Search

Objective: Our objectives were to describe sociodemographic characteristics associated with the purchase of 1) any fruit drinks and 2) fruit drinks with specific front of package (FOP) nutrition claims. Design: Cross-sectional Setting: United States Subjects: We merged fruit drink purchasing data from 60,712 household-months from 5,233 households with children 0-5y participating in Nielsen Homescan in 2017 with nutrition claims data. We examined differences in predicted probabilities of purchasing any fruit drinks by race/ethnicity, income, and education. We constructed inverse probability (IP) weights based on likelihood of purchasing any fruit drinks. We used IP weighted multivariable logistic regression models to examine predicted probabilities of purchasing fruit drinks with specific FOP claims. Results: One third of households with young children purchased any fruit drinks. Non-Hispanic (NH) Black (51.6%), Hispanic (36.3%), lower-income (39.3%), and lower-educated households (40.9%), were more likely to purchase any fruit drinks than NH White (31.3%), higher-income (25.8%), and higher-educated households (30.3%) (all p Conclusions: We found a higher likelihood of fruit drink purchases in lower-income, lower-educated, NH Black, and Hispanic households. Experimental studies should determine if nutrition claims may be contributing to disparities in fruit drink consumption.

Toddler milk is an ultra-processed beverage consisting primarily of powdered milk, caloric sweeteners, and vegetable oil. Pediatric health authorities do not support the use of toddler milk, and emerging evidence suggests that toddler-milk marketing practices may mislead consumers. However, studies have not synthesized the extent of toddler-milk marketing practices or how these practices affect parents’ decisions about whether to serve toddler milk. We aimed to summarize the literature about toddler milk to identify what is known about: (1) parents’ toddler-milk purchasing and feeding behaviors, (2) toddler-milk marketing, and (3) how marketing practices influence parents’ beliefs and perceptions about toddler milk. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR), we systematically searched 8 databases (PubMed, APA PsycINFO, Scopus, Cochrane Central, Embase, CINAHL, Communication & Mass Media Complete, and Business Source Premier). We identified 45 articles about toddler milk. Studies were conducted in 25 countries across 6 continents. Five types of findings emerged: (1) consumption and feeding behaviors, (2) demographic correlates of toddler-milk purchasing and consumption, (3) misperceptions and beliefs, (4) increased sales, and (5) increased marketing and responses to marketing. The included articles suggested that toddler-milk sales are growing rapidly worldwide. Findings also revealed that toddler-milk packages (eg, labels, branding) resemble infant formula packages and that toddler-milk marketing practices may indirectly advertise infant formula. Purchasing, serving, and consumption of toddler milk were higher in Black and Hispanic populations than in non-Hispanic White populations, and parents with higher educational attainment and income were more likely to offer toddler milk to their children. Findings suggest a need for policies to prevent cross-marketing of toddler milk and infant formula, reduce provision of toddler milk to infants and toddlers, and prevent caregivers from being misled about toddler-milk healthfulness.

BACKGROUND: Nutrition labels on prepackaged foods are an important source of nutrition information; however, differences in comprehension of varying label formats can limit their use and effectiveness. OBJECTIVES: This study examined levels and correlates of consumers’ self-reported understanding of Nutrition Facts tables (NFts) and front-of-package (FOP) labels, as well as functional NFt understanding. METHODS: Adults (≥18 y) in Australia (n = 3901), Canada (n = 4107), Mexico (n = 4012), the United Kingdom (n = 5121), and the United States (n = 4445) completed online surveys in November/December 2018. Descriptive statistics summarized sample profiles by country. Linear regression models examined the association between label understanding (self-reported NFt and FOP, functional NFt) and consumer dietary behaviors, functional nutrition knowledge, and sociodemographic characteristics. NFt understanding was measured in all countries, with FOP labeling assessed only in Mexico, Australia, and the United Kingdom. RESULTS: Self-reported and functional NFt understanding was significantly higher in the United States and Canada (P

Introduction Adolescent vaping remains a problem in the United States, yet little is known about what health warning themes most discourage vaping among adolescents. We sought to identify the most compelling themes for vaping warnings for US adolescents. Methods Participants were a national probability sample of 623 US adolescents aged 13–17 years, recruited in the summer of 2020. Adolescents were randomized to one of the five warning message themes about the potential health effects of vaping: 1. chemical harms, 2. lung harms, 3. Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) harms, 4. nicotine addiction, or 5. control (messages about vape litter). The primary outcome was perceived message effectiveness (PME; 3-item scale). Secondary outcomes were negative affect (fear), attention, anticipated social interactions, and message novelty. Results Adolescents rated the chemical, lung, and COVID-19 harms warning messages higher on PME than nicotine addiction and control (all p < .05), while nicotine addiction was rated higher than control (p < .05). The chemical, lung, and COVID-19 harms warning themes also elicited greater negative affect than nicotine addiction and control (all p < .05). For all other secondary outcomes, the COVID-19 harms warning message theme was rated higher than nicotine addiction and control (all p < .05). Conclusion Adolescents perceived warning message themes about lung, chemical and COVID-19 health effects of vaping as more effective than nicotine addiction. To discourage vaping, the FDA and others should communicate to youth about the health effects of vaping beyond nicotine addiction. Implications Adolescents rated warning message themes about the lung, chemical, and COVID-19 health effects of vaping as more effective than nicotine addiction, while nicotine addiction was rated as more effective than control themes about vaping litter. To discourage vaping among adolescents, health messaging should expand message themes to communicate about a broader set of health effects of vaping beyond nicotine addiction.

