The impact of an eco-score label on US consumers’ perceptions of environmental sustainability and intentions to purchase food: A randomized experiment

Lindsey Smith Taillie; Julia A. Wolfson; Carmen E. Prestemon; Maxime Bercholz; Laina Ewoldt; Phoebe R. Ruggles; Marissa G. Hall

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0306123

Abstract

Front-of-package labels indicating a product’s environmental footprint (i.e., eco-score labels) offer promise to shift consumers towards more sustainable food choices. This study aimed to understand whether eco-score labels impacted consumers’ perceptions of environmental sustainability and intentions to purchase sustainable and unsustainable foods. US parents (n = 1,013) completed an online experiment in which they were shown 8 food products (4 sustainable and 4 unsustainable). Participants were randomized to a control (n = 503, barcode on product packaging) or eco-score label group (n = 510, eco-score label on product packaging). The eco-score label was color-coded with a grade of A-F based on the product’s environmental footprint, where “A” indicates relative sustainability and “F” indicates relative unsustainability. Participants rated each product’s environmental sustainability and their future likelihood of purchase. We used multilevel mixed-effects linear regression models and examined moderation by product category and sociodemographic characteristics. The eco-score label lowered perceived sustainability of unsustainable products by 13% in relative terms or -0.4 in absolute terms (95% CI -0.5, -0.3; p<0.001). The eco-score label increased perceived sustainability of sustainable products by 16% in relative terms or 0.6 in absolute terms (95% CI 0.5, 0.7, p<0.001). Effects on purchase intentions were smaller, with a 6% decrease for unsustainable products (p = 0.001) and an 8% increase for sustainable products (p<0.001). For unsustainable products, the effect of eco-score labels on sustainability perceptions was greater for older adults, men, participants with higher educational attainment, and participants with higher incomes. For sustainable products, the effect of ecolabels on sustainability perceptions was greater for those with higher educational attainment. Eco-score labels have the potential to direct consumers towards more sustainable products. Future studies should investigate eco-score label effectiveness on behavioral outcomes.

Citation: Taillie LS, Wolfson JA, Prestemon CE, Bercholz M, Ewoldt L, Ruggles PR, et al. (2024) The impact of an eco-score label on US consumers’ perceptions of environmental sustainability and intentions to purchase food: A randomized experiment. PLoS ONE 19(6): e0306123. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306123

Editor: Abid Rashid Gill, Islamia University of Bahawalpur, PAKISTAN

Received: February 5, 2024; Accepted: June 11, 2024; Published: June 27, 2024

Copyright: © 2024 Taillie et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: The de-identified dataset is publicly available from the Open Science Framework Repository (https://osf.io/vu9t3/).

Funding: Initials of funding recipient: M.H Award number: P2CHD050924 Funder website:https://www.nichd.nih.gov/about/org/der/branches/pdb Research reported in this publication was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number P2CHD050924. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

The current food system contributes to an array of environmental harms, including greenhouse gas emissions, resource depletion, and biodiversity loss [1–4]. Many of the foods that are most environmentally damaging are also linked to adverse health outcomes. For example, processed meat is labeled as a Group 1 carcinogen, the same level as tobacco smoke and asbestos [5]. Meat, especially red meat, is also a major driver of greenhouse gas emissions, and the US is a top global consumer [6]. Policies are urgently needed to shift diets towards more sustainable food choices that will both protect the environment and promote public health. For example, a recent paper found that if all consumers who ate high-carbon foods like beef shifted from these higher-carbon foods to lower-carbon foods like chicken, the US could reduce its carbon footprint by over 35% while also improving dietary quality [7].

One policy approach to informing consumers about the environmental impacts of food products in order to improve the sustainability of food choices is to require front-of-package labels on food packages. A wide body of evidence has shown that front-of-package labels that communicate about a food’s nutritional properties influence consumers’ perceptions of healthfulness and increase their selection of healthier options [8,9]. Given that consumers generally have a low understanding of foods’ sustainability [10], front-of-package labels that provide simple, easy-to-understand information on sustainability could facilitate more sustainable choices. As with nutritional labeling [11], environmental labeling could also incentivize the food industry to change production and manufacturing processes, creating more sustainable options.

However, little is known about whether environmental front-of-package labels affect consumers’ perceptions of environmental sustainability. In addition, it is unclear whether environmental labels influence consumers’ intentions to purchase more- or less- sustainable products. Recent reviews indicate that consumers value environmental labels on food packages [12], are willing to pay more for sustainable products [10], and that environmental labeling is associated with the selection and purchase of more sustainable food products [13]. However, the type of labels included in the reviews were mixed in terms of substance and format (e.g., textual claims about organic, carbon labels with numbers and icons, and certification schemes) reflecting the diverse array of sustainability labels in use across the United States and globally [10]. Thus, it remains unclear which sustainability labels work well to help consumers quickly and easily assess a product’s environmental footprint, many of which are not regulated by any third party.

Eco-score labels are one type of environmental label that is of particular interest. Rather than providing numerical information about a product’s environmental impacts (e.g., amount of greenhouse gas emissions produced), which consumers have difficulty understanding [14,15], the eco-score label is interpretative. Similar to the Nutri-score label for nutrition labeling, the eco-score label uses an algorithm to assign a score to each product based on its environmental impact, then assigns a grade (A-F) and color to the product to communicate to the consumer whether the product is relatively unsustainable or sustainable. Previous research on the design of environmental labels has shown that use of color coding and grades on environmental labels helps improve effectiveness [15–17]. Data from the UK shows that eco-score labels that combine both colors and grades reduced the environmental impact of products selected in an online supermarket [18,19], though a similar label had no impact in a worksite cafeteria setting [20].

One additional question is whether eco-score labels will have a similar impact for products that are rated as “sustainable” (i.e., have a relatively low environmental footprint) vs. those that are “unsustainable” (i.e., have a relatively high environmental footprint). In other words, do positive eco-score labels (e.g., a green leaf with an “A” grade) alter consumer perceptions and intentions to purchase as much as negative eco-score labels (e.g., a red leaf with an “F” grade)? There is debate about whether positive labels are as impactful as negative labels. For example, several recent studies have found that negatively framed front-of-package nutrition labels outperformed positive labels on selection of healthier products [21]. In the sustainability labeling literature, a recent UK experiment found that red globes highlighting ‘worse’ products reduced the environmental impact of shoppers’ food selections, but green globes highlighting ‘better’ products had no effect[18]. A recent US experiment similarly found that negatively framed high climate impact labels outperformed positively framed low climate impact labels at shifting consumers’ food choices [22]. However, it is unclear whether similar effects will be observed for eco-score labels.

