Search

High levels of food processing can have detrimental health effects independent of nutrient content. Experts and advocates have proposed adding information about food processing status to front-of-package labeling schemes, which currently exclusively focus on nutrient content. How consumers would perceive "ultraprocessed" labels has not yet been examined. To address this gap, we conducted a within-subjects online experiment with a convenience sample of 600 US adults. Participants viewed a product under three labeling conditions (control, "ultraprocessed" label, and "ultraprocessed" plus "high in sugar" label) in random order for a single product. The "ultraprocessed" label led participants to report thinking more about the risks of eating the product and discouraging them from wanting to buy the product more than the control, despite not grabbing more attention than the control. The "ultraprocessed" plus "high in sugar" labels grabbed more attention, led participants to think more about the risks of eating the product, and discouraged them from wanting to buy the product more than the "ultraprocessed" label alone. "Ultraprocessed" labels may constitute promising messages that could work in tandem with nutrient labels, and further research should examine how they would influence consumers' actual intentions and behaviors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To determine whether an increase in hourly wages was associated with changes in food security and perceived stress among low-wage workers. We also determined whether changes in food security and stress were associated with changes in diet. Setting: Wages is a prospective cohort study following 974 low-wage workers in Minneapolis, MN, where an ordinance is incrementally increasing minimum wage to US$15/hr from 2018 to 2022, and a comparison community with no minimum wage ordinance (Raleigh, NC). Interaction models were estimated using generalized estimating equations. Participants: Analyses used two waves of data (2018 [baseline], 2019) and included 219 and 321 low-wage workers in Minneapolis and Raleigh (respectively). Results: Average hourly wages increased from US$9.77 (SD US$1.69) to US$11.67 (SD US$4.02). Changes in wages were not associated with changes in food security (odds ratio = 1.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.89, 1.23], p =.57) or stress (β = −0.01, 95% CI [−0.04, 0.03], p =.70) after 1 year of policy implementation. Changes in food security were not associated with changes in diet. However, we found significant changes in the frequency of fruit and vegetable intake across time by levels of stress, with decreased intake from Wave 1 to 2 at low levels of stress, and increased intake at high levels of stress (incidence rate ratio = 1.17, 95% CI [1.05, 1.31], p =.01). Conclusions: Changes in wages were not associated with changes in food security or stress in a sample of low-wage workers. Future research should examine whether full implementation of a minimum wage increase is associated with changes in these outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Given the rapidly changing food environment and proliferation of ultra-processed foods (UPF) in South Africa (SA), this study aimed to critically evaluate dietary quality and adequacy of low-income adults using the Nova classification system and WHO and World Cancer Research Fund dietary guidelines. Design: Secondary household data and 1-d 24-h recalls were analysed from two cross-sectional studies conducted in 2017–2018. Foods consumed were classified according to the Nova classification system. Compliance with WHO dietary guidelines and UPF consumption trends were evaluated. Setting: Three low-income areas (Langa, Khayalitsha and Mount Frere) in SA were included. Participants: In total, 2521 participants (18–50 years) were included in the study. Results: Participants had a mean energy intake of 7762 kJ/d. Most participants were within the acceptable WHO guideline range for saturated fat (80·4 %), total fat (68·1 %), Na (72·7 %) and free sugar (57·3 %). UPF comprised 39·4 % of diets among the average adult participant. Only 7·0 % of all participants met the WHO guideline for fruit and vegetables and 18·8 % met the guideline for fibre. Those within the highest quartile of share of energy from UPF consumed statistically higher amounts of dietary components to limit and were the highest energy consumers overall. Conclusions: Low-income adults living in SA are consuming insufficient protective dietary components, while UPF consumption is prevalent. Higher UPF consumers consume larger amounts of nutrients linked to increased chronic disease risk. Policy measures are urgently needed in SA to protect against the proliferation of harmful UPF and to promote and enable consumption of whole and less UPF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To assess if participation in a North Carolina produce prescription program for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) participants with diet-sensitive health conditions (SuperSNAP) is associated with changes in purchase composition and spending source., Methods: This study used loyalty-card transaction data (October 2019-April 2022). We applied a linear mixed-effects model with overlap weights to perform a difference-indifferences analysis of purchases by SuperSNAP program enrollees compared to the control group., Results: The sample included 1440 SuperSNAP shoppers and 45,851 control shoppers. Compared to shoppers only on SNAP, SuperSNAP shoppers spent $82.98 (95% CI (75.6, 90.3), p-value <0.001) more per month, $76.09 (95% CI (69.4, 82.8), pvalue <0.001) of which were spent strictly on food and beverage products. Among SuperSNAP shoppers, out of the $40 SuperSNAP benefit each month, an estimated $34.86 (95% CI (33.9, 35.8), p-value <0.001) of it was spent on fruits and vegetables., Conclusions: This study shows the promise of targeted produce prescription programs for SNAP participants in encouraging shifts in purchase composition., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Beyond the funding received for this work, Neal Curran reports receiving grants from the Gus Schumacher Nutrition Incentive Program, Rockefeller Foundation, and Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina Foundation, and Shu Wen Ng has received funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies, Arnold Ventures, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and National Institutes of Health and has worked as a paid consultant for the World Bank and New York City’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. Outside of these declarations, the authors have no other competing interests to declare., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objective: To examine geographic disparities in the nutritional quality of food purchases during the COVID-19 public health crisis in North Carolina (NC)., Methods: Using shopper-level longitudinal transaction records between October 2019- and December 2020 from NC's largest grocery retailer, we fit mixed-effect models to examine disparities in the nutritional quality of food purchases among shoppers in counties with different levels of socioeconomic development and how such disparities changed after March 2020, accounting for other observed and contextual factors., Results: Shoppers in counties with lower development levels purchased a larger share of calories from least healthy foods and a smaller share from healthier foods compared to shoppers in counties with higher development levels. These disparities were slightly attenuated for the least healthy foods and did not change for healthier foods after the onset of the COVID crisis., Conclusion: Despite existing nutritional disparities among shoppers in counties with different levels of socioeconomic development, we did not observe a large-scale accentuation of inequities in dietary quality during the COVID-19 crisis. This pattern may have resulted from programmatic responses to mitigate the adverse effects of the COVID crisis on vulnerable populations. Future work should further explore the role of such responses., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (© 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc.)