Socioeconomic position and the effect of energy labelling on consumer behaviour: a systematic review and meta-analysis

• Main Authors: Eric Robinson (Author), Megan Polden (Author), Tess Langfield (Author), Katie Clarke (Author), Lara Calvert (Author), Zoé Colombet (Author), Martin O'Flaherty (Author), Lucile Marty (Author), Katy Tapper (Author), Andrew Jones (Author)
• Format: Book
• Published: BMC, 2023-02-01T00:00:00Z.
• Subjects: article
• Online Access: Connect to this object online.
• Notes: 10.1186/s12966-023-01418-0; 1479-5868
• Keywords: Energy labelling; Calorie labels; Individual differences; Obesity policy; Nutritional diseases. Deficiency diseases; RC620-627; Public aspects of medicine; RA1-1270
• Source: International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, Vol 20, Iss 1, Pp 1-15 (2023)

Abstract Background There are well documented socioeconomic disparities in diet quality and obesity. Menu energy labelling is a public health policy designed to improve diet and reduce obesity. However, it is unclear whether the impact energy labelling has on consumer behaviour is socially equitable or differs based on socioeconomic position (SEP). Methods Systematic review and meta-analysis of experimental (between-subjects) and pre-post implementation field studies examining the impact of menu energy labelling on energy content of food and/or drink selections in higher vs. lower SEP groups. Results Seventeen studies were eligible for inclusion. Meta-analyses of 13 experimental studies that predominantly examined hypothetical food and drink choices showed that energy labelling tended to be associated with a small reduction in energy content of selections that did not differ based on participant SEP (X2(1) = 0.26, p = .610). Effect estimates for higher SEP SMD = 0.067 [95% CI: -0.092 to 0.226] and lower SEP SMD = 0.115 [95% CI: -0.006 to 0.237] were similar. A meta-analysis of 3 pre-post implementation studies of energy labelling in the real world showed that the effect energy labelling had on consumer behaviour did not significantly differ based on SEP (X2(1) = 0.22, p = .636). In higher SEP the effect was SMD = 0.032 [95% CI: -0.053 to 0.117] and in lower SEP the effect was SMD = -0.005 [95% CI: -0.051 to 0.041]. Conclusions Overall there was no convincing evidence that the effect energy labelling has on consumer behaviour significantly differs based on SEP. Further research examining multiple indicators of SEP and quantifying the long-term effects of energy labelling on consumer behaviour in real-world settings is now required. Review registration Registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022312532) and OSF ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/W7RDB ).