It is particularly timely and relevant to study this issue among US adults. Some food companies and restaurants are already developing and employing voluntary sustainability labels, though there is little scientific evidence underpinning most of these. In addition, the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Department of Agriculture (USDA) have launched multiple workgroups on the intersection of climate, nutrition, and health, including one workgroup tasked with assessing the pathways for incorporating environmental sustainability into the US dietary guidelines [23]. Data on consumer responses to environmental labels could provide valuable insight to the food industry and the government on the best strategies for communicating about the sustainability of food choices.

In sum, current research shows that front-of-package nutrition labels promote healthier food choices, but little is known about whether front-of-package environmental labels promote more sustainable food choices. This study investigates the impact of one type of environmental label, the eco-score-label, on consumers’ perceptions of sustainability and intentions to purchase foods.

We also aimed to understand differences in responses to eco-score labels that highlight sustainable products vs those that highlight less sustainable products. Specifically, we aimed to examine whether a red eco-score label with an “F” grade would be more impactful at shifting perceptions and intentions than a green eco-score label with an “A” grade. We also explored whether the impact of eco-score labels varied by product category, participant socio-demographic characteristics, and red meat consumption.

Methods

Ethics statement

This study was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill (#21–3135). All participants provided online written informed consent. The study’s design, hypotheses, and analytic plan were pre-registered at https://aspredicted.org/X28_QXJ prior to beginning data collection. De-identified data used in this study are available at Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/vu9t3/.

Participants

In order to gain an understanding of ecolabels’ potential impact in the US, our sample was comprised of US adults. Participants were recruited using Qualtrics Market Research Survey Panel (www.qualtrics.com), an online survey research panel comprised of a large, diverse sample of US adults that we have previously used to conduct studies on food labeling [24,25]. Inclusion criteria included: residence in the US, age ≥18 years, and being the parent or guardian of any children aged 2 to 12 years or older. This study was conducted as an ancillary study of a trial focused on parents, hence the criteria requiring being a parent or guardian [26]. We recruited a diverse sample, using a quota to ensure that at least 25% of participants self-identified as Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish and at least 25% identified as Black or African American. Qualtrics removed and replaced respondents who did not meet quality control criteria (e.g., completing the entire survey) [26]. The total sample size after quality control measures was 1,013.

Stimuli

Product selection and assessment.

Participants viewed labels on products. In order to facilitate a diverse selection of products with regards to environmental footprint and type of food, we included four categories: sandwiches, pizzas, snacks, and burgers. Within each category, we selected one high- and one low- sustainability product (e.g., veggie and hummus sandwich, ham and cheese sandwich; veggie pizza and pepperoni pizza; almonds and beef jerky; and veggie burger and beef burger). Thus, the study presented participants with a total of 8 products across 4 product categories.

Each product was reviewed by a team of nutritionist research assistants. To determine whether a product was low- or high- sustainability, we used the Food Labeling Toolkit [27], to calculate the environmental footprint for each product. In brief, the toolkit disaggregates meals and snacks into grams of component food groups, then calculates and sums the percent daily value of carbon, nitrogen, and water footprint of each food group to derive an overall score for the product. Since the footprint calculations are based on product weights, we scaled the pairs of products within each food category to have similar weights (for example, both the beef jerky and almonds had weights of 85g). We converted the numerical score into an alphabetical grade ranging from A to F, with A representing the lowest environmental footprint (i.e., most sustainable) and F representing the highest environmental footprint (i.e., least sustainable; we skipped “E”, since “F” corresponds to the US academic grading system and is something that consumers are likely to be familiar with). Because we were interested in understanding differential reactions to labels highlighting sustainable vs. unsustainable products, all products in this study received either an A or an F (in each food category, one item of the pair had an A score, and the other item had an F score).

Labels.

Fig 1 presents images of a product labeled with study labels. Depending on the study arm, the product displayed one of two types of labels: an eco-score label or a barcode control label. The eco-score labels consisted of color-coded images of leaves with letters A or F with green (A) representing the lowest environmental footprint (i.e. most sustainable) and red (F) representing the highest environmental footprint (i.e. least sustainable). The relevant letter was depicted inside a magnifying glass with the word “ECO-SCORE”. The design was based on the Nutri-Score nutrition label [28] and previously tested eco-score labels [18,19]. Similar to previous studies [29,30], a barcode was used as a control label to control for the presence of a label on the front of the package.

Download:

Fig 1.

Panel A, Veggie Burger with Eco-Score Label; Panel B, Veggie Burger with Control Label*. *Note: Branding has been blurred.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306123.g001

Procedures.

The experiment was conducted using the Qualtrics survey platform. Data collection took place from December 9, 2022 to December 26, 2022.

After screening for eligibility criteria and providing electronic informed consent, participants completed an online survey. After completing the main experimental task (about prices for sugary drinks) [26], participants were randomly assigned to view one of two labels on product images: a barcode control label (n = 503) or an eco-score label (n = 510). Randomization was completed between subjects using the Qualtrics randomizer function with a 1:1 allocation ratio. All products in both conditions received a label.

Participants then viewed a set of 8 products in random order and answered questions about each one.

Measurement.

The primary outcome was perceptions of environmental sustainability of the product. After viewing each product, participants were asked to assess their agreement with the statement, “This product is environmentally friendly.” Responses ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) [31].

The secondary outcome was intentions to purchase the product. After viewing each product, participants were asked, “How likely would you be to buy this product in the next week, if it were available?” Responses ranged from 1 (not at all likely) to 5 (extremely likely) [32].

Socio-demographic characteristics included age, gender, educational attainment, and race and ethnicity. Because red meat production is a top contributor to dietary greenhouse gas emissions, [33] and the products with low eco-scores all contained red meat, we also assessed red meat consumption. Participants were asked to respond to the question, “In the past 30 days, how often did you eat red meat?” Response options included never, less than 1 time per week, 1 time per week, 2–3 times per week, 4–6 times per week, 1 time per day, 2 times per day, or 3 or more times per day [24,25,34].

Statistical analysis

All analyses used Stata (version 18). We used a significance level of 0.05 and statistical tests were two-tailed.

