Trial reportJAMA network open2026
Environmental Menu Labels and Food Selection Among US Adults: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
Trial report in JAMA network open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06651060 (Comparing the Impact of Climate Labels for Restaurant Menus), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Comparing the Impact of Climate Labels for Restaurant Menus: a Pilot Study
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Food systems account for approximately one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE), and many foods with high GHGE pose risks to human health. Environmental impact (eg, climate) labels on restaurant menus may promote lower GHGE and higher nutritional quality food choices. Objective: To compare the efficacy of climate labels on the GHGE and nutritional quality of food choices. Design, Setting, and Participants: This online randomized clinical trial was conducted using a menu based on a US fast food chain between December 2024 and February 2025. Participants included US adults aged 18 years or older. Analyses were conducted between February and April 2025. Intervention: Participants were randomized to 1 of 6 label conditions: (1) control, (2) environmental cost (GHGE represented as a monetary cost), (3) climate grade (GHGE represented as a grade [eg, A to F, with A representing the lowest GHGE]), (4) climate grade plus scale (GHGE represented as a grade accompanied by a scale showing all possible grades), (5) high climate impact on items with high GHGE, and (6) warning high climate impact on items with high GHGE. Participants ordered from a fast food menu displaying their assigned label next to applicable items. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes include the selection of an item with high climate impact and GHGE of menu orders. Secondary outcomes include Nutrient Profile Index (NPI) score and nutrients of menu orders and participant perceptions. Results: This study included 10 342 participants (mean [SD] age: 46.4 [16.9] years; 53% women). Participants in the climate grade (825 of 1721 [48%]; P = .02), climate grade plus scale (787 of 1719 [46%]; P < .001), high climate impact (777 of 1724 [45%]; P < .001), and warning high climate impact (817 of 1725 [47%]; P = .01) conditions were significantly less likely to select an item with a high climate impact than those in the control condition (920 of 1728 [53%]). Participants in the climate grade plus scale (mean GHGE, 16.3 [95% CI, 15.5-17.2] kg CO2 equivalent, adjusted P < .001) and high climate impact (mean GHGE, 16.9 [95% CI, 16.0-17.8] kg CO2 equivalent, adjusted P = .04) conditions selected items with lower GHGE than those in the control condition (mean GHGE, 18.8 [95% CI, 17.9-19.6] kg CO2 equivalent). NPI scores did not differ among label conditions, but participants in the climate grade plus scale condition selected items with less saturated fat than those in the control condition (11.8 g vs 12.6 g; adjusted P = .04). Although there were no significant differences between the environmental cost and control labels for primary or secondary nutrition outcomes, when viewing labels in isolation, participants perceived the environmental cost label as the most discouraging of selecting high climate impact items (mean score, 3.0 [95% CI, 2.9-3.1]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: This randomized clinical trial's findings suggest that using climate labels on restaurant menus, particularly climate grade plus scale designs, may decrease climate impact and improve nutrition of restaurant orders. Future research is needed on environmental cost label designs and climate label use in real restaurant settings. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT06651060.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.