There is insufficient evidence that restaurant menu labeling policies are cost-effective strategies to reduce obesity and diet-related non-communicable diseases (NCDs). Evidence suggests that menu labeling has a modest effect on calories purchased and consumed. No review has been published on the effect of menu labeling policies on transnational restaurant chains globally. This study conducted a two-step scoping review to map and describe the effect of restaurant menu labeling policies on menu reformulation. First, we identified national, state, and municipal menu labeling policies in countries from global databases. Second, we searched four databases (i.e., PubMed, CINHAL/EBSCO, Web of Science, and Google Scholar) for peer-reviewed studies and gray-literature sources in English and Spanish (2000–2020). Step 1 identified three voluntary and eight mandatory menu labeling policies primarily for energy disclosures for 11 upper-middle and high-income countries, but none for low- or middle-income countries. Step 2 identified 15 of 577 studies that met the inclusion criteria. The analysis showed reductions in energy for newly introduced menu items only in the United States. We suggest actions for governments, civil society organizations, and the restaurant businesses to develop, implement, and evaluate comprehensive menu labeling policies to determine whether these may reduce obesity and NCD risks worldwide.

Background: With multi-stakeholder approaches central to efforts to address global health challenges, debates around conflict of interest (COI) are increasingly prominent. The World Health Organization (WHO) recently developed a proposed tool to support member states in preventing and managing COI in nutrition policy. We analysed responses to an online consultation to explore how actors from across sectors understand COI and the ways in which they use this concept to frame the terms of commercial sector engagement in health governance. Methods: Submissions from 44 Member States, international organisations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), academic institutions and commercial sector actors were coded using a thematic framework informed by framing theory. Respondents’ orientation to the tool aligned with two broad frames, ie, a ‘collaboration and partnership’ frame that endorsed multi-stakeholder approaches and a ‘restricted engagement’ frame that highlighted core tensions between public health and food industry actors. Results: Responses to the WHO tool reflected contrasting conceptualisations of COI and implications for health governance. While most Member States, NGOs, and academic institutions strongly supported the tool, commercial sector organisations depicted it as inappropriate, unworkable and incompatible with the Sustainable Development Goals (SGDs). Commercial sector respondents advanced a narrow, individual-level understanding of COI, seen as adequately addressed by existing mechanisms for disclosure, and viewed the WHO tool as unduly restricting scope for private sector engagement in nutrition policy. In contrast, health-focused NGOs and several Member States drew on a more expansive understanding of COI that recognised scope for wider tensions between public health goals and commercial interests and associated governance challenges. These submissions mostly welcomed the tool as an innovative approach to preventing and managing such conflicts, although some NGOs sought broader exclusion of corporate actors from policy engagement. Conclusion: Submissions on the WHO tool illustrate how contrasting positions on COI are central to understanding broader debates in nutrition policy and across global health governance. Effective health governance requires greater understanding of how COI can be conceptualised and managed amid high levels of contestation on policy engagement with commercial sector actors. This requires both ongoing innovation in governance tools and more extensive conceptual and empirical research.

Objective To assess the effects of three different front-of-package labelling (FOPL) schemes on objective understanding and intention to purchase of products, in Jamaica. Setting Supermarkets in Jamaica. Participants Adult supermarket shoppers in Jamaica (n=1206) aged 18 years old or older were included in the study, except for those visually impaired, or unable to give informed consent. Design Multiarm parallel-group randomised trial. Interventions Participants were randomly allocated to one of the three intervention groups or the control group. They were exposed to two-dimensional images of 12 mock-up products presented in random and balanced order. Participants assigned to the intervention groups were exposed to one FOPL scheme: black octagonal warning labels (OWL), magnifying glass high-in single icon (MGG) or traffic-light labelling (TFL). The control group was exposed to the nutrition facts up front. Outcome measures OR for correctly understanding nutritional information (correctly selecting the least harmful option, correctly identifying sugars, sodium and/or saturated fats found to be in excess) and choosing to purchase the least harmful option (purchase intention), more often. Results Compared with the control group, the odds for correctly selecting the least harmful option more often were 107% higher in the OWL group (OR 2.07, 95% CI 1.54 to 2.78; p<0.001), whereas the MGG (1.18, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.57; p=0.24) and the TFL (1.13, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.51; p=0.39) were inefficacious in improving such odds. OWL also resulted in the highest odds for correctly identifying a product with excessive amounts of sugars, sodium and/or saturated fats and for deciding to purchase the least harmful option or none of the options. Conclusions Octagonal warning labels performed best at improving the ability of adult shoppers in Jamaica to understand the nutrition information and at encouraging them to purchase the least harmful option more often.

Objectives. To identify the front-of-package scheme—Multiple Traffic Light (MTL), Nutri-Score (NS), and black octagon Warning System (WS)—most effective in reducing purchase intention and perceived product healthfulness of drinking yogurts, cookies and cheese spreads, and to assess the joint influence of nutrient claims on the effects. Methods. Randomized-controlled experiment. A within-subjects factorial design was used to evaluate the influence of three independent factors on perceived product healthfulness and purchase intention. A total of 704 adults in Argentina were shown three mock-up products and asked to indicate which product they would buy choosing between pairs of products from different categories and to rate product healthfulness on a 7-point Likert scale. Results. The WS was the most effective in reducing purchase intention in drinking yogurts (OR:0.16, 95%CI: 0.09;0.28), cookies (OR:0.10, 95%CI: 0.05;0.18) and cheese spreads (OR:0.10, 95%CI: 0.05;0.18), and the perception of healthfulness (WS Mean score 3,63 vs No label 4,24, p<0.001), regardless of the participants’ gender, age, and level of education. NS was inefficacious in reducing product healthfulness perception, while MTL had significantly increased how healthful the product was perceived (p<0.001). Nutrient claims increased purchase intention and perception of healthfulness, thus reducing the effectiveness of front-of-package labels (p<0.001). Conclusions. In line with growing evidence, our findings support that WS perform better than NS and MTL in reducing purchase intention and healthfulness perception of products with excessive amounts of critical nutrients associated with the greatest burden of diseases. Front-of-package WS are expected to facilitate the population in Argentina to make healthier decisions.

In 2010, 193 Member States of the World Health Organization (WHO) endorsed World Health Assembly Resolution WHA63.14 to restrict the marketing of food and beverage products high in fat, sugar and salt (HFSS) to children to prevent obesity and non-communicable diseases (NCDs). No study has examined HFSS marketing policies across the WHO regional office countries in the Americas. Between 2018 and 2019, a transdisciplinary team examined policies to restrict HFSS food and beverage product marketing to children to develop a responsible policy index (RESPI) that provides a quality score based on policy characteristics and marketing techniques. After designing the RESPI, we conducted a comprehensive literature review through October 2019 to examine policies in 14 countries in the WHO Americans Region. We categorized policies (n = 38) as either self-regulatory or statutory and calculated the RESPI scores, ranked from 0 (lowest) to 10 (highest). Results showed Brazil, Canada, Chile, and Uruguay had the highest RESPI scores associated with statutory policies that restricted point of sale, cartoon, licensed media characters and celebrities; and HFSS products in schools and child care settings, and broadcast and print media. Policymakers can use the RESPI tool to evaluate marketing policies within and across geopolitical boundaries to protect children’s diet and health.