For each outcome, we used a multilevel mixed-effects linear regression model to assess the association between eco-score labeling arm and outcomes, using the following model: where y_ij is the outcome for participant i and product j, label_i is a binary variable indicating that participant i is in the eco-score label group (between-subject factor), sustainable_j is a binary variable indicating that product j is a sustainable product carrying a green “A” eco-score label, pizza_j … burger_j are binary variables indicating product j’s category (pizza, snack, and burger with respect to sandwich), and u_i and v_ij are uncorrelated, normally distributed random effects at the participant and participant-product levels.

Thus, β₁ is the effect of the eco-score label for unsustainable products carrying a red “F” eco-score label and β₁ + β₃ is the effect of the eco-score label for sustainable products, vis-à-vis the control (barcode). This model allowed us to also test whether eco-score labeling effects differ in magnitude between sustainable vs. unsustainable products.

To explore product category-specific eco-score label effects, we added interactions of the product category with labeling arm (label_i), eco-score (sustainable_j), and their interaction (label_i × sustainable_j). We then examined the joint statistical significance of the interactions of product category with label_i and label_i × sustainable_j.

In separate models, we also conducted exploratory analyses to examine whether sociodemographic factors (age, gender, educational attainment, and income level) moderated the eco-score label effects on environmental perceptions. We included gender, education, and income as potential moderators due to differences in nutrition label use by these groups [35–37]. We included age as a potential moderator since some research indicates that younger adults are more worried about climate change than older adults [38]. Although it was not pre-registered, we also explored moderation by red meat consumption, since high consumption of red meat could indicate a higher preference for products with low sustainability. For each model, we assessed moderation by including the factor and its interaction with label_i, sustainable_j, and label_i × sustainable_j.

Results

The mean age of the sample was 37.1 years (± 9.4) (Table 1). One quarter (25%) of participants identified as Latino, 25% identified as Black or African American, 11% identified as Asian, and 44% of participants identified as white. About a third of participants had a high school degree or less (29%), an associate’s degree or some college (36%), and a college degree (36%). About half of the participants had an annual household income of less than $50,000 (46%). About a quarter of the sample ate red meat 1 time per week or less, while 45% ate red meat 2–3 times per week, and about 30% ate it 4–6 times per week or more.

Download:

Table 1. Sociodemographic characteristics of the sample.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306123.t001

Among unsustainable products, which received the red “F” eco-score label, the eco-score label reduced both the perceived sustainability of products and intentions to purchase products (Table 2, both p<0.01). Among sustainable products, which received the green “A” eco-score label, the eco-score label increased both perceived sustainability of products and intentions to purchase products (Table 2, both p < .001). The effects were of similar magnitudes for sustainable and unsustainable products in both absolute (Likert scale points) and relative terms. In relative terms, the eco-score label lowered perceived sustainability of unsustainable products by 13% (from 3.2 to 2.8) and increased that of sustainable products by 16% (from 3.5 to 4.1). Effects on purchase intentions were smaller, however, with a 6% decrease for unsustainable products (from 3.1 to 2.9) and an 8% increase for sustainable products (from 2.9 to 3.1).

Download:

Table 2. Impact of ecolabels on perceptions of environmental sustainability and intentions to purchase products.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306123.t002

There were interactions between the eco-score label and product type (Table 3). For both sustainable and unsustainable products, the eco-score label had the biggest impact on perceived sustainability for sandwiches. For unsustainable products, the eco-score label had the biggest impact on purchasing intentions for pizzas, followed by burgers and sandwiches, whereas there was no statistically significant difference between the control and eco-score arms for snacks. For sustainable products, there was no interaction between the eco-score label and product type on purchasing intentions. Mean unadjusted perceived sustainability and purchase intentions by product type can be found in S1 Table.

Download:

Table 3. Impact of ecolabels on perceptions of environmental sustainability and intentions to purchase products, by product category.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306123.t003

The impact of the eco-label (vs control) on perceived sustainability differed by several socio-demographic characteristics, but mostly for unsustainable products (Table 4). For unsustainable products, eco-score labels reduced perceptions of sustainability for adults over age 25 years, but not for adults aged 18–25 years (p for interaction = 0.001). For unsustainable products, eco-score labels had a bigger impact on reducing perceived sustainability for men compared to women (p for interaction = 0.018). They also had a bigger impact on reducing perceived sustainability for people with more than a high school degree (p for interaction = 0.003), with the biggest effects observed among those with an associate’s degree/some college (-0.6, 95% CI -0.8, -0.4). Eco-score labels had a bigger impact among those with income above $25,000 (p for interaction< 0.001), with the largest effects observed among people with incomes of $25,000 to $49,0000 or over $100,000. For sustainable products, the only interaction observed was for education; eco-score labels increased perceptions of sustainability more for participants with higher vs. lower educational attainment (p for interaction = 0.025). There were no differences in eco-score label impact by red meat consumption for either sustainable or unsustainable products.

Download:

Table 4. Impact of ecolabels on perceptions of environmental sustainability by age, gender, education, and income.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306123.t004

Discussion

In this online experiment of US consumers, we found that eco-score labels impacted consumers’ perceptions of sustainability and intentions to purchase products, relative to a control label. As predicted, eco-score labels increased sustainability perceptions and intentions to purchase sustainable products that received an “A” grade for environmental footprint, whereas the labels decreased sustainability perceptions and intentions to purchase unsustainable products that received an “F” grade for environmental footprint. Though more research is needed, these results show promise that an eco-score front of package label has the potential to shift consumer perceptions and purchases to promote more sustainable food choices.

In this study, the magnitude of the effect of the eco-label on perceptions of sustainability was similar for sustainable and unsustainable products. These results contrasted with our expectations, which was that there would be a larger impact for unsustainable products as consumers would respond more to negative information on the eco-score label (i.e., red color, F grade) than positive information (i.e., green color, A grade). Our results also are in contrast to the aforementioned findings from a UK experiment on eco-score labels, which found that red globes highlighting unsustainable products, but not green globes highlighting sustainable products, reduced the environmental impact of consumer selections in an online supermarket [18]. The difference between studies could be because our eco-score labels did not contain a single red or green icon but rather the entire Eco-score, with the relevant grade magnified. Indeed, in the same UK study, researchers found that eco-score labels that depicted the spectrum of eco-scores, like ours, led to reductions in the environmental footprint of selections. One possibility is that for sustainable products, a labeling system that shows the spectrum of eco-scores is more effective than a label that depicts only a single positive icon. Future research should explore how different label designs and scoring systems impact consumer perceptions and behaviors.