BACKGROUND: Consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages, including fruit drinks (i.e., fruit-flavored drinks containing added sugar), contributes to childhood obesity. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to examine whether nutrition-related claims on fruit drinks influence purchasing among parents and lead to misperceptions of healthfulness. METHODS: We conducted an experiment in a virtual convenience store with 2219 parents of children ages 1–5 y. Parents were randomly assigned to view fruit drinks displaying 1 of 3 claims (“No artificial sweeteners,” “100% Vitamin C,” and “100% All Natural”) or no claim (i.e., control group). Parents selected among each of 2 drinks for their young child: 1) a fruit drink or 100% juice (primary outcome), and 2) a fruit drink or water. RESULTS: When choosing between a fruit drink and 100% juice, 45% of parents who viewed the fruit drink with the “No artificial sweeteners” claim, 51% who viewed the “100% Vitamin C” claim, and 54% who viewed the “100% All Natural” claim selected the fruit drink, compared with 32% in the no-claim control group (all P 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Nutrition-related claims led parents to choose less healthy beverages for their children and misled them about the healthfulness of fruit drinks. Labeling regulations could mitigate misleading marketing of fruit drinks. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT04381481.

Objective:This study aimed to identify correlates of nutrition label awareness and use, particularly subgroup differences among consumers. Two label types were assessed: (1) nutrition facts tables (NFt) in Australia, Canada, Mexico, UK, and USA and (2) front-of-package (FOP) labels, including mandatory Guideline Daily Amounts (Mexico), voluntary Health Star Ratings (Australia) and voluntary Traffic Lights (UK).Design:Respondents were recruited using Nielsen Consumer Insights Global Panel (n 21 586) and completed online surveys in November–December 2018. Linear regression and generalised linear mixed models examined differences in label use and awareness between countries and label type based on sociodemographic, knowledge-related and dietary characteristics.Setting:Australia, Canada, Mexico, UK and USA.Participants:Adults (≥18 years).Results:Respondents from the USA, Canada and Australia reported significantly higher NFt use and awareness than those in Mexico and the UK. Mexican respondents reported the highest level of FOP label awareness, whereas UK respondents reported the highest FOP label use. NFt use was higher among females, ‘minority’ ethnic groups, those with higher nutrition knowledge and respondents with ‘adequate literacy’ compared with those with ‘high likelihood of limited literacy’. FOP label use was higher among those with a ‘high likelihood of limited literacy’ compared with ‘adequate literacy’ across countries.Conclusions:Lower use of mandatory Guideline Daily Amount labels compared with voluntary FOP labelling systems provides support for Mexico’s decision to switch to mandatory ‘high-in’ warning symbols. The patterns of consumer label use and awareness across sociodemographic and knowledge-related characteristics suggest that simple FOP labels may encourage broader use across countries.

Campaigns to improve beverage consumption typically focus on discouraging unhealthy beverages (e.g., soda), encouraging healthy beverages (e.g., water), or both. It remains unclear which of these strategies is most effective. We recruited a national convenience sample of U.S. parents of children ages 2-12 (n = 1078, 48% Latino[a]) to complete an online survey in 2019. We randomly assigned participants to view: 1) a control message, 2) a soda discouragement message, 3) a water encouragement message, or 4) both soda discouragement and water encouragement messages shown side-by-side in random arrangement. Intervention messages mimicked New York City's "Pouring on the Pounds" campaign. Participants rated messages on perceived effectiveness for discouraging soda consumption and encouraging water consumption (1-5 response scales) and reported feelings and intentions about drinking soda and water (1-7 scales). Compared to those with no exposure, participants who viewed the soda discouragement message reported higher perceived discouragement from drinking soda (Average Differential Effect [ADE] = 1.18), more negative feelings toward drinking soda (ADE = 0.83) and stronger intentions to avoid drinking soda (ADE = 0.45) (ps 0.001). The soda discouragement message also exerted beneficial effects on perceived effectiveness, feelings, and intentions related to water consumption (ADEs = 0.33-0.68; ps 0.001). Exposure to the water encouragement message had beneficial effects on outcomes related to water consumption (ADEs = 0.28-0.81, ps 0.001), but limited impact on outcomes related to soda consumption. Across outcomes, results indicated diminishing returns from exposure to both message types. Messaging campaigns discouraging unhealthy beverages may be more promising for improving beverage consumption than messages only promoting healthier beverages.

Objective:To estimate the prevalence of online grocery shopping in a nationally representative sample and describe demographic correlates with online grocery shopping.Design:The Nielsen COVID-19 Shopper Behavior Survey was administered to a subset of Nielsen National Consumer Panel participants in July 2020. We used survey weighted-multivariable logistic regression to examine demographic correlates of having ever online grocery shopped.Setting:Online survey.Participants:18 598 Nielsen National Consumer Panel participants in the USA.Results:Thirty-nine percent of respondents had purchased groceries online, and among prior purchasers, 89 % indicated that they would continue to online grocery shop in the next month. Canned/packaged foods were the most shopped for grocery category online, followed by beverages, fresh foods and lastly frozen foods. In adjusted analyses, younger respondents (39 years or less) were more likely (47 %) to have ever shopped for groceries online than older age groups (40–54 years, 55–64 years and 65+ years) (29 %, 22 % and 23 %, respectively, all P < 0·001). Those with greater than a college degree were more likely to have ever grocery shopped online (45 %) than respondents with some college education (39 %) and with a high school education or less (32 %) (both P < 0·001). Having children, having a higher income and experiencing food insecurity, particularly among higher income food-insecure households, were also associated with a higher probability of prior online grocery shopping.Conclusions:The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the transition to online grocery shopping. Future research should explore the nutrition implications of online grocery shopping.

