Soft Drink ConsumptionNCT05038163
Are Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Information Labels Well-Targeted
A study testing Nutrition Facts, Text Warning and Graphic Warning in people with Soft Drink Consumption and Sugar-sweetened Beverages, run by National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc. at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
We will study the extent to which soft drink information labels -- designed to curb unhealthy consumption -- are well-targeted to the most biased consumers.The study team will deploy novel methods for evaluating the targeting properties of information labels via an incentive-compatible online shopping experiment. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and olderHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Soft Drink Consumption, Sugar-sweetened Beverages, Information Labels
- What is being tested?
- Nutrition Facts, Text Warning and Graphic Warning
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 5,845 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- 18 Oct 2021to 22 Dec 2021
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Yes, posted in the registrySummary in the doctors' view
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- US resident
- Shopping online for sugar-sweetened beverages
Who cannot join
None listed.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
United States1 site
University of California, Berkeley
Berkeley, California, 94720
About this study
Official title: Are Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Information Labels Well-Targeted: Evidence and Welfare Implications
We will study the extent to which soft drink information labels -- designed to curb unhealthy consumption -- are well-targeted to the most biased consumers.The study team will deploy novel methods for evaluating the targeting properties of information labels via an incentive-compatible online shopping experiment. At a high-level, we will ask whether the treatment effects of the information labels are concentrated on individuals with the biggest self-control problems and with the least knowledge of nutrition. We will first use the methodology from Allcott et al. (2019) to estimate the internality for each participant. We will then have participants make shopping decisions for soft drinks, first absent any information labels and then, for those not in the control group, in the presence of an information label. The within-subject design of the soft drinks experiment will allow us to estimate how the effects of the labels covary with consumers' internalities, and thus to determine whether the labels are well-targeted.
Read the detailed description
We will use online ads to recruit people who are shopping online for soda, and direct them to a two-stage online Qualtrics experiment. In the first stage (Part I), we will elicit subjects' nutritional literacy and self-control for resisting sugary drinks, following the methodology of Allcott et al. (2019). Allcott et al. (2019) show that these two measures explain 31% of sugary drinks consumption in a nationally-representative sample of approximately 20,000 households, after controlling for detailed demographic information and elicitations of "tastes" for various types of drinks. Additionally, Allcott et al. (2019) demonstrate how these measures can be used to provide an estimate of over-consumption of sugary drinks at the individual level. Consequently, the first stage allows us to obtain estimates of the internality.
A week later, we will recruit participants in the first stage to participate in the second stage of the experiment (Part II). We create a time delay to minimize the potential effect of the first-stage questions on the second-stage choices. In the second stage, we will first ask participants to select their three favorite sugary drinks from a list. We will then ask participants to make an initial set of choices between those drinks and sugar-free alternatives (e.g., Seagram's Ginger Ale versus 365 Ginger) at various relative prices. Specifically, we will elicit their willingness to pay using a multiple price list, as is standard in the behavioral economics literature, where consumers answer a series of questions about whether they would prefer to buy a sugar-sweetened beverage at price X or a sugar-free alternative at price Y. Choices will be incentive-compatible: for each consumer we will honor their choice in a randomly selected decision (i.e., we will purchase the chosen package of soft drinks for them plus award them any additional money associated with that choice).
Following an initial set of choices, we will ask subjects to choose again. In this second set of choices, we will randomize whether participants see the soft drink options paired with an information label. We will also randomize the types of labels, including: (i) an inflated nutrition label that draws attention to the differences in calories and sugar content, (ii) the stoplight warning label developed by Grummon, Hall, et al. (2019), and (iii) a graphic warning label developed by Donnelly et al. (2018). The control group will instead make the same choices without seeing any label. Leveraging the within-subject nature of design, we will then estimate how well-targeted each information label is by estimating how the subjects' internalities covary with their changes in the prices at which they are willing to buy soft drinks after seeing the information label.
- Being tested
- Nutrition Facts, Text Warning, Graphic Warning
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Nutrition FactsOther
The nutritional information label for each beverage is enlarged.