We found evidence to suggest that eco-score labels may have more impact in some product categories than others. For example, among unsustainable products, the eco-score label had little or no effects on changing sustainability perceptions or intentions to purchase snacks. For both sustainable and unsustainable products, the eco-score label had the biggest impact on sustainability perceptions for sandwiches. Previous research on nutrition labeling suggests that labels are most impactful for product categories where consumers have less understanding and knowledge [39,40]. Consumers may have had less prior knowledge about the environmental footprint of sandwiches, leading to a bigger impact for this category. However, we cannot rule out that these results are due to the types of products we chose. For example, the unsustainable snack was beef jerky; it is possible that consumers were already aware that beef has a high environmental impact and thus the inclusion of the eco-label did not affect their perceptions or intentions. Future research including a broader range of products with more diverse eco-scores will be necessary to understand whether eco-scores work similarly across product categories.

We found moderation of eco-score labels by socio-demographic characteristics, mostly for unsustainable products. Eco-score labels had more impact on sustainability perceptions for older adults vs. younger adults and for men vs. women. Previous literature indicates that younger adults as well as women have a higher awareness for and concern for the environmental sustainability of foods [41,42]. In this study, one possibility eco-score labels were less effective at shifting perceptions among these groups is because baseline levels of awareness were already high.

Other patterns of moderation were less clear. For both sustainable and unsustainable products, we observed a larger effect of eco-labels for participants with higher education vs. those with a high school degree or less. There was a similar pattern based on household income, with a larger effect of eco-labels among participants with higher incomes compared to the lowest income category; however, there was not a stepwise increase in impact with increasing income. One possibility is participants of lower education or income understood the eco-labels less well, minimizing the impact of the eco-labels on sustainability perceptions. Recent reviews of sustainability labels on foods have found inconsistent results regarding the role of sociodemographic characteristics [10,13], suggesting more research in this space is needed.

Our results have implications for US and global policy discussions on environmental sustainability labeling. In the US, current efforts remain focused on voluntary labels, typically including a positive icon or badge for more sustainable products. For example, in 2020, Panera, a large fast-casual restaurant chain, made headlines for its “Cool Food Meal” label, which indicated items with a lower carbon footprint [43]. From a regulatory perspective, although no countries currently require the inclusion of environmental sustainability labels on foods [44], France is developing an eco-score label for foods, with an evaluation anticipated in 2024 and a mandatory roll-out in 2025 (correspondence with ADEME, France’s ecological transition agency) [45]. In the UK, politicians and environmental organizations have also called for the creation of a systematic environmental label on foods [46,47]. These voluntary and regulatory initiatives offer an opportunity to go beyond the present research on sustainability perceptions to understand whether and how eco-score labels actually influence consumer purchases [46,48].

In addition, an important area for future research will be understanding the nutritional implications of sustainability labeling. A recent experimental study in Germany that tested both a Nutri-score Label and an eco-Score label found that the labels influenced each other’s perceived healthfulness and sustainability, potentially resulting in inaccurate perceptions [49]. For example, French fries that displayed both an eco-score label and a Nutri-score label were perceived as healthier than fries that displayed only a Nutri-score label. The results also raised the possibility that the use of nutrition labels and environmental labels together could cause confusion or generate internal conflict for consumers when the labels indicate dissonate values (e.g., for high on nutrition but low on sustainability, or vice versa). Future research in US populations would be useful to understand how a joint nutrition- and- environmental labeling system would work among American consumers.

Strengths of the study include recruitment of a diverse sample with respect to race/ethnicity and the experimental design using multiple product types. This study also had several limitations. One limitation was that the products in our study carried only “A” and “F” labels. Future research should explore how eco-score labels affect perceptions and intentions across a more diverse range of products that include a variety of eco-scores. Similarly, our study asked participants to consider products for a brief time in an online setting, whereas real-world food purchasing settings are much more complex. Future research should include both a broader population of consumers as well as a more realistic food purchasing environment to understand whether and how eco-score labels impact actual food selection behaviors.

Conclusions

The objective of this study was to examine the impact of eco-score labels on consumers’ perceptions of sustainability and intentions to purchase foods. In a randomized experiment of US adults, relative to a control label, eco-score labels changed consumers’ perceptions about the sustainability of foods and their intentions to purchase foods, with some differences by food category and participant characteristics. This preliminary evidence suggests that eco-labels could be a useful policy tool or voluntary approach to shift consumers towards more sustainable food choices; results are timely and relevant for voluntary and governmental sustainability labeling initiatives in the US and globally. However, a key limitation of this study was that it used an artificial online setting to measure labels’ impact on food purchasing intentions rather than on actual food purchases. Future research is necessary to test the impact of eco-score labels on objective behavioral outcomes in more realistic food retail environments.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Mean (SD) perceived sustainability and purchase intentions by product category and score type.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306123.s001

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Sara Cathey for the design of the eco-score labels and Veronica Lippuner for project management support.

