Table 3.

Meta-Analyses of Effects of Food Labeling Interventions on Consumer Dietary Behaviors (Categorical Outcomes)^a

Dietary factor	Number of study estimates (individual studies)	Number of consumers or purchases	Percent change with labeling (95% CI)b
Green options (traffic light system)	3 (3)	1,970,452	1,9 (1.8, 2.0)
Amber options (traffic light system)	3 (3)	1,970,452	0.4 (0.3, 0.5)
Red options (traffic light system)	3 (3)	1,970,452	−2.3 (−2.4. −2.2)
Other healthy optionsc	16 (11)	42,126	6.1 (2.6, 9.5)
Other unhealthy optionsd	22 (10)	33,990	−0.9 (−4.6, 2.8)

^aFood labeling (i.e., standardized provision of nutrition or health information) includes product package, menu, or other point-of-purchase labeling. Dietary behaviors in these studies were evaluated as consumer purchases, food outlet sales, or choices/orders. Appendix Figure 19 shows individual forest plots and more details on each meta-analysis.

^bThe absolute difference in percentages of consumers or purchases making a certain selection.

^cItems recommended by labels to consume, such as green salad, “healthy items” not otherwise specified, low-fat items, low-sodium items, moderately nutrient-dense snacks, and high nutrient-dense snacks.

^dItems recommended by labels to avoid, such as sugar-sweetened beverages, large portion size sugar-sweetened beverages, caloric beverages, desserts, French fries, added cheese to hamburgers/sandwiches, full-fat meals or foods, high calorie meals, high saturated fat meals, high sodium meals, low vegetable content meals, and low nutrient-dense snacks.