Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Public Health
Published in: BMC Public Health 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Research article

What do we know about the effects of exposure to ‘Low alcohol’ and equivalent product labelling on the amounts of alcohol, food and tobacco people select and consume? A systematic review

Authors: Ian Shemilt, Vivien Hendry, Theresa M. Marteau

Published in: BMC Public Health | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Explicit labelling of lower strength alcohol products could reduce alcohol consumption by attracting more people to buy and drink such products instead of higher strength ones. Alternatively, it may lead to more consumption due to a ‘self-licensing’ mechanism. Equivalent labelling of food or tobacco (for example “Low fat” or “Low tar”) could influence consumption of those products by similar mechanisms. This systematic review examined the effects of ‘Low alcohol’ and equivalent labelling of alcohol, food and tobacco products on selection, consumption, and perceptions of products among adults.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted based on Cochrane methods. Electronic and snowball searches identified 26 eligible studies. Evidence from 12 randomised controlled trials (all on food) was assessed for risk of bias, synthesised using random effects meta-analysis, and interpreted in conjunction with evidence from 14 non-randomised studies (one on alcohol, seven on food and six on tobacco). Outcomes assessed were: quantities of the product (i) selected or (ii) consumed (primary outcomes - behaviours), (iii) intentions to select or consume the product, (iv) beliefs associated with it consumption, (v) product appeal, and (vi) understanding of the label (secondary outcomes – cognitions).

Results

Evidence for impacts on the primary outcomes (i.e. amounts selected or consumed) was overall of very low quality, showing mixed effects, likely to vary by specific label descriptors, products and population characteristics. Overall very low quality evidence suggested that exposure to ‘Low alcohol’ and equivalent labelling on alcohol, food and tobacco products can shift consumer perceptions of products, with the potential to ‘self-licence’ excess consumption.