References

1. Tubiello FN, Rosenzweig C, Conchedda G, Karl K, Gütschow J, Xueyao P, et al. Greenhouse gas emissions from food systems: building the evidence base. Environ Res Lett. 2021;16(6):065007.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
2. Hitaj C, Rehkamp S, Canning P, Peters CJ. Greenhouse gas emissions in the United States food system: current and healthy diet scenarios. Environ Sci Technol. 2019;53(9):5493–503. pmid:31012575
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
3. Benton TG, Bieg C, Harwatt H, Pudasaini R, Wellesley L. Food system impacts on biodiversity loss: Three levers for food system transformation in support of nature. Chatham House, The Royal Institute of International Affairs, 2021.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
4. Hajer M, Westhoek H, Ingram J, Van Berkum S, Özay L. Food systems and natural resources: United Nations Environmental Programme; 2016.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
5. Bouvard V, Loomis D, Guyton KZ, Grosse Y, El Ghissassi F, Benbrahim-Tallaa L, et al. Carcinogenicity of consumption of red and processed meat. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(16):1599–600. pmid:26514947
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
6. Frank SM, Jaacks LM, Batis C, Vanderlee L, Taillie LS. Patterns of Red and Processed Meat Consumption across North America: A Nationally Representative Cross-Sectional Comparison of Dietary Recalls from Canada, Mexico, and the United States. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(1). pmid:33466518
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
7. Grummon AH, Lee CJY, Robinson TN, Rimm EB, Rose D. Simple dietary substitutions can reduce carbon footprints and improve dietary quality across diverse segments of the US population. Nat Food. 2023;4:966–77. pmid:37884673
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
8. Song J, Brown MK, Tan M, MacGregor GA, Webster J, Campbell NR, et al. Impact of color-coded and warning nutrition labelling schemes: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. PLoS Med. 2021;18(10):e1003765. pmid:34610024
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
9. Grummon AH, Hall MG. Sugary drink warnings: A meta-analysis of experimental studies. PLoS Med. 2020;17(5):e1003120. pmid:32433660
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
10. Cook B, Leite JC, Rayner M, Stoffel S, van Rijn E, Wollgast J. Consumer Interaction with Sustainability Labelling on Food Products: A Narrative Literature Review. Nutrients. 2023;15(17):3837. pmid:37686869
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
11. Roberto CA, Ng SW, Ganderats-Fuentes M, Hammond D, Barquera S, Jauregui A, et al. The influence of front-of-package nutrition labeling on consumer behavior and product reformulation. Annu Rev Nutr. 2021;41:529–50. pmid:34339293
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
12. Tobi RC, Harris F, Rana R, Brown KA, Quaife M, Green R. Sustainable diet dimensions. Comparing consumer preference for nutrition, environmental and social responsibility food labelling: a systematic review. Sustainability. 2019;11(23):6575.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
13. Potter C, Bastounis A, Hartmann-Boyce J, Stewart C, Frie K, Tudor K, et al. The effects of environmental sustainability labels on selection, purchase, and consumption of food and drink products: a systematic review. Environ Behav. 2021;53(8):891–925. pmid:34456340
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
14. Lemken D, Zühlsdorf A, Spiller A. Improving consumers’ understanding and use of carbon footprint labels on food: proposal for a climate score label. EuroChoices. 2021;20(2):23–9.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
15. Meyerding SG, Schaffmann A-L, Lehberger M. Consumer preferences for different designs of carbon footprint labelling on tomatoes in Germany—does design matter? Sustainability. 2019;11(6):1587.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
16. Thøgersen J, Nielsen KS. A better carbon footprint label. J Clean Prod. 2016;125:86–94.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
17. Neumayr L, Moosauer C. How to induce sales of sustainable and organic food: The case of a traffic light eco-label in online grocery shopping. J Clean Prod. 2021;328:129584.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
18. Potter C, Pechey R, Clark M, Frie K, Bateman PA, Cook B, et al. Effects of environmental impact labels on the sustainability of food purchases: Two randomised controlled trials in an experimental online supermarket. PLoS One. 2022;17(11):e0272800. pmid:36327277
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
19. Potter C, Pechey R, Cook B, Bateman P, Stewart C, Frie K, et al. Effects of environmental impact and nutrition labelling on food purchasing: An experimental online supermarket study. Appetite. 2023;180:106312. pmid:36150553
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
20. Pechey R, Bateman PA, Cook B, Potter C, Clark M, Stewart C, et al. Testing the effectiveness of ecolabels to reduce the environmental impact of food purchases in worksite cafeterias: A randomised controlled trial. Appetite. 2022;179:106277. pmid:35995306
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
21. Grummon AH, Musicus AA, Moran AJ, Salvia MG, Rimm EB. Consumer reactions to positive and negative front-of-package food labels. Am J Prev Med. 2023;64(1):86–95. pmid:36207203
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
22. Wolfson JA, Musicus AA, Leung CW, Gearhardt AN, Falbe J. Effect of climate change impact menu labels on fast food ordering choices among US adults: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(12):e2248320-e. pmid:36574248
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
23. Projects Related to the Dietary Guidelines: US Department of Agriculture, US Department of Health and Human Services; [cited 2024 May 22]. Available from: https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/related-projects.
24. Taillie LS, Chauvenet C, Grummon AH, Hall MG, Waterlander W, Prestemon CE, et al. Testing front-of-package warnings to discourage red meat consumption: a randomized experiment with US meat consumers. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2021;18(1):114. pmid:34493289
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
25. Taillie LS, Bercholz M, Prestemon CE, Higgins ICA, Grummon AH, Hall MG, et al. Impact of taxes and warning labels on red meat purchases among US consumers: A randomized controlled trial. PLoS Med. 2023;20(9):e1004284. pmid:37721952
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
26. Hall MG, Ruggles PR, McNeel K, Prestemon CE, Lee CJY, Lowery CM, et al. Understanding whether price tag messaging can amplify the benefits of taxes: An online experiment. Am J Prev Med. 2024;66(4):609–18. pmid:38189693
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
27. Leach A, Emery K, Galloway J, Castner E, Cattaneao L. Food Label Toolkit: User’s Guide. Unversity of Virginia, University of New Hampshire, 2018.
28. Egnell M, Talati Z, Galan P, Andreeva VA, Vandevijvere S, Gombaud M, et al. Objective understanding of the Nutri-score front-of-pack label by European consumers and its effect on food choices: an online experimental study. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2020;17(1):146. pmid:33213459
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
29. Taillie LS, Higgins IC, Lazard AJ, Miles DR, Blitstein JL, Hall MG. Do sugar warning labels influence parents’ selection of a labeled snack for their children? A randomized trial in a virtual convenience store. Appetite. 2022;175:106059. pmid:35526703
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
30. Grummon AH, Taillie LS, Golden SD, Hall MG, Ranney LM, Brewer NT. Sugar-sweetened beverage health warnings and purchases: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Prev Med. 2019;57(5):601–10. pmid:31586510
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
31. Magnier L, Schoormans J, Mugge R. Judging a product by its cover: Packaging sustainability and perceptions of quality in food products. Food Qual Prefer. 2016;53:132–42.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
32. Hall MG, Lazard AJ, Grummon AH, Higgins ICA, Bercholz M, Richter APC, et al. Designing warnings for sugary drinks: A randomized experiment with Latino parents and non-Latino parents. Prev Med. 2021;148:106562. pmid:33878350
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
33. González N, Marquès M, Nadal M, Domingo JL. Meat consumption: Which are the current global risks? A review of recent (2010–2020) evidences. Food Res Int. 2020;137:109341. pmid:33233049
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
34. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). Diet Behavior and Nutrition—DBQ: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics; 2020 [cited 2023 December 21]. Available from: https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhanes/2019-2020/questionnaires/DBQ_K.pdf.
35. Blitstein JL, Evans WD. Use of nutrition facts panels among adults who make household food purchasing decisions. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2006;38(6):360–4. pmid:17142192
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
36. Christoph MJ, Larson N, Laska MN, Neumark-Sztainer D. Nutrition Facts Panels: Who Uses Them, What Do They Use, and How Does Use Relate to Dietary Intake? J Acad Nutr Diet. 2018;118(2):217–28. pmid:29389508
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
37. Shrestha A, Cullerton K, White KM, Mays J, Sendall M. Impact of front-of-pack nutrition labelling in consumer understanding and use across socio-economic status: A systematic review. Appetite. 2023:106587. pmid:37169260
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
38. Swim JK, Aviste R, Lengieza ML, Fasano CJ. OK Boomer: A decade of generational differences in feelings about climate change. Glob Environ Change. 2022;73:102479.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
39. D’Angelo Campos A, Taillie LS, Vatavuk‐Serrati G, Grummon AH, Higgins IC, Hall MG. Effects of pictorial warnings on parents’ purchases and perceptions of sugar‐sweetened beverage categories. Pediatr Obes. 2023;18(7):e13030. pmid:36965067
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
40. Moran AJ, Roberto CA. Health Warning Labels Correct Parents’ Misperceptions About Sugary Drink Options. Am J Prev Med. 2018;55(2):e19–e27. pmid:29903567
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
41. Sánchez-Bravo P, Chambers E, Noguera-Artiaga L, López-Lluch D, Chambers IV E, Carbonell-Barrachina ÁA, et al. Consumers’ attitude towards the sustainability of different food categories. Foods. 2020;9(11):1608. pmid:33167450
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
42. Zhao Z, Gong Y, Li Y, Zhang L, Sun Y. Gender-Related Beliefs, Norms, and the Link With Green Consumption. Front Psychol. 2021;12:710239. pmid:34955947
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
43. Lucas A. Panera Bread becomes first national chain to label entrees as climate friendly. CNBC. 2020.
44. Ils affichent l’Eco-Score: ADEME; 2023 [updated February 21, 2023; cited 2023 December 4]. Available from: https://docs.score-environnemental.com/more/ils_affichent_lecoscore.
45. Shakespeare D. France moves first on eco-label regulations: Apparel Insider; 2023 [updated January 11, 2023; cited 2023 December 4]. Available from: https://apparelinsider.com/france-moves-first-on-eco-label-regulations/.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
46. Morrison O. Sustainability experts call for one unified eco-label in UK: FoodNavigator Europe, William Reed; 2022 [updated November 11, 2022; cited 2023 December 4]. Available from: https://www.foodnavigator.com/Article/2022/11/11/Sustainability-experts-call-for-one-unified-eco-label-in-UK.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
47. Buxton A. Why A UK Politician Is Pushing For Mandatory Eco-Labeling On Food London, United Kingdom: Plant Based News; 2023 [updated January 22, 2023; cited 2023 December 4]. Available from: https://plantbasednews.org/culture/law-and-politics/food-eco-labeling-uk/.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
48. Environmental score for all food products motivates companies to become more sustainable: Wageningen University & Research; 2023 [updated May 17, 2023; cited 2023 December 4]. Available from: https://www.wur.nl/en/newsarticle/environmental-score-for-all-food-products-motivates-companies-to-become-more-sustainable.htm.
49. Jürkenbeck K, Sanchez-Siles L, Siegrist M. Nutri-Score and Eco-Score: Consumers’ trade-offs when facing two sustainability labels. Food Qual Prefer. 2024;118:105200.
- View Article
- Google Scholar