Introduction Although e-cigarette marketing on social media increases positive attitudes and experimentation, little is known about non-influencer e-cigarette portrayals of young people. Aims and Methods High school adolescents (n = 928, 15–18) were recruited by Lightspeed Health for an online experiment and randomized to view an Instagram post with or without e-cigarette use. Outcomes were positive and negative perceptions (prototypes), social distance, and willingness to use. Results Half (50%) of participants were susceptible to e-cigarette use. E-cigarettes shown (vs. not) led to less positive prototypes, p = .017, more negative prototypes, p = .004, and more social distance, p < .001. Negative prototypes and social distance were moderated by susceptibility (both p < .05); effects among non-susceptible adolescents only. Showing e-cigarettes did not impact willingness to use if offered. Conclusions Negative perceptions of e-cigarettes use challenge assumptions that vaping online is universally admirable. Highlighting unfavorable opinions of vaping or negative impacts for adolescents’ social image are potential strategies for tobacco counter-marketing. Implications Despite daily use of visual-based social media by most adolescents, little is known about the influence of e-cigarette use among young people online. Adolescent negative perceptions and desired distance from non-influencers using e-cigarettes on Instagram indicate digital e-cigarette portrayals are not universally accepted. Negative impacts for adolescents’ social image present a counter-marketing strategy.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) Cash Value Benefit (CVB) for fruits and vegetables increased by roughly USD 25/month/person. We sought to understand WIC participant perceptions of this change and barriers and facilitators to using the CVB. We conducted 10 virtual focus groups (5 rural, 5 urban/suburban) with WIC participants (n = 55) in North Carolina in March 2022. Focus groups were recorded and transcribed. We open-coded the content and used thematic analysis to uncover consistencies within and between sampled groups. Participants expressed favorable perceptions of the CVB increase and stated the pre-pandemic CVB amount was insufficient. Barriers to using the increased CVB were identifying WIC-approved fruits and vegetables in stores and insufficient supply of fruits and vegetables. Barriers were more pronounced in rural groups. Facilitators of CVB use were existing household preferences for fruits and vegetables and the variety of products that can be purchased with CVB relative to other components of the WIC food package. Participants felt the CVB increase allowed their families to eat a wider variety of fruits and vegetables. The CVB increase may improve fruit and vegetable intake, particularly if made permanent, but barriers to CVB and WIC benefit use may limit the potential impact.

Added-sugar consumption in the U.S. exceeds recommended limits. Policymakers are considering requiring restaurants to use menu warning labels to indicate items high in added sugar. We sought to determine whether icon-only and icon-plus-text added-sugar menu labels were (1) perceived as more effective at potentially reducing consumption of items high in added sugar and (2) increased knowledge of menu items' added-sugar content relative to control labels, and if effects differed by label design. A national sample of U.S. adults (n=1327) participated in an online randomized experiment. Participants viewed menu items with either a control label, 1 of 6 icon-only labels, or 1 of 18 icon-plus-text labels with 3 text variations. For their assigned label, participants provided ratings of perceived message effectiveness (a validated scale of a message's potential to change behavior). Participants were also asked to classify menu items by their added-sugar content. The icon-only and icon-plus-text labels were perceived as more effective than the control label (means: 3.7 and 3.7 vs. 3.1, respectively, on a 5-point scale; p&nbsp

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) Cash Value Benefit (CVB) for fruits and vegetables increased by roughly USD 25/month/person. We sought to understand WIC participant perceptions of this change and barriers and facilitators to using the CVB. We conducted 10 virtual focus groups (5 rural, 5 urban/suburban) with WIC participants (n = 55) in North Carolina in March 2022. Focus groups were recorded and transcribed. We open-coded the content and used thematic analysis to uncover consistencies within and between sampled groups. Participants expressed favorable perceptions of the CVB increase and stated the pre-pandemic CVB amount was insufficient. Barriers to using the increased CVB were identifying WIC-approved fruits and vegetables in stores and insufficient supply of fruits and vegetables. Barriers were more pronounced in rural groups. Facilitators of CVB use were existing household preferences for fruits and vegetables and the variety of products that can be purchased with CVB relative to other components of the WIC food package. Participants felt the CVB increase allowed their families to eat a wider variety of fruits and vegetables. The CVB increase may improve fruit and vegetable intake, particularly if made permanent, but barriers to CVB and WIC benefit use may limit the potential impact.

Perceived message effectiveness (PME) is commonly used in health communication research and practice, yet there has been a dearth of studies comparing different operationalizations of the PME construct. In the present study, we compared the two major types of PME – message perceptions and effects perceptions – among N=557 young adults. Participants were randomized to one of two conditions: 1) The Real Cost e-cigarette prevention ads developed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA condition) or 2) information-only e-cigarette control ads developed by the Mayo Clinic (control ad condition). Study predictors were message and effects perceptions measures and actual message effectiveness (AME) outcomes were risk beliefs about vaping and intentions to vape. Results showed that both message perceptions (M=3.82 vs M=3.29; p

Pictorial warnings on cigarette packs motivate smokers to quit, and yet the warnings’ theoretical mechanisms are not clearly understood. To clarify the role that risk appraisals play in pictorial warnings’ impacts, we conducted a meta-analysis of the experimental literature. We meta-analyzed 57 studies, conducted in 13 countries, with a cumulative N of 42,854. Pictorial warnings elicited greater cognitive elaboration (e.g., thinking about the risks of smoking; d = 1.27; p

Given the negative health and environmental impacts of red meat consumption, reducing red meat intake in the United States is important for both human and planetary well-being. To experimentally evaluate the impact of health-focused and environment-focused messages from the Meatless Monday campaign, we conducted an online randomized experiment among US adults aged 18 years or older (n = 1244). Compared with control messages, health-focused and environment-focused Meatless Monday messages led to significantly higher perceived message effectiveness and increased intention to reduce meat consumption. (Am J Public Health. 2022;112(5):724–727. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2022.306766 )

Reducing red meat consumption in high-consuming countries is critical for mitigating climate change and preventing chronic disease. This study tested the effectiveness of messages conveying the worsening or reduction of environmental harms at discouraging red meat consumption. 1078 U.S. adults viewed seven messages in an online survey highlighting the reduction or worsening of environmental harms associated with eating red meat (between-subjects factor) and rated the messages on how much they discouraged them from wanting to buy beef. Each message highlighted a different environmental harm: deforestation, climate change, water shortages, biodiversity loss, carbon footprint, greenhouse gas emissions, or environment (within-subjects factor). No statistically significant difference was found between the reduction and worsening of environmental harms conditions for most topics, though the worsening of harms frame slightly outperformed the reduction of harms frame for the ‘environment’ topic. ‘Environment’ was also the message topic that elicited the strongest response from participants overall. Latino participants, those with more than a high school degree, and those who consume beef once a week or less rated messages as more effective than non-Latino participants, those who completed high school or less, and those who consumed beef more than once a week. Future research should explore the effect of messages on behavioral outcomes.