Conclusions

Considerable uncertainty remains about the effects of labels denoting low alcohol, and equivalent labels, on alcohol, food and tobacco selection and consumption. Independent, high-quality studies are urgently needed to inform policies on labelling regulations.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
UK Government. Regulation 42 and schedule 8: misleading descriptions (part 1, general). In: UK Government, editor. The food labelling regulations 1996 (statutory instrument 1996 No. 1449). London: The National Archives; 1996.
2.
Skog O-J. The effect of introducing a New light beer in Norway: substitution or addition? Brit J Addict. 1988;83:665–68.CrossRef
3.
Merritt AC, Effron DA, Monin B. Moral self-licensing: when being good frees us to be bad. Soc Personal Psychol Compass. 2010;4(5):344–57.CrossRef
4.
Cleeren K, Geyskens K, Verhoef PC and Pennings JME. ‘Regular or low-fat? An investigation of the long-run impact of the first low-fat purchase on subsequent purchase volumes and calories’. Int J Res Marketing. 2016;33(4):896-906.
5.
6.
Chandon P, Wansink B. The biasing health halos of fast-food restaurant health claims: lower calorie estimates and higher side-dish consumption intentions. J Consum Res. 2007;34:301–14.CrossRef
7.
Andrews JC, Netemeyer RG, Burton S. Consumer generalization of nutrient content claims in advertising. J Marketing. 1998;62:62–75.CrossRef
8.
Carels RA, Konrad K, Harper J. Individual differences in food perceptions and calorie estimation: an examination of dieting status, weight, and gender. Appetite. 2007;49:450–8.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Shemilt I, Marteau TM. Low alcohol and equivalent labels for changing selection and consumption of alcohol, food and tobacco products: a systematic review. PROSPERO. CRD42014013008; 2014.
10.
Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009;339:b2700.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
Lefebvre C, Manheimer E, Glanville J. Chapter 6: searching for studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions 5.1.0 (updated march 2011). Chichester: Wiley; 2011.
12.
Higgins JPT, Deeks JJ, editors. Chapter 7: Selecting studies and collecting data. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). Chichester: Wiley; 2011
13.
Reeves BC, Deeks JJ, Higgins JPT, Wells GA. Chapter 13: Including non-randomized studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 2011.
14.
Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Sterne JAC, editors. Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). Chichester: Wiley. 2011.
15.
Deeks JJ, Higgins JPT, Altman DG, editors. Chapter 9: Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). Chichester: Wiley. 2011.
16.
17.
Sterne JAC, Egger M, Moher D, editors. Chapter 10: Addressing reporting biases. In Higgins, JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). Chichester: Wiley. 2011
18.
Guyatt G, Oxman AD, SultanS BJ, Glasziou P, Alonso-Coello P, et al. GRADE guidelines: 11. Making an overall rating of confidence in effect estimates for a single outcome and for all outcomes. J Clini Epidemiol. 2012;66(2):151–57.CrossRef
19.
Aaron JI, Mela DJ, Evans RE. The influences of attitudes, beliefs and label information on perceptions of reduced-fat spread. Appetite. 1994;22(1):25–37.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Bansal-Travers M, Hammond D, Smith P, Cummings KM. The impact of cigarette pack design, descriptors, and warning labels on risk perception in the U.S. Am J Prev Med. 2011;40(6):674–82.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
21.
Bergen D, Yeh MC. Effects of energy-content labels and motivational posters on sales of sugar-sweetened beverages: stimulating sales of diet drinks among adults study. J Am Diet Assoc. 2006;106(11):1866–69.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Bui M, Burton S, Howlett E, Kozup J. What am I drinking? The effects of serving facts information on alcohol beverage containers. J Consum Aff. 2008;42(1):81–99.CrossRef
23.
Cohen JE, Yang J, Donaldson EA. Impact of the removal of light and mild descriptors from cigarette packages in Ontario, Canada: switching to ‘light replacement’ brand variants. Prev Med. 2014;69:120–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
24.
Crockett RA, Jebb SA, Hankins M, Marteau TM. The impact of nutritional labels and socioeconomic status on energy intake: an experimental field study. Appetite. 2014;81:12–9.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Dubbert PM, Johnson WG, Schlundt DG, Montague NW. The influence of caloric information on cafeteria food choices. J Appl Behav Anal. 1984;17(1):85–92.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
26.
Ebneter DS, Latner JD, Nigg CR. Is less always more? The effects of low-fat labeling and caloric information on food intake, calorie estimates, taste preference, and health attributions. Appetite. 2013;68:92–7.CrossRefPubMed
27.
French SA, Jeffery RW, Story M, Breitlow KK, Baxter JS, Hannan P, et al. Pricing and promotion effects on low-fat vending snack purchases: the CHIPS Study. Am J Pub Health. 2001;91(1):112–7.CrossRef
28.
Hammond D, Dockrell M, Arnott D, Lee A, McNeill A. Cigarette pack design and perceptions of risk among UK adults and youth. Eur J Public Health. 2009;19(6):631–7.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Hammond D, Parkinson C. The impact of cigarette package design on perceptions of risk. J Public Health. 2009;31(3):345–53.CrossRef
30.
Kähkönen P, Tuorila H, Rita H. How information enhances acceptability of a low-fat spread. Food Qual Prefer. 1996;7(2):87–94.CrossRef
31.