[ref1] 1. Tubiello FN, Rosenzweig C, Conchedda G, Karl K, Gütschow J, Xueyao P, et al. Greenhouse gas emissions from food systems: building the evidence base. Environ Res Lett. 2021;16(6):065007.
View Article
Google Scholar

[2] View Article

[3] Google Scholar

[ref2] 2. Hitaj C, Rehkamp S, Canning P, Peters CJ. Greenhouse gas emissions in the United States food system: current and healthy diet scenarios. Environ Sci Technol. 2019;53(9):5493–503. pmid:31012575
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[5] View Article

[6] PubMed/NCBI

[7] Google Scholar

[ref3] 3. Benton TG, Bieg C, Harwatt H, Pudasaini R, Wellesley L. Food system impacts on biodiversity loss: Three levers for food system transformation in support of nature. Chatham House, The Royal Institute of International Affairs, 2021.
View Article
Google Scholar

[9] View Article

[10] Google Scholar

[ref4] 4. Hajer M, Westhoek H, Ingram J, Van Berkum S, Özay L. Food systems and natural resources: United Nations Environmental Programme; 2016.
View Article
Google Scholar

[12] View Article

[13] Google Scholar

[ref5] 5. Bouvard V, Loomis D, Guyton KZ, Grosse Y, El Ghissassi F, Benbrahim-Tallaa L, et al. Carcinogenicity of consumption of red and processed meat. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(16):1599–600. pmid:26514947
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[15] View Article

[16] PubMed/NCBI

[17] Google Scholar

[ref6] 6. Frank SM, Jaacks LM, Batis C, Vanderlee L, Taillie LS. Patterns of Red and Processed Meat Consumption across North America: A Nationally Representative Cross-Sectional Comparison of Dietary Recalls from Canada, Mexico, and the United States. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(1). pmid:33466518
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[19] View Article

[20] PubMed/NCBI

[21] Google Scholar

[ref7] 7. Grummon AH, Lee CJY, Robinson TN, Rimm EB, Rose D. Simple dietary substitutions can reduce carbon footprints and improve dietary quality across diverse segments of the US population. Nat Food. 2023;4:966–77. pmid:37884673
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[23] View Article

[24] PubMed/NCBI

[25] Google Scholar

[ref8] 8. Song J, Brown MK, Tan M, MacGregor GA, Webster J, Campbell NR, et al. Impact of color-coded and warning nutrition labelling schemes: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. PLoS Med. 2021;18(10):e1003765. pmid:34610024
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[27] View Article

[28] PubMed/NCBI

[29] Google Scholar

[ref9] 9. Grummon AH, Hall MG. Sugary drink warnings: A meta-analysis of experimental studies. PLoS Med. 2020;17(5):e1003120. pmid:32433660
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[31] View Article

