Skip to main content

Table 2 Objective understanding of FOPL as measured by change in correct food product ranking before (without FOPL) and after randomization (with FOPL)

From: Bulgarian consumers’ objective understanding of front-of-package nutrition labels: a comparative, randomized study

Food categoryNHealth Star RatingMultiple Traffic LightsNutri-ScoreWarning Label
OR (95% CI)pOR (95% CI)pOR (95% CI)pOR (95% CI)p
All categories10101.99 (1.32–3.00)0.0031.14 (0.76–1.70)0.622.33 (1.55–3.51)< 0.0011.29 (0.86–1.93)0.32
699a2.31 (1.39–3.83)0.0021.16 (0.73–1.86)0.532.46 (1.56–3.88)< 0.0011.24 (0.77–2.02)0.51
Pizzas9571.77 (1.09–2.88)0.050.98 (0.61–1.58)0.932.37 (1.45–3.87)0.0031.36 (0.84–2.21)0.32
Cakes10003.04 (1.74–5.33)< 0.0011.57 (0.90–2.72)0.202.90 (1.66–5.08)0.0031.67 (0.96–2.91)0.14
Breakfast cereals9611.46 (0.78–2.75)0.321.33 (0.71–2.50)0.461.97 (1.06–3.66)0.070.92 (0.48–1.73)0.84
  1. Multivariable ordinal logistic regression (“Reference Intakes” = reference) with adjustment for sex, age, education, household income, children < 14 y living in household, grocery shopping responsibility, self-assessed diet quality, and knowledge about nutrition; all p-values corrected via false discovery rate to account for multiple comparisons
  2. CI confidence interval, FOPL front-of-package label, OR odds ratio
  3. aSensitivity analysis excluding 311 individuals who did not recall seeing FOPL on products