Introduction The United States has among the highest per capita red meat consumption in the world. Reducing red meat consumption is crucial for minimizing the environmental impact of diets and improving health outcomes. Warning messages are effective for reducing purchases of products like sugary beverages but have not been developed for red meat. This study developed health and environmental warning messages about red meat and explored participants’ reactions to these messages. Methods A national convenience sample of US red meat consumers (n = 1,199; mean age 45 years) completed an online survey in 2020 for this exploratory study. Participants were randomized to view a series of either health or environmental warning messages (between-subjects factor) about the risks associated with eating red meat. Messages were presented in random order (within-subjects factor; 8 health messages or 10 environmental messages). Participants rated each warning message on a validated 3-item scale measuring perceived message effectiveness (PME), ranging from 1 (low) to 5 (high). Participants then rated their intentions to reduce their red meat consumption in the next 7 days. Results Health warning messages elicited higher PME ratings than environmental messages (mean 2.66 vs. 2.26, pp<0.001). Within category (health and environmental), most pairwise comparisons of harms were not statistically significant. Conclusions Health warning messages were perceived to be more effective than environmental warning messages. Future studies should measure the impact of these messages on behavioral outcomes.

BackgroundThe scientific term for the substance people inhale and exhale from a vaping device is ‘aerosol’, but whether the public uses this term is unclear. To inform tobacco control communication efforts, we sought to understand what tobacco users call e-cigarette aerosols.MethodsParticipants were a national convenience sample of 1628 US adults who used e-cigarettes, cigarettes or both (dual users). In an online survey, conducted in spring 2021, participants described what ‘people inhale and exhale when they vape’, using an open-ended and then a closed-ended response scale. Participants then evaluated warning statements, randomly assigned to contain the term ‘aerosol’ or ‘vapor‘ (eg, ‘E-cigarette aerosol/vapor contains nicotine, which can lead to seizures’).ResultsIn open-ended responses, tobacco users most commonly provided the terms ‘vapor’ (31%) and ‘smoke’ (23%) but rarely ‘aerosol’ (pp>0.05).ConclusionsThe public rarely uses the term ‘aerosol’ to describe e-cigarette output, potentially complicating educational efforts that use the term. Future studies should explore public knowledge and understanding of the terms ‘aerosol’ and the more popular ‘vapor’ to better inform vaping risk communication.

Introduction Little research has examined the spillover effects of tobacco communication campaigns, such as how anti-smoking ads affect vaping. Aims and Methods Participants were a national sample of 623 U.S. adolescents (ages 13–17 years) from a probability-based panel. In a between-subjects experiment, we randomly assigned adolescents to view one of four videos online: (1) a smoking prevention video ad from the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) The Real Cost campaign, (2) a neutral control video about smoking, (3) a vaping prevention video ad from The Real Cost campaign, or (4) a neutral control video about vaping. We present effect sizes as Cohen’s d, standardized mean differences, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results Exposure to The Real Cost vaping prevention ads led to more negative attitudes toward vaping compared with control (d = 0.30, 95% CI: 0.07, 0.53), while exposure to The Real Cost smoking prevention ads did not affect smoking-related outcomes compared with control (p-values > .05). Turning to spillover effects, exposure to The Real Cost smoking prevention ads led to less susceptibility to vaping (d = −0.34, 95% CI: −0.56, −0.12), more negative attitudes toward vaping (d = 0.43, 95% CI: 0.20, 0.65) and higher perceived likelihood of harm from vaping (d = 0.26, 95% CI: 0.04, 0.48), compared with control. Exposure to The Real Cost vaping prevention ads did not affect smoking-related outcomes compared with control (p-values > .05). Conclusions This experiment found evidence of beneficial spillover effects of smoking prevention ads on vaping outcomes and found no detrimental effects of vaping prevention ads on smoking outcomes. Implications Little research has examined the spillover effects of tobacco communication campaigns, such as how anti-smoking ads affect vaping. Using a national sample of 623 U.S. adolescents, we found beneficial evidence of spillover effects of smoking prevention ads on vaping outcomes, which is promising since it suggests that smoking prevention campaigns may have the additional benefit of reducing both smoking and vaping among adolescents. Additionally, we found that vaping prevention campaigns did not elicit unintended consequences on smoking-related outcomes, an important finding given concerns that vaping prevention campaigns could drive youth to increase or switch to using combustible cigarettes instead of vaping.

