I’m on a panel for the NYAS’s conference on Conflicts of Interest in Healthcare: Opportunities for Self-Reflection and Action, June 24-25. Location: 7 World Trade Center. 250 Greenwich St, 40th Floor. Information and registration are here. My panel is on the 25th at 10:45 a.m. , Session VI: Hot topic discussion: getting to the truth in nutrition science. Other panelists are Mona Calvo fro Penn State, Mehmood Khan from Life Biosciences, and Linda Van Horn from Northwestern. Moderator is Julia Belluz from Vox.
Guess what: Traffic light labels work
The investigators measured sales before the start of the intervention. About a quarter of items sold were in the red category and 42% were green—these hospital workers were already making healthy choices.
The intervention took place in two 3-month phases. The first phase just involved traffic light labels. In the second phase, the investigators moved the items around to make the green-labeled products more visible and accessible.
The results: labels alone led to decreases in sales of red-labeled items and increases in sales of those with green labels.
For example, sales of red-labeled drinks decreased by 16.5%. When the drinks were made less accessible, sales declined by an additional 11.4% (sales of bottled water increased).
No wonder the food industry in Great Britain fought so hard against traffic light front-of-package labeling. No wonder the Grocery Manufacturers Association and Food Marketing Institute much prefer their own guaranteed-not-to-work system.
And data like these surely explain why the FDA is taking so long to do anything with the Institute of Medicine’s proposed labeling system—not exactly traffic lights, but pretty close.
This study provides further evidence for the value of such schemes for helping people make healthier choices.
FDA: get busy!