This study aims to review the literature regarding the barriers to sampling, recruitment, participation, and retention of members of socioeconomically disadvantaged groups in health research and strategies for increasing the amount of health research conducted with socially disadvantaged groups.

The placement of nutrition information on the front of food packages has been proposed as a method of providing simplified and visible nutrition information. This study aimed to determine the most acceptable and effective front-of-pack food labelling system for Australian consumers. Consumers' preferences and ability to compare the healthiness of mock food products were assessed for different front-of-pack labelling systems. Four systems were tested, including two variations of the Percentage Daily Intake system (Monochrome %DI and Colour-Coded %DI), which displays the proportion of daily nutrient contribution that a serve of food provides; and two variations of the Traffic Light (TL) system (Traffic Light and Traffic Light + Overall Rating), which uses colour-coding to indicate nutrient levels. Intercept surveys with 790 consumers were conducted, where each participant was exposed to a single labelling system for performance testing. Participants indicated strong support for the inclusion of nutrient information on total fat, saturated fat, sugar and sodium on the front of packages, and a consistent labelling format across all products. Using the TL system, participants were five times more likely to identify healthier foods compared with the Monochrome %DI system [odds ratio (OR) = 5.18; p < 0.001], and three times more likely compared with the Colour-Coded %DI system (OR = 3.01; p < 0.05). Consumers supported the introduction of consistent front-of-pack food labelling. The TL system was the most effective in assisting consumers to identify healthier foods. Mandatory TL labelling regulations are recommended to assist consumers in making healthy food choices.

Policies restricting children’s exposure to unhealthy food marketing have been impeded by the lack of evidence showing a direct link between food advertising exposure and children’s energy intake and body weight. Food advertising exposure increases children’s immediate food consumption, but whether this increased intake is compensated for at later eating occasions is not known; consequently the sustained effect on diets remains unclear. We conducted a within-subject, randomised, crossover, counterbalanced study across four, six-day holiday camps in New South Wales, Australia between April 2016 and January 2017. Children (7–12 years, n = 160) were recruited via local schools, email networks and social media. Two gender- and age-balanced groups were formed for each camp (n = 20), randomised to either a multiple- or single- media condition and exposed to food and non-food advertising in an online game and/or a television cartoon. Children’s food consumption (kilojoules) was measured at a snack immediately after exposure and then at lunch later in the day. Linear mixed models were conducted to examine relationships between food advertising exposure and dietary intake, taking into account gender, age and weight status. All children in the multiple-media condition ate more at a snack after exposure to food advertising compared with non-food advertising; this was not compensated for at lunch, leading to additional daily food intake of 194 kJ (95% CI 80–308, p = 0.001, d = 0.2). Exposure to multiple-media food advertising compared with a single-media source increased the effect on snack intake by a difference of 182 kJ (95% CI 46–317, p = 0.009, d = 0.4). Food advertising had an increased effect among children with heavier weight status in both media groups. Online (‘advergame’) advertising combined with TV advertising exerted a stronger influence on children’s food consumption than TV advertising alone. The lack of compensation at lunch for children’s increased snack intake after food advertising exposure suggests that unhealthy food advertising exposure contributes to a positive energy-gap, which could cumulatively lead to the development of overweight. Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, number ACTRN12617001230347 (Retrospectively registered).

Health claims and front-of-pack labels (FoPLs) may lead consumers to hold more positive attitudes and show a greater willingness to buy food products, regardless of their actual healthiness. A potential negative consequence of this positivity bias is the increased consumption of unhealthy foods. This study investigated whether a positivity bias would occur in unhealthy variations of four products (cookies, corn flakes, pizzas and yoghurts) that featured different health claim conditions (no claim, nutrient claim, general level health claim, and higher level health claim) and FoPL conditions (no FoPL, the Daily Intake Guide (DIG), Multiple Traffic Lights (MTL), and the Health Star Rating (HSR)). Positivity bias was assessed via measures of perceived healthiness, global evaluations (incorporating taste, quality, convenience, etc.) and willingness to buy. On the whole, health claims did not produce a positivity bias, while FoPLs did, with the DIG being the most likely to elicit this bias. The HSR most frequently led to lower ratings of unhealthy foods than the DIG and MTL, suggesting that this FoPL has the lowest risk of creating an inaccurate positivity bias in unhealthy foods.

Context: The presence of health claims on food packaging can positively bias consumers’ evaluations of foods. Objective: This review examined whether cognitive biases endure when other sources of nutrition information [the nutrition facts panel (NFP) and front-of-pack labels] appear on-pack with health claims. Data sources: The following databases were searched: Web of Science, Ovid, Google Scholar, ScienceDirect, Scopus, ProQuest, and Wiley Online Library. Study selection: The search terms (“health claim*” OR “nutri* claim”) AND (“food label*” OR “front of pack”) were used to identify studies. Data extraction: Twenty-four studies that examined health claims and front-of-pack labels or the NFP were included. Results: The NFP can reduce bias, but only if consumers view it and interpret it correctly, which often does not occur. Front-of-pack labels show greater promise in reducing bias created by health claims. Conclusions: These findings are relevant to policymakers who are considering the effectiveness of mandating an NFP and/or a front-of-pack label alongside health claims.