Low-Income Parents’ Use of Front-of-Package Nutrition Labels in a Virtual Supermarket
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the impact front-of-package nutrition labels (FOPLs) have on decision-making abilities among low-income parents in a virtual supermarket. DESIGN: A 4-by-2 experimental design with 3 FOPLs (summary, nutrient-specific, hybrid) and a no-FOPL comparison. Within the FOPL condition, participants either shopped with a time limit (10 minutes) or with no time limit. SETTING: A web-based, 3-dimensional virtual supermarket. PARTICIPANTS: Parents (n = 1,452) from low-income households with at least 1 child aged 4-12 years. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURED: Index derived from the United Kingdom's Nutrient Profiling Model that summarized the overall nutrient profile of the participant's shopping basket. ANALYSIS: Analysis of covariance with post hoc estimations (pairwise) of condition means adjusted for multiple comparisons. RESULTS: All FOPLs led to healthier nutrient profiles than the no-FOPL condition (P < .001). Simple FOPLs (ie, summary, hybrid) led to healthier nutrient profiles than nutrient-specific FOPLs (P = .02 and P < .001, respectively). Among parents exposed to simple FOPLs, those under time pressure made less healthy choices than those who were not under time pressure (P = .05 and P = .03, respectively). Time pressure did not affect parents exposed to nutrient-specific FOPLs (P = .69). CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Front-of-package nutrition labels can aid parents in selecting healthier products. Simple FOPLs provide greater utility for selecting healthier products than FOPLs that present an array of nutrient information. Time pressure can influence how parents interact with different types of label 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".