Text WarningOther
Also called Stoplight Warning
The health risks of sugary beverages are communicated to subjects using words/text and simple images.
Graphic WarningOther
The health risks of sugary beverages are communicated to subjects using a combination of words/text and graphic images/photographs.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Control Arm | No intervention | In Part II of the experiment, subjects are not presented with nutrition or warning labels when choosing between beverages. |
| Nutrition Labels Arm | Experimental | In Part II of the experiment, subjects are shown enlarged nutrition labels when choosing between beverages. Receives: Other: Nutrition Facts |
| Text Warning Labels Arm | Experimental | In Part II of the experiment, subjects are shown a warning message about the health risks of sugary beverages when choosing between beverages. Receives: Other: Text Warning |
| Graphic Warning Labels Arm | Experimental | In Part II of the experiment, subjects are shown a graphic warning message about the health risks of sugary beverages when choosing between beverages. The message, for example, could include photos of tooth decay and other negative health outcomes. Receives: Other: Graphic Warning |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Willingness to Purchase Sugar-sweetened Beverage vs. Sugar-free Alternative
How much consumers like, or are willing to pay for, sugar-sweetened beverages when compared to a sugar-free alternative. The survey instrument uses a multiple price list (MPL) to elicit each respondent's relative willingness to pay (WTP) for the sugary drink vs. the non-sugary alternative, a standard methodology in the economics literature where consumers answer a series of questions about whether they would prefer to buy a sugar-sweetened beverage at price X or a sugar-free alternative at price Y. For example, a relative WTP of $1.60 indicates a respondent is willing to pay an additional $1.60 for the sugary drink compared to the non-sugary alternative.
Measured: 1 week after recruitment (during Part II of the experiment)
Willingness to Purchase Sugar-sweetened Beverage vs. Sugar-free Alternative, Among Adults Aged 65+
How much older adult consumers like, or are willing to pay for, sugar-sweetened beverages when compared to a sugar-free alternative. The survey instrument uses a multiple price list (MPL) to elicit each respondent's relative willingness to pay (WTP) for the sugary drink vs. the non-sugary alternative, a standard methodology in the economics literature where consumers answer a series of questions about whether they would prefer to buy a sugar-sweetened beverage at price X or a sugar-free alternative at price Y. For example, a relative WTP of $1.60 indicates a respondent is willing to pay an additional $1.60 for the sugary drink compared to the non-sugary alternative.
Measured: 1 week after recruitment (during Part II of the experiment)
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted8 Sep 2021
- Study start18 Oct 2021
- Primary completion22 Dec 2021
- Study completion22 Dec 2021
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, outcome measures and adverse events reported by the sponsor.
- Publications (3)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Soft Drink ConsumptionStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Prevention
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 5,845 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- University of California, Berkeley, National Institute on Aging (NIA)
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Dmitry Taubinsky, PhD, Principal investigator, UC Berkeley and NBER
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05038163
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 2020-08-13558
- Other IDs
- P30AG034532
- Status last verified
- Nov 2024
- First submitted
- 31 Aug 2021
- Last updated
- 11 Dec 2024
- Results posted
- Yes, on ClinicalTrials.gov
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Yes: De-identified IPD will be posted to ClinicalTrials.gov and Open Science Framework within 12 months of the primary completion date or the resulting paper's online publication date, whichever comes first.
Publications
Allcott H, Lockwood BB, Taubinsky D. Regressive Sin Taxes, with an Application to the Optimal Soda Tax. Quarterly Journal of Economics. 2019; 134(3).
Grummon AH, Hall MG, Taillie LS, Brewer NT. How should sugar-sweetened beverage health warnings be designed? A randomized experiment. Prev Med. 2019 Apr;121:158-166. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2019.02.010. Epub 2019 Feb 14.
PubMed 30772370Donnelly GE, Zatz LY, Svirsky D, John LK. The Effect of Graphic Warnings on Sugary-Drink Purchasing. Psychol Sci. 2018 Aug;29(8):1321-1333. doi: 10.1177/0956797618766361. Epub 2018 Jun 18.