Despite growing evidence that warning labels reduce purchases of sugary drinks, less is known about warnings' impact on purchases of sugary snacks. This paper aimed to experimentally test whether a front-of-package label warning about high sugar content ("sugar warning label") would reduce parents' likelihood of selecting a labeled snack versus a non-labeled snack for their child in a food store setting. Participants (n = 2,219 parents of at least one child aged 1-5y) were recruited via an online panel and asked to complete a shopping task in a virtual convenience store. Participants were randomized to one of three labeling conditions: barcode control, text-only sugar warning label, or pictorial sugar warning label. Participants viewed two granola snacks, one labeled and one unlabeled, and selected one for purchase. A post-shopping survey measured secondary outcomes. Predictions and analyses were preregistered on www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04381481). Participants exposed to the text or pictorial sugar warning labels were less likely to select the labeled snack than those in the barcode control group (21%, 18%, and 34% respectively; p 0.001 for both comparisons of warning to control). Relative to the barcode control label, the text and pictorial sugar warning labels resulted in greater attention, anticipated social interactions, negative affect, cognitive elaboration, and perceived message effectiveness, as well as lower perceptions of healthfulness, appeal, and intentions to purchase or consume the product (p 0.001 for all comparisons of warnings to control). There were no differences in outcomes between text and pictorial sugar warning labels. In conclusion, text and pictorial sugar warning labels reduced parents' likelihood of selecting a labeled granola snack for their children. These results contribute to a growing body of evidence showing that warning labels influence food purchasing behaviors.

We conducted a scoping review of sweet beverages (SB) and cancer outcomes to ascertain SB's relationship with cancer by SB type and cancer type. We used the PRISMA Scoping Review Guidelines to review quantitative studies of SB and cancer. Eligible studies included articles reporting a quantitative association between SB intake and a cancer-related health outcome in humans, including adiposity-related versus non–adiposity-related cancers. Studies included analyses not confounded by artificial sweeteners. SB was defined as beverages with added sugars, 100% fruit juices, or fruit drinks that were not 100% fruit juice. We used a data-charting form to extract study characteristics and results. A total of 38 were included. The sample consisted predominately of adults from European countries outside of the United States or predominately White samples in the United States. Across all conceptualizations of SB, a greater proportion of studies examining carbonated drinks reported SB's relationship with poorer cancer outcomes, which was exacerbated in adiposity-related cancers. The composition of different types of SB (e.g., high fructose corn syrup, natural fructose) as they relate to cancer is important. Studies including more diverse populations that bear a disproportionate burden of both SB intake and cancer are needed. Prevention Relevance: Different sugars in SB may impact cancer differently. Compared with SB made with other types of sugar, drinks made with man-made fructose (carbonated drinks) had poorer cancer outcomes, especially in cancers impacted by obesity. Understanding how different SB affect cancer would help us target which SB to avoid.

Significance The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is considering a very low nicotine content (VLNC) product standard to substantially reduce nicotine in cigarettes. We examined whether learning about a potential VLNC standard increased smokers’ interest in illicit purchases of cigarettes with regular nicotine content if such a standard were adopted. Methods Participants were a national convenience sample of 1712 US adult smokers. In an online experiment, we randomly assigned smokers to view information about a new VLNC standard (experimental condition) or no information (control condition). The experimental condition explained that a VLNC standard would remove 95% of the nicotine in cigarettes and would require stores to only sell VLNC cigarettes. Then, the survey assessed smokers’ interest in purchasing regular cigarettes from three illicit sources. Results Smokers who learned about the VLNC standard were more likely to be very or extremely interested in purchasing regular cigarettes illicitly from a Web site compared to smokers in the control group (24% vs. 16%, p < .001). They were also more interested in illicitly buying cigarettes from a street vendor (19% vs. 13%, p < .001) and a store on an Indian reservation (28% vs. 22%, p < .05), compared to the control. The impact of learning about the VLNC standard on interest in illicit purchases did not differ by smoking frequency or current e-cigarette use. Conclusions A VLNC standard could increase smokers’ interest in illicit purchases of regular nicotine cigarettes. To prevent VLNC-induced illicit trade from undermining public health, FDA should consider proven measures such as track and trace for these products. Implications Little is known about how a VLNC cigarette standard would affect consumer interest in regular content cigarettes purchased from illicit sources (eg, the Internet). We found that smokers informed about a potential VLNC product standard had greater interest in illicit cigarette purchases, compared to controls. This suggests the importance of proactive measures accompanying a VLNC standard, such as track-and-trace cigarette packaging regulations and communication campaigns, in order to maximize the standard’s public health impact.

Introduction Five U.S. states have proposed policies to require health warnings on sugar-sweetened beverages, but warnings’ effects on actual purchase behavior remain uncertain. This study evaluated the impact of sugar-sweetened beverage health warnings on sugar-sweetened beverage purchases. Study design Participants completed one study visit to a life-sized replica of a convenience store in North Carolina. Participants chose six items (two beverages, two foods, and two household products). One item was randomly selected for them to purchase and take home. Participants also completed a questionnaire. Researchers collected data in 2018 and conducted analyses in 2019. Setting/participants Participants were a demographically diverse convenience sample of 400 adult sugar-sweetened beverage consumers (usual consumption ≥12 ounces/week). Intervention Research staff randomly assigned participants to a health warning arm (sugar-sweetened beverages in the store displayed a front-of-package health warning) or a control arm (sugar-sweetened beverages displayed a control label). Main outcome measures The primary trial outcome was sugar-sweetened beverage calories purchased. Secondary outcomes included reactions to trial labels (e.g., negative emotions) and sugar-sweetened beverage perceptions and attitudes (e.g., healthfulness). Results All 400 participants completed the trial and were included in analyses. Health warning arm participants were less likely to be Hispanic and to have overweight/obesity than control arm participants. In intent-to-treat analyses adjusting for Hispanic ethnicity and overweight/obesity, health warnings led to lower sugar-sweetened beverage purchases (adjusted difference, −31.4 calories; 95% CI= −57.9, −5.0). Unadjusted analyses yielded similar results (difference, −32.9 calories; 95% CI= −58.9, −7.0). Compared with the control label, sugar-sweetened beverage health warnings also led to higher intentions to limit sugar-sweetened beverage consumption and elicited more attention, negative emotions, thinking about the harms of sugar-sweetened beverage consumption, and anticipated social interactions. Trial arms did not differ on perceptions of sugar-sweetened beverages’ added sugar content, healthfulness, appeal/coolness, or disease risk. Conclusions Brief exposure to health warnings reduced sugar-sweetened beverage purchases in this naturalistic RCT. Sugar-sweetened beverage health warning policies could discourage sugar-sweetened beverage consumption. Trial registration This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT03511937.

