Trans <i>Fat Information on Food Labels:</i> Consumer Use and Interpretation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Consumers' use and interpretation of trans fat information on food labels were explored. METHODS: Consumers completed an interviewer-administered questionnaire in one of three grocery stores selected purposively to represent geographical location. Data analysis involved examining the relationship of age, gender, grocery shopping habits, household size, and source of nutrition information with awareness, use, and interpretation of trans fat information. RESULTS: Ninety-eight percent (n=239) of participants were aware of trans fat, and most knew of the relationship between trans fat intake and cardiovascular disease. Although the majority of shoppers were aware of the "0 trans fat" nutrition claim on food packages (95%), they were more likely to use the Nutrition Facts panel (60%%) to reduce trans fat intake. Men and consumers under age 40 were least likely to be aware of food label information. While most consumers (75%) correctly interpreted the "0 trans fat" nutrition claim and thought foods with this claim could be healthy choices (64%), only 51% purchased these foods to reduce trans fat intake. CONCLUSIONS: Nutrition professionals should target messages to reduce trans fat intake at men and consumers under age 40. While general knowledge was good, further education is required to help consumers interpret trans fat information.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".