Food SelectionClimate LabelsNCT05482204
Do Sustainability Labels Lead to More Sustainable and Healthier Food Choices?
A study testing Low Climate Impact label and High Climate Impact label in people with Food Selection and Attitude, run by Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
This study tests the effect of two climate change menu labels, one indicating 'low climate impact' and the other indicating 'high climate impact' on ordering choices and perceptions of healthfulness of food ordered in an online randomized experiment. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and olderHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Food Selection, Attitude
- What is being tested?
- Low Climate Impact label and High Climate Impact label
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 5,055 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- 30 Mar 2022to 13 Apr 2022
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
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
- 18 years of age or older
- Member of the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) Amerispeak Panel
Who cannot join
- <18 years of age
- completed the survey in < 1/3 of the median duration
- skipped or refused more than 50% of the survey questions
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
United States1 site
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
Baltimore, Maryland, 21205
About this study
This study tests the effect of two climate change menu labels, one indicating 'low climate impact' and the other indicating 'high climate impact' on ordering choices and perceptions of healthfulness of food ordered in an online randomized experiment.
Read the detailed description
The objective of this study is to examine how climate impact menu labels influence US adults' ordering and perceptions via an online randomized experiment. Participants were randomized to view one of 3 fast food menus online and then choose an item that they would like to order. One menu 'control' had QR code labels, the second had "low climate impact" labels on items with lower greenhouse gas emissions (vegetarian, chicken or fish items), the third had "high climate impact" labels on beef items. After the ordering task participants answered questions about what label they saw on the menu, how healthy they thought the item they ordered was, and how much the label discouraged them from eating high climate impact items.
- Conditions
- Food Selection, Attitude
- Being tested
- Low Climate Impact label, High Climate Impact label
- Medical subject headings
- Food Preferences, Behavior
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Low Climate Impact labelOther
Menu labels indicating low climate impact on chicken, fish, and vegetarian food items on a simulated online fast food menu.
High Climate Impact labelOther
Menu labels indicating high climate impact on beef food items on a simulated online fast food menu.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Control (QR) label | No intervention | QR label on all menu items |
| Low Climate Impact Label | Experimental | 'Low Climate Impact' label on all chicken, fish and vegetarian menu items Receives: Other: Low Climate Impact label |
| High climate Impact Label | Experimental | 'High Climate Impact' label on all beef menu items Receives: Other: High Climate Impact label |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Sustainable vs. unsustainable selection from the menu
The primary outcome is a binary indicator of whether or not the participant selected during the ordering task was a sustainable (chicken, fish, or vegetarian) menu item (1) vs. an unsustainable (beef) menu item (0).
Before viewing the fast food menu, participants were asked to imagine they are at a restaurant and about to order dinner. They were asked to select one item they want to order for themselves. Participants could select one item to order before moving on.
Measured: 1 minute
Secondary outcomes (3)
Perceptions of healthfulness
Perceptions of how healthy the meal ordered was (on a scale of 1=very unhealthy to 7=very healthy)
Measured: < 1 minute
Perceived Message Effectiveness (PME)
This outcomes used 1 item from the 3 item UNC-PME scale to measure how much the assigned label discouraged the participant from wanting to consume items with a high impact on climate change. Responses are measured on a 5-point Likert scale from 1=Strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree. The exact question text is: "How much do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Information on the menu discouraged me from wanting to consume menu items with a high impact on climate change."
Measured: <1 minute
Nutrition Profile Index of ordered item
The Nutrition Profile Index score (0-100) of the ordered item
Measured: < 1 minute
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted1 Aug 2022
- Study start30 Mar 2022
- Primary completion13 Apr 2022
- Study completion13 Apr 2022
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (1)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Food SelectionStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public HealthThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- 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
- 5,055 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Time-sharing Experiments for the Social Sciences
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Julia A Wolfson, PhD, Principal investigator, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05482204
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- IRB00018722
- Acronym
- Climate Labels
- Status last verified
- Jul 2022
- First submitted
- 27 Jul 2022
- Last updated
- 1 Aug 2022
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Yes: After 1 year de-identified data will be made available in partnership with the Open Science Foundation.
Publications
Wolfson JA, Musicus AA, Leung CW, Gearhardt AN, Falbe J. Effect of Climate Change Impact Menu Labels on Fast Food Ordering Choices Among US Adults: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Netw Open. 2022 Dec 1;5(12):e2248320. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.48320.