Introduction Evidence for the health harms of e-cigarettes is growing, yet little is known about which harms may be most impactful in health messaging. Our study sought to identify which harms tobacco product users were aware of and which most discouraged them from wanting to vape. Methods Participants were a convenience sample of 1,872 U.S. adult e-cigarette-only users, cigarette-only smokers, and dual users recruited in August 2018. In an online survey, participants evaluated 40 e-cigarette harms from seven categories: chemical exposures, device explosions, addiction, cardiovascular harm, respiratory harm, e-liquid toxicity, and other harms. Outcomes were awareness of the harms (“check all that apply”) and the extent to which the harms discouraged vaping (5-point scale; (1) “not at all” to (5) “very much”). Results Awareness of most e-cigarette harms was modest, being highest for harms in the device explosions category of harms (44%) and lowest for the e-liquid toxicity category (16%). The harms with the highest mean discouragement from wanting to vape were the respiratory harm (M = 3.82) and exposure to chemicals (M = 3.68) categories. Harms in the addiction category were the least discouraging (M = 2.83) compared with other harms (all p < .001). Findings were similar for e-cigarette-only users, cigarette-only smokers, and dual users. Conclusions Addiction was the least motivating e-cigarette harm, a notable finding given that the current FDA e-cigarette health warning communicates only about nicotine addiction. The next generation of e-cigarette health warnings and communication campaigns should highlight other harms, especially respiratory harms and the chemical exposures that may lead to health consequences. Implications E-cigarette health harms related to respiratory effects, chemical exposures, and other health areas most discouraged vaping among tobacco users. In contrast, health harms about addiction least discouraged use. Several countries have begun implementing e-cigarette health warnings, including the United States, and many others are considering adopting similar policies. To increase impact, future warnings and other health communication efforts should communicate about health harms beyond addiction, such as the effects of e-cigarette use on respiratory health. Such efforts should communicate that e-cigarette use is risky and may pose less overall risk to human health than smoking, according to current evidence.

Objectives. To examine US adults’ reactions to health warnings with strong versus weak causal language. Methods. In 2018, we randomly assigned 1360 US adults to answer an online survey about health warnings for cigarettes, sugar-sweetened beverages, or alcohol. Participants rated 4 warning statements using different causal language variants (“causes,” “contributes to,” “can contribute to,” and “may contribute to”) displayed in random arrangement. Results. Most participants (76.3%) selected the warning that used “causes” as the 1 that most discouraged them from wanting to use the product. “Causes” was also selected most often (39.0% of participants) as the warning that participants most supported implementing. By contrast, most (66.1%) chose “may contribute to” as the warning that least discouraged them from wanting to use the product. We found few demographic differences in these patterns. Conclusions. Warnings with stronger causal language are perceived to be effective and are supported by the public.

BackgroundA prevailing hypothesis is that health warnings for electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) could drive people away from vaping and towards smoking cigarettes. We consider an alternative hypothesis that e-cigarette warnings discourage both vaping and smoking.MethodsParticipants were a national convenience sample of 2218 US adults who used e-cigarettes, cigarettes or both. In August 2018, we randomised participants to one of three warning types (control text about littering, text-only e-cigarette warning or pictorial e-cigarette warning). We further randomised participants viewing e-cigarette warnings to one of three topics (nicotine addiction, health hazards of use, or both health hazards and harms of use). The preregistered primary outcome was intentions to quit vaping among e-cigarette users. Secondary outcomes included interest in smoking and Tobacco Warnings Model constructs: attention, negative affect, anticipated social interactions and cognitive elaboration.ResultsText warnings elicited higher intentions to quit vaping than control among e-cigarette users (d=0.44, pd=0.12, pDiscussionE-cigarette health warnings may motivate users to quit vaping and discourage smoking. The most promising warnings include health hazards (other than nicotine addiction) and imagery. We found no support for the hypothesis that e-cigarette warnings could encourage smoking cigarettes.

Health warnings are a promising strategy for reducing consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs), but uncertainty remains about how to design warnings to maximize their impact. Warnings already implemented in Latin America use nutrient disclosures, while proposed U.S. warnings would describe the health effects of consuming SSBs. We sought to determine whether warning characteristics influence consumers' reactions to SSB health warnings. A national convenience sample of U.S. adults (n = 1360) completed an online survey in 2018. In a factorial design, we randomly assigned participants to view SSB health warnings that differed in: 1) inclusion of health effects ("Drinking beverages with added sugar contributes to obesity, diabetes, and tooth decay"); 2) inclusion of a nutrient disclosure ("High in added sugar"); 3) inclusion of the marker word "WARNING;" and 4) shape (octagon vs. rectangle). The primary outcome was perceived message effectiveness (PME, range 1-5). PME was higher for warnings that included health effects (average differential effect [ADE] = 0.63, p 0.001) or nutrient disclosures (ADE = 0.32, p 0.001) compared to warnings without this information. However, adding a nutrient disclosure to a warning that already included health effects did not lead to higher PME compared to warnings with health effects alone. The marker "WARNING" (ADE = 0.21) and the octagon shape (ADE = 0.08) also led to higher PME compared to warnings without these characteristics (ps 0.001). The same pattern of results held for the secondary outcomes, fear and thinking about harms. SSB health warnings may have more impact if they describe health effects, use the marker "WARNING," and are octagon-shaped.

