Oral Presentation ESA-SRB-ANZOS 2025 in conjunction with ENSA

Tarnishing the health halo: How warning labels and removal of nutrition content claims influence parental perceptions and purchases of commercial infant and toddler foods with added sugar. (128246)

Helen Dixon 1 2 , Mamaru Awoke 1 , Maree Scully 1 , Jennifer McCann 3 , Alison McAleese 4 , Ashleigh Haynes 1 2 , Bridget Kelly 5 , Lindsey Taillie 6 , Jane Martin 7 , Mihiri Silva 8 9 10 , Anthea Rhodes 9 11 , Helen Skouteris 12 , Andrea Schmidtke 7
  1. Centre for Behavioural Research in Cancer, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne , VIC, Australia
  2. School of Psychological Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Melbourne , VIC, Australia
  3. Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Burwood, Melbourne , VIC, Australia
  4. Prevention Division, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne , VIC, Australia
  5. Early Start, School of Health and Society, Faculty of the Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities, University of Wollongong, Northfields Avenue, Wollongong, NSW, Australia
  6. Carolina Population Center and Department of Nutrition, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina , USA
  7. Food for Health Alliance, Melbourne , VIC, Australia
  8. Inflammatory origins, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, Parkville, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  9. The Royal Children's Hospital Melbourne, Parkville, Melbourne , VIC, Australia
  10. Melbourne Dental School, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  11. Department of Paediatrics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  12. School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Background: Many commercial infant and toddler foods (CITFs) contain added sugars, posing health risks to consumers. Front-of-pack nutrition content claims can create a ‘health halo’ over sugary products, whereas warning labels could be effective in raising awareness of potential harms.

Aims: Test whether displaying Added Sugar Warning labels (‘warning labels’) and removing nutrition content claims on sugary CITFs helps parents evaluate products and prompts purchasing of CITFs without added sugar.

Methods: Using an online shopping experiment, 1,017 Australian parents of infants and toddlers (6 to <36 months) were randomly assigned to one of four conditions, using a 2 (warning label: control/warning) X 2 (claims: absent/present) between-subjects design. Parents viewed screens displaying twelve infant/toddler CITFs (six with added sugar, six without), featuring labels and claims reflecting their condition. Regression analyses tested effects of warning labels and no claims on product perceptions, purchasing choices and intentions.

Results/findings: Significant main effects (all p<0.05) showed that cf. control condition, warning labels: reduced parent’s likelihood of choosing CITFs with added sugar (82% vs. 53%); mean purchasing intentions (M: 4.93 vs. 3.80); perceptions of suitability (M: 4.65 vs. 3.70), naturalness (M:4.55 vs. 3.82), healthiness (M: 4.48 vs. 3.76), and fibre content (M: 4.44 vs. 4.05); but increased perceptions of the level of added sugar (M: 4.70 vs. 5.70), total sugar (M: 4.62 vs. 5.07) in CITFs with added sugar, irrespective of whether nutrition content claims were displayed or not (no main effects or interactions with warning labels).

Conclusions: Displaying warning labels on CITFs containing added sugar detracts from parents’ perceptions of the healthiness and suitability of these products and reorients their purchasing preferences towards lower sugar options, even in the presence of nutrition content claims. Warning labels offer a promising policy option to inform parents about added sugars in CITFs, nudging them towards healthier choices.