Kähkönen P. Consumer acceptance of reduced-fat foods – the effects of product information. Helsinki: University of Helsinki; 2000.
32.
Kähkönen P, Tuorila H, Lawless H. Lack of effect of taste and nutrition claims on sensory and hedonic responses to a fat-free yogurt. Food Qual Prefer. 1997;8(2):125–30.CrossRef
33.
Kähkönen P, Tuorila H. Effect of reduced-fat information on expected and actual hedonic and sensory ratings of sausage. Appetite. 1998;30(1):13–23.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Kähkönen P, Hakanpää P, Tuorila H. The effect of information related to fat content and taste on consumer responses to a reduced-fat frankfurter and a reduced-fat chocolate bar. J Sens Stud. 1999;14(1):35–46.CrossRef
35.
Kiesel K, Villas-Boas SB. Can information costs affect consumer choice? Nutritional labels in a supermarket experiment. Int J Ind Organ. 2013;31(2):153–63.CrossRef
36.
Kruja B. I’ll drink to that: differential effect of fat labeling, weight salience and dietary restraint on consumption. Honors theses, paper 97. Williamsburg: College of William and Mary; 2014.
37.
Liem DG, Toraman Aydin N, Zandstra EH. Effects of health labels on expected and actual taste perception of soup. Food Qual Prefer. 2012;25(2):192–97.CrossRef
38.
Norton JE, Fryer PJ, Parkinson JA. The effect of reduced-fat labelling on chocolate expectations. Food Qual Prefer. 2013;28(1):101–5.CrossRef
39.
Siahpush M, Borland R, Fong GT, Elton-Marshall T, Yong HH, Holumyong C. Socioeconomic differences in the effectiveness of the removal of the ‘light’ descriptor on cigarette packs: findings from the international tobacco control (ITC) Thailand survey. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2011;8(6):2170–80.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
40.
Stubenitsky K, Aaron JI, Catt SL, Mela DJ. Effect of information and extended use on the acceptance of reduced-fat products. Food Qual Prefer. 1999;10(4–5):367.CrossRef
41.
Wansink B, Chandon P. Can ‘low-fat’ nutrition labels lead to obesity? J Marketing Res. 2006;43(4):605–17.CrossRef
42.
Wansink B, Chandon P. Health halos: How nutrition claims influence food consumption for overweight and normal weight people. INSTEAD Working Paper Series: 2005/73/MKT. Fontainebleau: INSTEAD; 2005
43.
Wardle J, Solomons W. Naughty but nice: a laboratory study of health information and food preferences in a community sample. Health Psychol. 1994;13(2):180–3.CrossRefPubMed
44.
Westcombe A, Wardle J. Influence of relative fat content information on responses to three foods. Appetite. 1997;28(1):49–62.CrossRefPubMed
45.
Yong HH, Borland R, Cummings KM, Hammond D, O’Connor RJ, Hastings G, King B. Impact of the removal of misleading terms on cigarette pack on smokers’ beliefs about ‘light/mild’ cigarettes: cross-country comparisons. Addiction. 2011;106(12):2204–13.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
46.
47.
Shadish W, Cook T, Campbell D. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin; 2002.
48.
Dunning T. Natural experiments in the social sciences: a design-based approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2012.CrossRef
49.
Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Brozek J, Alonso-Coello P, Rind D, et al. GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence—imprecision. J Clini Epidemiol. 2011;64(12):1283–93.CrossRef
50.
National Cancer Institute. The FTC cigarette test method for determining tar, nicotine, and carbon monoxide yields of US cigarettes: report of the NCI expert committee (NIH publication No 96-4028.). Bethesda: National Institutes of Health; 1996.
51.
Marteau TM, Ogilvie D, Roland M, Suhrcke M, Kelly MP. Judging nudging: can nudging improve population health? BMJ. 2012;342:d228.CrossRef
52.
Greenhalgh T, Peacock R. Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: audit of primary sources. BMJ. 2005;331:1064.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
53.
Jalali S, Wohlin C. Systematic literature studies: database searches vs. backward snowballing, ESEM '12: Proceedings of the ACM-IEEE international symposium on Empirical software engineering and measurement. New York: Association of Computing Machinery; 2012. p. 29–38.
Metadata
Title
What do we know about the effects of exposure to ‘Low alcohol’ and equivalent product labelling on the amounts of alcohol, food and tobacco people select and consume? A systematic review
Authors
Ian Shemilt
Vivien Hendry
Theresa M. Marteau
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Public Health / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2458
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-3956-2

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

BMC Public Health 1/2017 Go to the issue

Study protocol

The GREENH-City interventional research protocol on health in all policies

Research article

Spatial variation and hot-spots of district level diarrhea incidences in Ghana: 2010–2014

Research article

The mediating role of the home environment in relation to parental educational level and preschool children’s screen time: a cross-sectional study

Research article

The indirect and direct pathways between physical fitness and academic achievement on commencement in post-compulsory education in a historical cohort of Danish school youth

Research article

An appraisal of the neglected tropical diseases control program in Cameroon: the case of the national program against onchocerciasis

Study protocol

A mixed methods study to assess the effectiveness of food-based interventions to prevent stunting among children under-five years in Districts Thatta and Sujawal, Sindh Province, Pakistan: study protocol