ImportanceUnderstanding whether prevention advertisements reduce susceptibility to vaping is important owing to concerning levels of adolescent vaping.ObjectiveTo examine whether vaping prevention advertisements from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) national Real Cost campaign lead to lower susceptibility to vaping among adolescents.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsFor this 3-group randomized clinical trial with parallel assignment, participants were US adolescents aged 13 to 17 years who were susceptible to vaping or current e-cigarette users, recruited from online panels. Adolescents were randomized to 1 of 2 Real Cost vaping prevention trial groups (health harms– or addiction-themed advertisements) or to a control group (investigator-created neutral videos about vaping). Adolescents completed 4 weekly online surveys at visits 1 to 4 over a 3-week period. Data were analyzed from December 1, 2021, to August 25, 2022.InterventionsAdolescents saw 3 randomly ordered 30-second video advertisements online at each of 3 weekly study visits (visits 1, 2, and 3).Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary trial outcome was susceptibility to vaping. Surveys also assessed susceptibility to smoking cigarettes to examine any spillover effects of vaping prevention advertisements on smoking outcomes. Both susceptibility measures had 3 items and ranged from 1 (indicating not susceptible) to 4 (indicating highly susceptible). The primary analyses compared Real Cost groups (combined) with the control group, while exploratory analyses compared the Real Cost groups with each other.ResultsParticipants were 1514 adolescents (1140 [75.3%] boys; mean [SD] age, 15.22 [1.18] years), including 504 randomized to the Real Cost health harms group, 506 randomized to the Real Cost addiction group, and 504 randomized to the control group. Adolescents in the Real Cost groups (combined) had lower susceptibility to vaping at visit 4 than those in the control group (b = −0.21; 95% CI, −0.32 to −0.10). The Real Cost groups did not differ from one another on susceptibility to vaping (visit 4: b = −0.05; 95% CI, −0.17 to 0.07). Adolescents in the Real Cost groups (combined) also had lower susceptibility to smoking cigarettes than those in the control group (b = −0.21; 95% CI, −0.32 to −0.10). For both vaping and smoking, Real Cost groups had less positive attitudes (vaping: b = −0.27; 95% CI, −0.40 to −0.14; smoking: b = −0.23; 95% CI, −0.39 to −0.08) compared with the control group.Conclusions and RelevanceThese findings suggest that vaping prevention advertisements from the FDA Real Cost campaign led to lower adolescent susceptibility to vaping and had beneficial spillover effects on cigarette smoking outcomes. Tobacco prevention campaigns can help reduce youth tobacco use.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04836455

Introduction Perceived message effectiveness (PME) is a common metric to understand receptivity to tobacco prevention messages, yet most measures have been developed with adults. We examined adolescents’ interpretation of language within candidate items for a new youth-targeted PME measure using cognitive interviewing. We sought to understand the meaning adolescents assigned to our candidate PME items to improve item wording. Aims and Methods Participants were 20 adolescents, ages 13–17 years from the United States. Cognitive interviews used a structured guide to elicit feedback on comprehension, answer retrieval, and language regarding a set of Reasoned Action Approach-based survey items that assessed the PME of smoking and vaping prevention ads. We employed thematic analysis to synthesize findings from the interviews. Results Interviews identified three main issues related to survey items: ambiguity of language, word choice (risk and other terminology), and survey item phrasing. Adolescents preferred direct, definitive language over more ambiguous phrasing which they saw as less serious (eg, “will” instead of “could”). For risk terminology, they preferred terms such as “harmful” and “dangerous” over “risky,” which was viewed as easy to discount. The term “negative effects” was interpreted as encompassing a broader set of tobacco harms than “health effects.” Adolescents said that the term “vape” was preferable to “e-cigarette,” and identified ways to simplify item wording for greater clarity. Conclusions Tobacco risk terms that appear similar differ in meaning to adolescents, and more direct and unambiguous language is preferred. Our findings informed changes to the PME scale items to improve clarity and reduce measurement error. Implications This study adds to the literature on how adolescents interpret tobacco prevention language. Adolescents may interpret terminology differently than adults, which could lead to ambiguity in meaning and thus measurement error. Through cognitive interviewing, we identified and improved the language in a youth-focused PME measure for tobacco and vaping prevention.

Sugary drink warnings are a promising policy for reducing sugary drink consumption, but it remains unknown how to design warnings to maximize their impact overall and among diverse population groups, including parents of Latino ethnicity and parents with low English use. In 2019, we randomized US parents of children ages 2-12 (n = 1078, 48% Latino ethnicity, 13% low English use) to one topic (one of four warnings, or a neutral control), which they viewed on three designs (text-only, icon, and graphic) to assess reactions to the various warnings on sugary drinks. All warning topics were perceived as more effective than the control (average differential effect [ADE] ranged from 1.77 to 1.84 [5-point Likert scale], all p .001). All warning topics also led to greater thinking about harms of sugary drinks (all p .001) and lower purchase intentions (all p .01). Compared to text-only warnings, icon (ADE = 0.18) and graphic warnings (ADE = 0.30) elicited higher perceived message effectiveness, as well as greater thinking about the harms of sugary drinks, lower perceived healthfulness, and lower purchase intentions (all p .001). The impact of icon warnings (vs. text warnings) was stronger for parents with low English use, compared to those with high English use (p = .024). Similarly, the impact of icon (vs. text warnings) was stronger for Latino parents than non-Latino parents (p = .034). This experimental study indicates that many warning topics hold promise for behavior change and that including images with warnings could increase warning efficacy, particularly among Latino parents and parents with low English use. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04382599.

