Purpose: Neuroscience, defined as the convergence of neuroscience and consumer psychology, has the potential to allow a more in-depth understanding of consumer behavior by providing direct information about how information is processed. In this context, the aim of the present work is to showcase the contributions of this interdisciplinary field of study to the evaluation of front-of-package nutrition labels (FOPNL).  

Methods: Neuroscience tools were a key component of the research conducted to support the design of the Uruguayan FOPNL regulation. Nine studies involving a total of 787 participants were carried out to assess attentional capture and use of different FOPNL using visual search and eye-tracking. The studies involved the evaluation of food labels on computer screens, choice experiments, as well as a real purchase situation in a supermarket.

Results: Visual search enabled the evaluation of the effect of graphic design on the attentional capture and processing time of FOPNL schemes. The inclusion of Interpretational elements and salience from the background, determined by color and size, significantly reduced the time needed by participants to find and process FOPNL. Regarding eye-tracking, results from the study conducted in a real supermarket confirmed that consumers do not rely on when making their food purchases. Under experimental settings, eye-tracking showed that FOPNL were attended by participants to assess the healthfulness of food labels and to make their choices. 

Conclusions: Results from the nine studies provided key insights for the design of the Uruguayan FOPNL regulation. Neuroscience tools contributed to the understanding of how consumers perceive, process, and react to front-of-package nutrition labels, providing key information to the design and evaluation of the Uruguayan FOPNL policy.

Purpose: Front-of-package (FOP) nutrition labelling is increasingly recommended to improve dietary intake. However, there is relatively little data on the impacts of FOP labels on real purchases. This study used an experimental method with real money and real products to simulate the relative impact of different FOP labelling systems on the nutrient content of beverage and snack food purchases.

Methods: An in-person randomized trial in an experimental marketplace was conducted with 3,584 Canadians aged 13 years+. Participants received $5 and viewed images of 20 beverages and 20 snack foods available for purchase. Participants were randomized to one of five FOP label conditions (no label; ‘high in’; multiple traffic light (MTL); health star rating (HSR); nutrition grade) and completed purchasing tasks for beverages and snack foods. Participants received the product and change from one of the purchasing tasks.

Results: Participants who were shown products with the ‘high in’ symbol purchased less sugar (− 2.5 g), saturated fat (− 0.09 g), and calories (− 12.6 kcal) in the beverage tasks, and less sodium (− 13.5 mg) and calories (− 8.9 kcal) in the snack food tasks compared to those who saw no FOP label. In the snack food tasks, participants in the MTL condition purchased less sodium (− 15.1 mg) and fewer calories (− 11.4 kcal), and those in the HSR condition purchased fewer calories (− 8.0 kcal) versus control. Analyses examining the positive nutrient density of snack food purchases found that participants purchased foods with higher fibre density when they were assigned to see the MTL (+0.4 g/100 kcal) or HSR labels (+0.3 g/100 kcal), compared to no label. There were no significant differences in purchasing of protein or calcium for any of the labels versus control.

Conclusions: This study demonstrated the usefulness of experimental marketplace methods for evaluating FOP labelling policy when real-world evidence is unavailable or impractical to collect. The results suggest that nutrient-specific FOP ‘high in’ labels may be more effective than other summary labelling systems at reducing consumption of targeted nutrients, and may do so without compromising intake of positive nutrients such as protein, calcium and fibre.

Purpose: Most experimental studies of front-of-package labels (FOPLs) have relied on simplistic choice experiments or artificial settings that do not reflect the complexity of the real-world food environment where consumers make choices. The objective is to showcase experimental data from two naturalistic food stores we have developed—one in-person and one online—to demonstrate how these stores can be used to test the impact of FOPLs on food purchasing behaviors.

Methods:  In Study 1, focused on reducing sugary drinks, we constructed a naturalistic experimental convenience store located in North Carolina, stocked with beverages and snacks. Parents (n=325) were randomly assigned to a pictorial health warning arm (sugary drinks displayed pictorial health warnings) or a control arm (sugary drinks displayed a control label) and purchased a drink for their child. In Study 2, focused on reducing red meat, we constructed an online supermarket stocked with >20,000 products. Adults (n= 3,485) were randomly assigned to warning arm (products with red meat displayed health and environmental warnings) or a control arm (no label) and shopped for a list of 10 items.

Results: In Study 1, pictorial health warnings led to a 17 percentage point reduction in parents’ purchases of sugary drinks for their children (p=.003). The impact of warnings did not differ by any of 13 participant characteristics examined (p>.05). Pictorial warnings led to lower intentions to give sugary drinks to their child, greater thinking about the harms of sugary drinks, and lower perceived healthfulness of sugary drinks, among other reactions (all p<.05).  In Study 2, data collection is underway. We will report whether warnings reduced purchases of red meat products. We will also present data on the validity and feasibility of using both stores.

Conclusions: Naturalistic experimental food stores are useful for studying the FOPL impact on food purchasing behaviors, a critical outcome for informing policy.