Back

Impacts of warning labels on ultra-processed foods among Latino adults: A randomized trial

Taillie, L. S.; Noe, V.; Sehgal, M.; D'Angelo Campos, A.; Grummon, A.; Falbe, J.; Musicus, A.; Prestemon, C.; Lee, C.; Hall, M. G.

2026-03-24 nutrition
10.64898/2026.03.18.26348497 medRxiv
Show abstract

Introduction. Ultra-processed foods (UPFs), defined as foods in group 4 of the NOVA classification system, are a key contributor to chronic disease in the United States. Front-of-package warning labels ('warnings') offer a promising strategy to help Americans reduce consumption of UPFs. Requiring warning labels on UPFs could help reduce consumption of these foods. However, the effects of UPF warnings are largely unknown. The impact of warning labels on UPFs among Latino adults was examined. Study design. Online randomized trial. Setting/participants. 4,107 Latino adults (49% limited English proficiency) in the US. Intervention. Participants viewed one of three labels: control labels displaying barcodes; identity warnings stating 'WARNING: Ultra-processed food'; or health warnings stating 'WARNING: Consuming ultra-processed food and drinks can cause weight gain, which increases the risk of obesity and type 2 diabetes'. Main outcome measures. Participants viewed four UPF products displaying their randomly assigned labels. Participants indicated whether the product was UPF (primary outcome) and rated perceived healthfulness of the product, intentions to purchase the product, and perceived message effectiveness (secondary outcomes). Results. Identity warnings (70% correct) and health warnings (67% correct) both led to higher correct identification of UPF compared to control labels (54%, p<.001), with the identity warning having a larger impact than the health warning (p=.007). Compared to the control label, the identity warning and health warning both elicited higher perceived message effectiveness and lower perceptions of healthfulness and purchase intentions (p<.001 for all outcomes) with no significant differences between UPF labels. The impact of the health warning label (vs. the control label) on correct identification of UPF was greater for participants with high education (p=0.012) compared to those with low education, and participants with limited English proficiency (p=0.001). Conclusions: UPF warnings may help consumers identify UPFs and influence product perceptions and intentions.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Public Health Nutrition
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
22.4%
2
Frontiers in Nutrition
23 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.4%
3
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
7.1%
4
Nutrients
64 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
4.8%
5
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 32%
4.8%
50% of probability mass above
6
Food & Function
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.6%
7
Current Developments in Nutrition
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.1%
8
The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
19 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.1%
9
The Journal of Nutrition
21 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.1%
10
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.6%
11
Appetite
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.4%
12
Cureus
67 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.4%
13
Food Research International
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.7%
14
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
124 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.7%
15
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 62%
1.5%
16
Food Chemistry
12 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.5%
17
JMIR Research Protocols
18 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.5%
18
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 55%
1.3%
19
Cancer Medicine
24 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.3%
20
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 10%
1.3%
21
European Journal of Public Health
20 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.2%
22
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
23
Healthcare
16 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.2%
24
Physiology & Behavior
30 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.1%
25
BMJ Nutrition, Prevention & Health
10 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.9%
26
The Lancet Public Health
20 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.9%
27
Annals of Epidemiology
19 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.9%
28
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.7%
29
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%