BackgroundFront-of-package nutrient warning labels are one promising policy to inform healthier food choices and purchasing decisions. This study aimed to identify the impact of nutrient warning labels on product selection and the ability to correctly identify products with an excess of critical nutrients, among other outcomes in Colombia.MethodsWe conducted an online randomized experiment among 8,061 Colombian adults in October 2020. Participants were randomly assigned to a front-of-package label condition: nutrient warning, guideline daily amounts (GDA), Nutri-Score, or a no-label condition. First, they viewed a fruit drink with added sugar that was labeled per their assigned condition and one without added sugar, which was only labeled in the GDA and Nutri-Score conditions, and completed selection tasks. The primary outcomes were 1) selection of the fruit drink with added sugar as the fruit drink they would rather buy and 2) correctly identifying which fruit drink was higher in sugar. Next, they viewed four food products (cookies, yogurt, sliced bread, and breakfast cereal) with their assigned condition and answered a series of questions. Finally, they selected which of the three label types would most discourage them from consuming a specified ultra-processed food.ResultsFewer participants in the nutrient warning condition (20%) selected the added sugar fruit drink as the product they would rather buy compared to 24% in the GDA condition (pConclusionsNutrient warning labels are a promising policy strategy to prevent obesity and diet-related non-communicable diseases in Colombia. Future research is needed to understand the impact of nutrient warning labels on actual ultra-processed food purchases in Colombia. Trial Registration: NCT04567004

Objectives:Toddler milk (i.e. a nutrient-fortified milk-based drink marketed for children 12–36 months old) is increasingly being marketed in the USA despite not being recommended for young children. There is evidence of targeted toddler milk marketing to Latinos in the USA. This study aimed to explore toddler milk perceptions and behaviours among Latino and non-Latino parents.Design:An online survey assessed toddler milk perceptions, behaviours and interpretations of nutrition-related claims. Multivariable logistic and linear regression explored socio-demographic correlates of parent reported past purchases and perceived healthfulness.Setting:Online.Participants:National convenience sample of 1078 US parents of children aged 2–12 years (48 % Latino).Results:About half of parents (51 %) had previously purchased toddler milk and few (11 %) perceived toddler milk as unhealthy. Latino parents were more likely to have purchased toddler milk than non-Latino parents (P< 0·001), but there were no differences in perceived product healthfulness (P= 0·47). Compared to parents born in the USA, parents living in the USA 10 years or less were more likely to have purchased toddler milk (P< 0·001) and perceive toddler milk as healthier (P= 0·002). Open-ended interpretations of claims were primarily positive, suggesting ‘health halo’ effects.Conclusions:Common misperceptions about toddler milk healthfulness suggest stronger labelling regulations are needed. Greater reported purchases by Latino parents and recent immigrants warrant further investigation.

State and local health departments have been tasked with promoting the use of face coverings to decrease the spread of COVID-19 in their respective communities. However, little is known about motivations and barriers to wearing face coverings in the context of COVID-19 prevention, particularly among communities of color who are at an increased risk of serious illness from the disease. The purpose of this study was to identify common motivations and barriers to face covering use, as well as explore perceptions of messages encouraging the use of face coverings among a racially and ethnically diverse sample. A survey was distributed electronically to North Carolina (NC) residents through NC Department of Health and Human Services listservs in July 2020. Participants self-categorized as Latino/a (33.5%), Black (39.1%), or white or another race (27.5%). The most commonly endorsed motivations for wearing face coverings were to avoid spreading COVID-19 (77%), as well as to protect people who are vulnerable (76%) and one’s community (72%). Being uncomfortable (40%) was the most commonly endorsed barrier. Messages that included a clear request (ex. please wear a face covering) and a direct benefit (ex. keep community safe) were more commonly endorsed than those that did not. Commonly endorsed motivations, behaviors, and messages differed by race and ethnicity. Increased attention to message content, message structure, and access to information and resources may aid local officials in increasing consistent use of face coverings.

Highlights • 32%-35% of participants experienced food insecurity due to the COVID-19 pandemic. • Barriers to getting food included insufficient money and fear of COVID-19 exposure. • Financial struggles due to COVID-19 is an important predictor of food insecurity. • SNAP receipt buffered the harmful effect of financial struggles on food security., The COVID-19 pandemic has considerably increased food insecurity. To identify where intervention and policy solutions are most needed, we explored barriers to obtaining food and predictors of experiencing food insecurity due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Between May and July 2020, we conducted cross-sectional online surveys with two convenience samples of U.S. adults (Study 1: n = 2,219, Study 2: n = 810). Roughly one-third of participants reported experiencing food insecurity due to the COVID-19 pandemic (Study 1: 32%, Study 2: 35%). Between one-third and half reported using the charitable food system (Study 1: 36%, Study 2: 46%). The majority of participants experienced barriers to getting food (Study 1: 84%, Study 2: 88%), of which the most commonly reported were not having enough money to buy food (Study 1: 48%; Study 2: 53%) and worrying about getting COVID-19 at the store (Study 1: 50%; Study 2: 43%). Higher education was associated with greater risk of food insecurity in both studies (all p

IntroductionThe pace and scale of the COVID-19 pandemic, coupled with ongoing efforts by health agencies to communicate harms, have created a pressing need for data to inform messaging about smoking, vaping, and COVID-19. We examined reactions to COVID-19 and traditional health harms messages discouraging smoking and vaping.MethodsParticipants were a national convenience sample of 810 US adults recruited online in May 2020. All participated in a smoking message experiment and a vaping message experiment, presented in a random order. In each experiment, participants viewed one message formatted as a Twitter post. The experiments adopted a 3 (traditional health harms of smoking or vaping: three harms, one harm, absent) × 2 (COVID-19 harms: one harm, absent) between-subjects design. Outcomes included perceived message effectiveness (primary) and constructs from the Tobacco Warnings Model (secondary: attention, negative affect, cognitive elaboration, social interactions).ResultsSmoking messages with traditional or COVID-19 harms elicited higher perceived effectiveness for discouraging smoking than control messages without these harms (all p vaping elicited higher perceived effectiveness for discouraging vaping (p ConclusionsMessages linking smoking with COVID-19 may hold promise for discouraging smoking and may have the added benefit of also discouraging vaping.