PubMed 29912624
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 11 Dec 2024. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Are Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Information Labels Well-Targeted: Evidence and Welfare Implications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05038163
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 2020-08-13558
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 5,845 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- University of California, Berkeley, National Institute on Aging (NIA)
- Study start
- 18 Oct 2021 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 22 Dec 2021 (actual)
- Study completion
- 22 Dec 2021 (actual)
- First posted
- 8 Sep 2021 (actual)
- Results
- Posted 7 Apr 2023
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
We will study the extent to which soft drink information labels -- designed to curb unhealthy consumption -- are well-targeted to the most biased consumers.The study team will deploy novel methods for evaluating the targeting properties of information labels via an incentive-compatible online shopping experiment. At a high-level, we will ask whether the treatment effects of the information labels are concentrated on individuals with the biggest self-control problems and with the least knowledge of nutrition. We will first use the methodology from Allcott et al. (2019) to estimate the internality for each participant. We will then have participants make shopping decisions for soft drinks, first absent any information labels and then, for those not in the control group, in the presence of an information label. The within-subject design of the soft drinks experiment will allow us to estimate how the effects of the labels covary with consumers' internalities, and thus to determine whether the labels are well-targeted.
Detailed description
We will use online ads to recruit people who are shopping online for soda, and direct them to a two-stage online Qualtrics experiment. In the first stage (Part I), we will elicit subjects' nutritional literacy and self-control for resisting sugary drinks, following the methodology of Allcott et al. (2019). Allcott et al. (2019) show that these two measures explain 31% of sugary drinks consumption in a nationally-representative sample of approximately 20,000 households, after controlling for detailed demographic information and elicitations of "tastes" for various types of drinks. Additionally, Allcott et al. (2019) demonstrate how these measures can be used to provide an estimate of over-consumption of sugary drinks at the individual level. Consequently, the first stage allows us to obtain estimates of the internality.
A week later, we will recruit participants in the first stage to participate in the second stage of the experiment (Part II). We create a time delay to minimize the potential effect of the first-stage questions on the second-stage choices. In the second stage, we will first ask participants to select their three favorite sugary drinks from a list. We will then ask participants to make an initial set of choices between those drinks and sugar-free alternatives (e.g., Seagram's Ginger Ale versus 365 Ginger) at various relative prices. Specifically, we will elicit their willingness to pay using a multiple price list, as is standard in the behavioral economics literature, where consumers answer a series of questions about whether they would prefer to buy a sugar-sweetened beverage at price X or a sugar-free alternative at price Y. Choices will be incentive-compatible: for each consumer we will honor their choice in a randomly selected decision (i.e., we will purchase the chosen package of soft drinks for them plus award them any additional money associated with that choice).
Following an initial set of choices, we will ask subjects to choose again. In this second set of choices, we will randomize whether participants see the soft drink options paired with an information label. We will also randomize the types of labels, including: (i) an inflated nutrition label that draws attention to the differences in calories and sugar content, (ii) the stoplight warning label developed by Grummon, Hall, et al. (2019), and (iii) a graphic warning label developed by Donnelly et al. (2018). The control group will instead make the same choices without seeing any label. Leveraging the within-subject nature of design, we will then estimate how well-targeted each information label is by estimating how the subjects' internalities covary with their changes in the prices at which they are willing to buy soft drinks after seeing the information label.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Prevention
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 4
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Control Arm | No intervention | –In Part II of the experiment, subjects are not presented with nutrition or warning labels when choosing between beverages. |
| Nutrition Labels Arm | Experimental | Other: Nutrition FactsIn Part II of the experiment, subjects are shown enlarged nutrition labels when choosing between beverages. |