[32] PubMed/NCBI

[33] Google Scholar

[ref10] 10. Cook B, Leite JC, Rayner M, Stoffel S, van Rijn E, Wollgast J. Consumer Interaction with Sustainability Labelling on Food Products: A Narrative Literature Review. Nutrients. 2023;15(17):3837. pmid:37686869
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[35] View Article

[36] PubMed/NCBI

[37] Google Scholar

[ref11] 11. Roberto CA, Ng SW, Ganderats-Fuentes M, Hammond D, Barquera S, Jauregui A, et al. The influence of front-of-package nutrition labeling on consumer behavior and product reformulation. Annu Rev Nutr. 2021;41:529–50. pmid:34339293
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[39] View Article

[40] PubMed/NCBI

[41] Google Scholar

[ref12] 12. Tobi RC, Harris F, Rana R, Brown KA, Quaife M, Green R. Sustainable diet dimensions. Comparing consumer preference for nutrition, environmental and social responsibility food labelling: a systematic review. Sustainability. 2019;11(23):6575.
View Article
Google Scholar

[43] View Article

[44] Google Scholar

[ref13] 13. Potter C, Bastounis A, Hartmann-Boyce J, Stewart C, Frie K, Tudor K, et al. The effects of environmental sustainability labels on selection, purchase, and consumption of food and drink products: a systematic review. Environ Behav. 2021;53(8):891–925. pmid:34456340
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[46] View Article

[47] PubMed/NCBI

[48] Google Scholar

[ref14] 14. Lemken D, Zühlsdorf A, Spiller A. Improving consumers’ understanding and use of carbon footprint labels on food: proposal for a climate score label. EuroChoices. 2021;20(2):23–9.
View Article
Google Scholar

[50] View Article

[51] Google Scholar

[ref15] 15. Meyerding SG, Schaffmann A-L, Lehberger M. Consumer preferences for different designs of carbon footprint labelling on tomatoes in Germany—does design matter? Sustainability. 2019;11(6):1587.
View Article
Google Scholar

[53] View Article

[54] Google Scholar

[ref16] 16. Thøgersen J, Nielsen KS. A better carbon footprint label. J Clean Prod. 2016;125:86–94.
View Article
Google Scholar

[56] View Article

[57] Google Scholar

[ref17] 17. Neumayr L, Moosauer C. How to induce sales of sustainable and organic food: The case of a traffic light eco-label in online grocery shopping. J Clean Prod. 2021;328:129584.
View Article
Google Scholar

[59] View Article

[60] Google Scholar

[ref18] 18. Potter C, Pechey R, Clark M, Frie K, Bateman PA, Cook B, et al. Effects of environmental impact labels on the sustainability of food purchases: Two randomised controlled trials in an experimental online supermarket. PLoS One. 2022;17(11):e0272800. pmid:36327277
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[62] View Article

[63] PubMed/NCBI

[64] Google Scholar

[ref19] 19. Potter C, Pechey R, Cook B, Bateman P, Stewart C, Frie K, et al. Effects of environmental impact and nutrition labelling on food purchasing: An experimental online supermarket study. Appetite. 2023;180:106312. pmid:36150553
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[66] View Article

[67] PubMed/NCBI

[68] Google Scholar

[ref20] 20. Pechey R, Bateman PA, Cook B, Potter C, Clark M, Stewart C, et al. Testing the effectiveness of ecolabels to reduce the environmental impact of food purchases in worksite cafeterias: A randomised controlled trial. Appetite. 2022;179:106277. pmid:35995306
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[70] View Article

[71] PubMed/NCBI

[72] Google Scholar

[ref21] 21. Grummon AH, Musicus AA, Moran AJ, Salvia MG, Rimm EB. Consumer reactions to positive and negative front-of-package food labels. Am J Prev Med. 2023;64(1):86–95. pmid:36207203
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[74] View Article

[75] PubMed/NCBI

[76] Google Scholar

[ref22] 22. Wolfson JA, Musicus AA, Leung CW, Gearhardt AN, Falbe J. Effect of climate change impact menu labels on fast food ordering choices among US adults: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(12):e2248320-e. pmid:36574248
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[78] View Article

[79] PubMed/NCBI

[80] Google Scholar

[ref23] 23. Projects Related to the Dietary Guidelines: US Department of Agriculture, US Department of Health and Human Services; [cited 2024 May 22]. Available from: https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/related-projects.

[ref24] 24. Taillie LS, Chauvenet C, Grummon AH, Hall MG, Waterlander W, Prestemon CE, et al. Testing front-of-package warnings to discourage red meat consumption: a randomized experiment with US meat consumers. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2021;18(1):114. pmid:34493289
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[83] View Article

[84] PubMed/NCBI

[85] Google Scholar

[ref25] 25. Taillie LS, Bercholz M, Prestemon CE, Higgins ICA, Grummon AH, Hall MG, et al. Impact of taxes and warning labels on red meat purchases among US consumers: A randomized controlled trial. PLoS Med. 2023;20(9):e1004284. pmid:37721952
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[87] View Article

[88] PubMed/NCBI

[89] Google Scholar

[ref26] 26. Hall MG, Ruggles PR, McNeel K, Prestemon CE, Lee CJY, Lowery CM, et al. Understanding whether price tag messaging can amplify the benefits of taxes: An online experiment. Am J Prev Med. 2024;66(4):609–18. pmid:38189693
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[91] View Article

[92] PubMed/NCBI

[93] Google Scholar

[ref27] 27. Leach A, Emery K, Galloway J, Castner E, Cattaneao L. Food Label Toolkit: User’s Guide. Unversity of Virginia, University of New Hampshire, 2018.