PubMed 36574248
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 1 Aug 2022. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Do Sustainability Labels Lead to More Sustainable and Healthier Food Choices?
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05482204
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- Climate Labels / IRB00018722
- Conditions
- Food Selection, Attitude
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 5,055 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public HealthUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Time-sharing Experiments for the Social Sciences
- Study start
- 30 Mar 2022 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 13 Apr 2022 (actual)
- Study completion
- 13 Apr 2022 (actual)
- First posted
- 1 Aug 2022 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
This study tests the effect of two climate change menu labels, one indicating 'low climate impact' and the other indicating 'high climate impact' on ordering choices and perceptions of healthfulness of food ordered in an online randomized experiment.
Detailed description
The objective of this study is to examine how climate impact menu labels influence US adults' ordering and perceptions via an online randomized experiment. Participants were randomized to view one of 3 fast food menus online and then choose an item that they would like to order. One menu 'control' had QR code labels, the second had "low climate impact" labels on items with lower greenhouse gas emissions (vegetarian, chicken or fish items), the third had "high climate impact" labels on beef items. After the ordering task participants answered questions about what label they saw on the menu, how healthy they thought the item they ordered was, and how much the label discouraged them from eating high climate impact items.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Prevention
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 3
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Control (QR) label | No intervention | –QR label on all menu items |
| Low Climate Impact Label | Experimental | Other: Low Climate Impact label'Low Climate Impact' label on all chicken, fish and vegetarian menu items |
| High climate Impact Label | Experimental | Other: High Climate Impact label'High Climate Impact' label on all beef menu items |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (2 listed)
- 18 years of age or older
- Member of the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) Amerispeak Panel
Key exclusion criteria (3 listed)
- <18 years of age
- completed the survey in < 1/3 of the median duration
- skipped or refused more than 50% of the survey questions
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Low Climate Impact labelMenu labels indicating low climate impact on chicken, fish, and vegetarian food items on a simulated online fast food menu. | Other | Low Climate Impact Label |
| High Climate Impact labelMenu labels indicating high climate impact on beef food items on a simulated online fast food menu. | Other | High climate Impact Label |
Primary outcome
Sustainable vs. unsustainable selection from the menu
Time frame: 1 minute
The primary outcome is a binary indicator of whether or not the participant selected during the ordering task was a sustainable (chicken, fish, or vegetarian) menu item (1) vs. an unsustainable (beef) menu item (0). Before viewing the fast food menu, participants were asked to imagine they are at a restaurant and about to order dinner. They were asked to select one item they want to order for themselves. Participants could select one item to order before moving on.
3 secondary outcomes
Perceptions of healthfulness
Time frame: < 1 minute
Perceived Message Effectiveness (PME)
Time frame: <1 minute
Nutrition Profile Index of ordered item
Time frame: < 1 minute
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 1 Aug 2022.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 36574248Wolfson JA, Musicus AA, Leung CW, Gearhardt AN, Falbe J. Effect of Climate Change Impact Menu Labels on Fast Food Ordering Choices Among US Adults: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Netw Open. 2022 Dec 1;5(12):e2248320. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.48320.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Yes. After 1 year de-identified data will be made available in partnership with the Open Science Foundation.
Related trials for Food Selection
Not yet recruiting
Exploring the Influence of Glucagon-like Peptide -1 (GLP-1) Medications on Food Cravings, Food Selection, and Food Intake Following Exposure to Food Advertisements
GLP - 1
Recruiting
Influence of Social Media Ads on Food Choice - Master Protocol
Food Selection, Food Choices
Not yet recruiting
Optimization Trial to Empower sElection of Nutritious Foods
Food Insecurity, Healthy Eating
Not yet recruiting
Food Menu Labelling Effects on Individuals With Eating Disorders and Other Mental Health Conditions.
Food Labelling, Eating Behaviour
RecruitingObservational study
Fostering Self-Empowerment in CKD Patients Through Food Choice Mapping
CKD, Chronic Kidney Disease (Stages 3b-5)
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.
Julia A Wolfson, PhD principal investigator
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Low Climate Impact label and High Climate Impact label in people with Food Selection and Attitude, run by Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health 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 3 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 1 Aug 2022. 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?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
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?
Sustainable vs. unsustainable selection from the menu (time frame: 1 minute). 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 NCT05482204, which also lists 1 linked publication.
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 1 Aug 2022.