Randomized trial examines effects of health-oriented claims on purchasing intent in Australian alcohol consumers, suggesting need for policy regulation.
OBJECTIVE: Nutrition claims are increasingly displayed on alcohol product labels. This study examined whether claims are associated with increased perceived product appeal, intent to purchase, and/or intended consumption. METHOD: An online survey was completed by 2,028 Australians who regularly drank alcohol. Participants viewed mocked-up alcohol labels showing eight different health-oriented claims. Participants rated their perceptions of each claim, and whether they perceived claims would impact intended purchasing/consumption. Chi-squared tests examined associations between perceptions and consumer attributes, and logistic regression identified predictors of increased intended consumption. RESULTS: Beverages were perceived as more appealing if they included claims about sugar (51%), preservatives/additives (49%), calories (48%), and carbohydrates (45%), with similar proportions agreeing that they would be more likely to purchase a product displaying these claims. Approximately a third indicated they would drink more of a beverage if it had a sugar (33%) or calorie (31%) claim. Participants who were younger or drank at high-risk levels were more likely to agree that claims increase appeal and intended purchasing/consumption. Higher odds of increasing consumption after seeing a sugar, calorie, or carbohydrate claim were found for participants who were younger, female (sugar/calorie claims only), and had greater awareness of and exposure to claims. CONCLUSIONS: Health-oriented claims (particularly sugar and carbohydrates) were perceived by many consumers to be associated with increased beverage appeal and intent to purchase. Self-reported claim impact differed by claim type and consumer characteristics. Policy efforts are needed to ensure that health-oriented claims do not undermine public health efforts to reduce alcohol-related harms.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kostadinov et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: