Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42213448›Full record

ArticleJAMA health forum2026

Product Reformulation in Response to the 2016 FDA Updated Nutrition Facts Label.

C Ross Hatton, Joshua Petimar, Yutong Zhang, Caroline E Collis, Tao Hou, Alexandra Ross, Michele Polacsek, Anna H Grummon, Eric B Rimm, Jason P Block

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA health forum, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

C Ross HattonDepartment of Population Medicine, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, Massachusetts.
Joshua PetimarDepartment of Population Medicine, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, Massachusetts.
Yutong ZhangDepartment of Population Medicine, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, Massachusetts.
Caroline E CollisDepartment of Population Medicine, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, Massachusetts.
Tao HouDepartment of Nutrition, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.
Alexandra RossDepartment of Population Medicine, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, Massachusetts.
Michele PolacsekSchool of Public and Planetary Health, University of New England, Portland, Maine.
Anna H GrummonDepartments of Pediatrics and Health Policy, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California.
Eric B RimmDepartment of Nutrition, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.
Jason P BlockDepartment of Population Medicine, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, Massachusetts.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: In 2016, the Nutrition Facts label was updated to emphasize calories and report added sugars, potentially encouraging manufacturers to improve the nutritional profiles of packaged foods. However, changes in nutritional profiles after adoption of revised Nutrition Facts labels have not been evaluated. Objective: To examine, by food group, whether adoption of the revised Nutrition Facts label was associated with changes in nutrient content or serving size among packaged foods. Design and Setting: This cohort study used a staggered difference-in-differences analysis to compare changes in the nutritional profiles of packaged foods between brands that adopted the revised Nutrition Facts label earlier and those that adopted it later. Products belonging to 1 of 15 mutually exclusive food groups likely to be affected by the label change (eg, bread, candy, and sugar-sweetened drinks) and sold at a large northeastern supermarket chain of 185 stores between January 2016 and December 2019 were included. Data were analyzed between July 2025 and March 2026. Exposure: Adoption of the revised Nutrition Facts label between August 2016 and December 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes included changes in serving size and in number of calories and total sugar per serving. Secondary outcomes included calorie density (calories per 100 g or 100 mL) and total sugar density (grams of total sugar per 100 g or 100 mL). Exploratory outcomes included other nutrients not directly targeted by the label changes. Results: The sample included 12 097 products available both before and after their brands adopted the updated label. Among these products, no evidence of substantive reformulation of packaged foods in response to label adoption was found across the primary and secondary outcomes. For example, the largest significant change in calorie density was a decrease of 8.3 (95% CI, -16.4 to -0.1) calories per 100 g among nut products; in most food groups, no changes occurred across the primary outcomes. Additionally, there were few differences between the nutritional profiles of products introduced before (n = 4570) and after (n = 4806) label adoption and between products discontinued before (n = 3510) and after (n = 5852) label adoption. Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study found that changes to the Nutrition Facts label did not meaningfully alter the nutritional profiles of packaged foods. Stronger interventions, such as front-of-package labels, are warranted to encourage reformulation of packaged foods by the food industry and improve the nutritional quality of packaged foods purchased in the US.

Indexed as

Food LabelingNutritive ValueCohort StudiesFood PackagingHumansServing SizeUnited StatesUnited States Food and Drug Administration

Identifiers

PMID42213448
PMCPMC13221686

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.