Does High Blood Pressure Increase Perceived Healthiness of Foods with Sodium Claims on the Label?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study measured Canadian consumers’ perceived clarity of the wording and the healthiness perception of food products carrying different types of claims related to sodium and examined the effect of having high blood pressure (BP) on these perceptions. Online panellists (n=803) were randomly assigned to one of four identical mock canned soup labels carrying the same Nutrition Facts table, differing only by the claim on the label: 1) nutrient content (NC), 2) function claim, 3) disease risk reduction (DRR) claim, or 4) ‘tastes great’ claim acting as a control. Overall, panellists, regardless of BP, rated the NC claim as the most clear, while the function claim was found to be the least clear (p<0.001). DRR and taste claims were intermediate. Despite the NC claim being the most clear, participants perceived the product with the DRR claim as the healthiest, and all 3 sodium claims were perceived healthier than the taste claim (p<0.001). Those with high BP (n=226) consistently rated all products with sodium related claims healthier compared to those with normal BP (p=0.02); furthermore products with sodium claims, irrespectively of the type, were perceived as healthier than the one with the taste claim. This study demonstrates that, although clarity was rated similarly irrespective of BP, having high BP increases the perceived healthiness of products carrying claims mentioning sodium. Supported by: AFMNet; CIHR STIHR Grant Funding Source : AFMNet; CIHR Strategic Training Program in Public Health Policy (CW); University of Toronto McHenry Chair (ML)
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".