personality be changed? The role of beliefs in personality and change. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci 17 (6), 391– 394.
  10. Fernandes AC, Oliveira RC, Proença RP, Curioni CC, Rodrigues VM, Fiates GM, 2016 Influence of menu labeling on food choices in real-life settings: a systematic review. Nutr. Rev 74 (8), 534– 48. 27358442
  11. Finkelstein SR, Fishbach A, 2010 When healthy food makes you hungry. J. Consumer Res 37 (3), 357– 367.
  12. Giuliani NR, Calcott RD, Berkman ET, 2013 Piece of cake. Cognitive reappraisal of food craving. Appetite 64, 56– 61. 23313699 PMC3711873
  13. Glanz K, Basil M, Maibach E, Goldberg J, Snyder D, 1998 Why Americans eat what they do: taste, nutrition, cost, convenience, and weight control concerns as influences on food consumption. J. Am. Diet. Assoc 98 (10), 1118– 1126. 9787717
  14. Gortmaker SL, Swinburn BA, Levy D,, 2011 Changing the future of obesity: science, policy, and action. Lancet 378 (9793), 838– 847. 21872752 PMC3417037
  15. Grabenhorst F, Schulte FP, Maderwald S, Brand M, 2013 Food labels promote healthy choices by a decision bias in the amygdala. Neuroimage 74, 152– 163. 23428568
  16. Hawkes C, Smith TG, Jewell J,, 2015 Smart food policies for obesity prevention. Lancet 385 (9985), 2410– 2421. 25703109
  17. Huang T, Yang B, Zheng J, Li G, Wahlqvist ML, Li D, 2012 Cardiovascular disease mortality and cancer incidence in vegetarians: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Ann. Nutr. Metab 60 (4), 233– 240. 22677895
  18. Kiszko KM, Martinez OD, Abrams C, Elbel B, 2014 The influence of calorie labeling on food orders and consumption: a review of the literature. J. Community Health 39 (6), 1248– 1269. 24760208 PMC4209007
  19. Larsson SC, Orsini N, 2013 Red meat and processed meat consumption and all-cause mortality: a meta-analysis. Am. J. Epidemiol 179 (3), 282– 289. 24148709
  20. Le LT, Sabaté J, 2014 Beyond meatless, the health effects of vegan diets: findings from the Adventist cohorts. Nutrients 6 (6), 2131– 2147. 24871675 PMC4073139
  21. Lennernäs M, Fjellström C, Becker W, Giachetti I, Schmitt A, De Winter A, Kearney M, 1997 Influences on food choice perceived to be important by nationally-representative samples of adults in the European Union. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr 51. 9222718
  22. Liem D, Aydin NT, Zandstra E, 2012 Effects of health labels on expected and actual taste perception of soup. Food Qual. Pref 25 (2), 192– 197.
  23. Lim SS, Vos T, Flaxman AD,, 2013 A comparative risk assessment of burden of disease and injury attributable to 67 risk factors and risk factor clusters in 21 regions, 1990–2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet 380 (9859), 2224– 2260. PMC4156511 23245609
  24. Long MW, Tobias DK, Cradock AL, Batchelder H, Gortmaker SL, 2015 Systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of restaurant menu calorie labeling. Am. J. Public Health, 105 (5), e11– e24. PMC4386504 25790388
  25. Mann T, Tomiyama AJ, Ward A, 2015 Promoting Public Health in the Context of the “Obesity Epidemic” False Starts and Promising New Directions. Perspect. Psychol. Sci 10 (6), 706– 710. 26581722 PMC4654677
  26. Oyserman D, Fryberg SA, Yoder N, 2007 Identity-based motivation and health. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol 93 (6), 1011– 1027. 18072851
  27. Raghunathan R, Naylor RW, Hoyer WD, 2006 The unhealthy= tasty intuition and its effects on taste inferences, enjoyment, and choice of food products. J. Mark 70 (4), 170– 184.
  28. Roberto CA, Larsen PD, Agnew H, Baik J, Brownell KD, 2010 Evaluating the impact of menu labeling on food choices and intake. Am. J. Public Health 100 (2), 312– 318. 20019307 PMC2804627
  29. Roberto CA, Swinburn B, Hawkes,, 2015 Patchy progress on obesity prevention: emerging examples, entrenched barriers, and new thinking. Lancet 385 (9985), 2400– 2409. 25703111
  30. Roberto CA, Wong D, Musicus A, Hammond D, 2016 The influence of sugar-sweetened beverage health warning labels on parents’ choices. Pediatrics 137 (2), e20153185. 26768346
  31. Singh PN, Sabaté J, Fraser GE, 2003 Does low meat consumption increase life expectancy in humans? Am. J. Clin. Nutr 78 (3), 526S– 532S. 12936945
  32. Suher J, Raghunathan R, Hoyer WD, 2016 Eating healthy or feeling empty? How the “healthy= less filling” intuition influences satiety. J. Assoc. Consumer Res 1 (1), 26– 40.
  33. Thaler Richard H, Sunstein Cass R, 2008 Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  34. Turnwald BP, Boles DZ, Crum AJ, 2017b Selection Does Not Equate Consumption—reply. JAMA Intern. Med 177 (12), 1875– 1876. 29204642
  35. Turnwald BP, Jurafsky D, Conner A, Crum AJ, 2017c Reading between the menu lines: are restaurants’ descriptions of “healthy” foods unappealing? Health Psychol. 36 (11), 1034– 1037. 28541069
  36. Veldhuizen MG, Nachtigal DJ, Flammer LJ, de Araujo IE, Small DM, 2013 Verbal descriptors influence hypothalamic response to low-calorie drinks. Molec. Metab 2 (3), 270– 280. 24049739 PMC3773823
  37. Verbeke W, 2006 Functional foods: Consumer willingness to compromise on taste for health? Food Qual. Pref 17 (1–2), 126– 131.
  38. Wagner HS, Howland M, Mann T, 2015 Effects of subtle and explicit health messages on food choice. Health Psychol. 34 (1), 79– 82. 24467259 PMC4128898
  39. Walton GM, Wilson TD, 2018 Wise interventions: Psychological remedies for social and personal problems. Psychol. Rev 125 (5), 617– 655. 30299141

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Turnwald, B. P., & Crum, A. J.
Affiliations
Stanford University (US)
Corresponding author
Turnwald, Bradley P.
Venue
Preventive Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-02
Volume
119
Pages
7-13
ISSN
0091-7435 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2902572625
Cited by
126
References
8
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 5
FWCI
7.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Update notices
erratum (2019-06-01)
Open access
Locations
  • Preventive Medicine (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
  • National Science Foundation (DGE-114747)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Consumer Attitudes and Food Labeling
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Nutrition, Health and Food Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Consumer Packaging Perceptions and Trends
Keywords
food labeling, healthy food choices, food preferences, food enjoyment, vegetable consumption, salad consumption, dietary intake
MeSH terms
Diet, Healthy, Adult, California, Choice Behavior, Female, Food Labeling, Food Preferences, Health Promotion, Humans, Male, Taste, Nutrition Policy, Young Adult

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