| Text Warning Labels Arm | Experimental | Other: Text WarningIn Part II of the experiment, subjects are shown a warning message about the health risks of sugary beverages when choosing between beverages. |
| Graphic Warning Labels Arm | Experimental | Other: Graphic WarningIn Part II of the experiment, subjects are shown a graphic warning message about the health risks of sugary beverages when choosing between beverages. The message, for example, could include photos of tooth decay and other negative health outcomes. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (2 listed)
- US resident
- Shopping online for sugar-sweetened beverages
Key exclusion criteria (0 listed)
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Nutrition FactsThe nutritional information label for each beverage is enlarged. | Other | Nutrition Labels Arm |
| Text WarningAlso: Stoplight WarningThe health risks of sugary beverages are communicated to subjects using words/text and simple images. | Other | Text Warning Labels Arm |
| Graphic WarningThe health risks of sugary beverages are communicated to subjects using a combination of words/text and graphic images/photographs. | Other | Graphic Warning Labels Arm |
Primary outcome
Willingness to Purchase Sugar-sweetened Beverage vs. Sugar-free Alternative
Time frame: 1 week after recruitment (during Part II of the experiment)
How much consumers like, or are willing to pay for, sugar-sweetened beverages when compared to a sugar-free alternative. The survey instrument uses a multiple price list (MPL) to elicit each respondent's relative willingness to pay (WTP) for the sugary drink vs. the non-sugary alternative, a standard methodology in the economics literature where consumers answer a series of questions about whether they would prefer to buy a sugar-sweetened beverage at price X or a sugar-free alternative at price Y. For example, a relative WTP of $1.60 indicates a respondent is willing to pay an additional $1.60 for the sugary drink compared to the non-sugary alternative.
Willingness to Purchase Sugar-sweetened Beverage vs. Sugar-free Alternative, Among Adults Aged 65+
Time frame: 1 week after recruitment (during Part II of the experiment)
How much older adult consumers like, or are willing to pay for, sugar-sweetened beverages when compared to a sugar-free alternative. The survey instrument uses a multiple price list (MPL) to elicit each respondent's relative willingness to pay (WTP) for the sugary drink vs. the non-sugary alternative, a standard methodology in the economics literature where consumers answer a series of questions about whether they would prefer to buy a sugar-sweetened beverage at price X or a sugar-free alternative at price Y. For example, a relative WTP of $1.60 indicates a respondent is willing to pay an additional $1.60 for the sugary drink compared to the non-sugary alternative.
Results and safety
Loading the posted results from ClinicalTrials.gov…
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 11 Dec 2024.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, baseline, all outcome measures and adverse events.
- BackgroundAllcott H, Lockwood BB, Taubinsky D. Regressive Sin Taxes, with an Application to the Optimal Soda Tax. Quarterly Journal of Economics. 2019; 134(3).
- Background: PubMed 30772370Grummon AH, Hall MG, Taillie LS, Brewer NT. How should sugar-sweetened beverage health warnings be designed? A randomized experiment. Prev Med. 2019 Apr;121:158-166. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2019.02.010. Epub 2019 Feb 14.
- Background: PubMed 29912624Donnelly GE, Zatz LY, Svirsky D, John LK. The Effect of Graphic Warnings on Sugary-Drink Purchasing. Psychol Sci. 2018 Aug;29(8):1321-1333. doi: 10.1177/0956797618766361. Epub 2018 Jun 18.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Yes. De-identified IPD will be posted to ClinicalTrials.gov and Open Science Framework within 12 months of the primary completion date or the resulting paper's online publication date, whichever comes first.
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Dmitry Taubinsky, PhD principal investigator
UC Berkeley and NBER
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Nutrition Facts, Text Warning and Graphic Warning in people with Soft Drink Consumption and Sugar-sweetened Beverages, run by National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc. at 1 site in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 2 inclusion and 0 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 11 Dec 2024. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
Yes. Results are posted in the registry (first posted 7 Apr 2023). A summary is in the For doctors view, and the full results are on ClinicalTrials.gov.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Willingness to Purchase Sugar-sweetened Beverage vs. Sugar-free Alternative (time frame: 1 week after recruitment (during Part II of the experiment)). The study lists 2 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT05038163, which also lists 3 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 11 Dec 2024.