[ref28] 28. Egnell M, Talati Z, Galan P, Andreeva VA, Vandevijvere S, Gombaud M, et al. Objective understanding of the Nutri-score front-of-pack label by European consumers and its effect on food choices: an online experimental study. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2020;17(1):146. pmid:33213459
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[96] View Article

[97] PubMed/NCBI

[98] Google Scholar

[ref29] 29. Taillie LS, Higgins IC, Lazard AJ, Miles DR, Blitstein JL, Hall MG. Do sugar warning labels influence parents’ selection of a labeled snack for their children? A randomized trial in a virtual convenience store. Appetite. 2022;175:106059. pmid:35526703
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[100] View Article

[101] PubMed/NCBI

[102] Google Scholar

[ref30] 30. Grummon AH, Taillie LS, Golden SD, Hall MG, Ranney LM, Brewer NT. Sugar-sweetened beverage health warnings and purchases: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Prev Med. 2019;57(5):601–10. pmid:31586510
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[104] View Article

[105] PubMed/NCBI

[106] Google Scholar

[ref31] 31. Magnier L, Schoormans J, Mugge R. Judging a product by its cover: Packaging sustainability and perceptions of quality in food products. Food Qual Prefer. 2016;53:132–42.
View Article
Google Scholar

[108] View Article

[109] Google Scholar

[ref32] 32. Hall MG, Lazard AJ, Grummon AH, Higgins ICA, Bercholz M, Richter APC, et al. Designing warnings for sugary drinks: A randomized experiment with Latino parents and non-Latino parents. Prev Med. 2021;148:106562. pmid:33878350
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[111] View Article

[112] PubMed/NCBI

[113] Google Scholar

[ref33] 33. González N, Marquès M, Nadal M, Domingo JL. Meat consumption: Which are the current global risks? A review of recent (2010–2020) evidences. Food Res Int. 2020;137:109341. pmid:33233049
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[115] View Article

[116] PubMed/NCBI

[117] Google Scholar

[ref34] 34. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). Diet Behavior and Nutrition—DBQ: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics; 2020 [cited 2023 December 21]. Available from: https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhanes/2019-2020/questionnaires/DBQ_K.pdf.

[ref35] 35. Blitstein JL, Evans WD. Use of nutrition facts panels among adults who make household food purchasing decisions. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2006;38(6):360–4. pmid:17142192
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[120] View Article

[121] PubMed/NCBI

[122] Google Scholar

[ref36] 36. Christoph MJ, Larson N, Laska MN, Neumark-Sztainer D. Nutrition Facts Panels: Who Uses Them, What Do They Use, and How Does Use Relate to Dietary Intake? J Acad Nutr Diet. 2018;118(2):217–28. pmid:29389508
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[124] View Article

[125] PubMed/NCBI

[126] Google Scholar

[ref37] 37. Shrestha A, Cullerton K, White KM, Mays J, Sendall M. Impact of front-of-pack nutrition labelling in consumer understanding and use across socio-economic status: A systematic review. Appetite. 2023:106587. pmid:37169260
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[128] View Article

[129] PubMed/NCBI

[130] Google Scholar

[ref38] 38. Swim JK, Aviste R, Lengieza ML, Fasano CJ. OK Boomer: A decade of generational differences in feelings about climate change. Glob Environ Change. 2022;73:102479.
View Article
Google Scholar

[132] View Article

[133] Google Scholar

[ref39] 39. D’Angelo Campos A, Taillie LS, Vatavuk‐Serrati G, Grummon AH, Higgins IC, Hall MG. Effects of pictorial warnings on parents’ purchases and perceptions of sugar‐sweetened beverage categories. Pediatr Obes. 2023;18(7):e13030. pmid:36965067
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[135] View Article

[136] PubMed/NCBI

[137] Google Scholar

[ref40] 40. Moran AJ, Roberto CA. Health Warning Labels Correct Parents’ Misperceptions About Sugary Drink Options. Am J Prev Med. 2018;55(2):e19–e27. pmid:29903567
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[139] View Article

[140] PubMed/NCBI

[141] Google Scholar

[ref41] 41. Sánchez-Bravo P, Chambers E, Noguera-Artiaga L, López-Lluch D, Chambers IV E, Carbonell-Barrachina ÁA, et al. Consumers’ attitude towards the sustainability of different food categories. Foods. 2020;9(11):1608. pmid:33167450
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[143] View Article

[144] PubMed/NCBI

[145] Google Scholar

[ref42] 42. Zhao Z, Gong Y, Li Y, Zhang L, Sun Y. Gender-Related Beliefs, Norms, and the Link With Green Consumption. Front Psychol. 2021;12:710239. pmid:34955947
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[147] View Article

[148] PubMed/NCBI

[149] Google Scholar

[ref43] 43. Lucas A. Panera Bread becomes first national chain to label entrees as climate friendly. CNBC. 2020.

[ref44] 44. Ils affichent l’Eco-Score: ADEME; 2023 [updated February 21, 2023; cited 2023 December 4]. Available from: https://docs.score-environnemental.com/more/ils_affichent_lecoscore.

[ref45] 45. Shakespeare D. France moves first on eco-label regulations: Apparel Insider; 2023 [updated January 11, 2023; cited 2023 December 4]. Available from: https://apparelinsider.com/france-moves-first-on-eco-label-regulations/.
View Article
Google Scholar

[153] View Article

[154] Google Scholar

[ref46] 46. Morrison O. Sustainability experts call for one unified eco-label in UK: FoodNavigator Europe, William Reed; 2022 [updated November 11, 2022; cited 2023 December 4]. Available from: https://www.foodnavigator.com/Article/2022/11/11/Sustainability-experts-call-for-one-unified-eco-label-in-UK.
View Article
Google Scholar

[156] View Article

[157] Google Scholar

[ref47] 47. Buxton A. Why A UK Politician Is Pushing For Mandatory Eco-Labeling On Food London, United Kingdom: Plant Based News; 2023 [updated January 22, 2023; cited 2023 December 4]. Available from: https://plantbasednews.org/culture/law-and-politics/food-eco-labeling-uk/.
View Article
Google Scholar

[159] View Article

[160] Google Scholar

[ref48] 48. Environmental score for all food products motivates companies to become more sustainable: Wageningen University & Research; 2023 [updated May 17, 2023; cited 2023 December 4]. Available from: https://www.wur.nl/en/newsarticle/environmental-score-for-all-food-products-motivates-companies-to-become-more-sustainable.htm.

[ref49] 49. Jürkenbeck K, Sanchez-Siles L, Siegrist M. Nutri-Score and Eco-Score: Consumers’ trade-offs when facing two sustainability labels. Food Qual Prefer. 2024;118:105200.
View Article
Google Scholar

[163] View Article

[164] Google Scholar

Figures

Abstract

Introduction

Methods

Ethics statement

Participants

Stimuli

Product selection and assessment.

Labels.

Procedures.

Measurement.

Statistical analysis

Results

Discussion

Conclusions

Supporting information

S1 Table. Mean (SD) perceived sustainability and purchase intentions by product category and score type.

Acknowledgments

References