̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge - Theresa Marteau

Boost your life in 2025: Top tips for a healthier body and mind from Cambridge experts

jg533 — Thu, 02 Jan 2025 09:16:07 +0000

Five Cambridge experts share their top tips on ways to boost your body and mind, backed up by their own research

Are weight loss jabs the solution to the obesity crisis?

jg533 — Wed, 30 Oct 2024 10:50:43 +0000

Almost two thirds of UK adults are overweight or obese. Are weight loss drugs the solution? Cambridge experts share their opinions.

Removing pint glasses could reduce beer sales by almost 10%

cjb250 — Wed, 18 Sep 2024 10:08:32 +0000

Alcohol consumption is the fifth largest contributor to premature death and disease worldwide. In 2016 it was estimated to have caused approximately 3 million deaths worldwide.

Professor Dame Theresa Marteau and colleagues at the Behaviour and Health Research Unit have shown previously that serving wine in smaller glasses is associated with a decrease in sales.

To see if this effect was seen with other alcoholic drinks, they approached venues in England and asked them to remove the pint serving size and instead offer two-thirds as the largest option for four weeks, with four-week non-intervention periods before and after as a comparison.

In a study published in PLOS Medicine, the team found that removing the pint reduced the daily mean volume of beer, lager and cider sold by 9.7%, although there was a slight increase in the amount of wine purchased, with one pub contributing to half of the increase of wine sales. They report that although customers did not complain, fewer than 1% of venues approached agreed to participate and the intervention involved only 12 establishments.

Professor Marteau said: “Alcohol harms our health, increasing the risk of injury and many diseases including heart disease, bowel, breast and liver cancers. While we may all enjoy a drink, the less we drink the better our health.

“As we’ve shown is the case with wine, removing the largest serving size for beer, lager and cider – in this case, the pint – could encourage people to drink less. This could be beneficial both to the nation’s health and the health of individuals.”

Further assessment is needed, particularly into whether people fully compensated for reduced beer consumption by drinking other alcoholic drinks, but the intervention merits consideration for inclusion in alcohol control policies. Smaller serving sizes could contribute towards reducing alcohol consumption across populations and thereby decrease the risk of seven cancers and other diseases.

Reference
Mantzari, E et al. Impact on beer sales of removing the pint serving size: An A-B-A reversal trial in pubs, bars, and restaurants in England. PLOS Medicine; 17 Sept 2024; DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1004442

Adapted from a press release by PLOS Medicine

Cambridge researchers have shown that reducing the serving size for beer, lager and cider reduces the volume of those drinks consumed in pubs, bars and restaurants, which could have wider public health benefits.

While we may all enjoy a drink, the less we drink the better our health

Theresa Marteau

ELEVATE (Pexels)

Barman handing a customer a pint of beer

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Images, including our videos, are Copyright © ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge and licensors/contributors as identified. All rights reserved. We make our image and video content available in a number of ways – on our main website under its Terms and conditions, and on a range of channels including social media that permit your use and sharing of our content under their respective Terms.

Yes

Licence type:

Public Domain

Removing largest wine glass serving reduces amount of wine sold in bars and pubs

cjb250 — Thu, 18 Jan 2024 19:00:10 +0000

While only modest, the finding could provide one way of nudging customers to drink less alcohol and have an impact at a population level, say the researchers.

Alcohol consumption is the fifth largest contributor to premature death and disease worldwide. In 2016 it was estimated to have caused approximately 3 million deaths worldwide.

There are many factors that influence how much we drink, from advertising to labelling to availability and cost. Previous research from the Behaviour and Health Research Unit at Cambridge has shown that even glass size can influence how much alcohol is consumed.

In research published today in PLOS Medicine, the Cambridge team carried out a study in 21 licensed premises (mainly pubs) in England to see whether removing their largest serving of wine by the glass for four weeks would have an impact on how much wine is consumed. Wine is the most commonly drunk alcoholic drink in the UK and Europe. Twenty of the premises completed the experiment as designed by the researchers and were included in the final analysis.

After adjusting for factors such as day of the week and total revenue, the researchers found that removing the largest wine glass serving led to an average (mean) decrease of 420ml of wine sold per day per venue – equating to a 7.6% decrease.

There was no evidence that sales of beer and cider increased, suggesting that people did not compensate for their reduced wine consumption by drinking more of these alcoholic drinks. There was also no evidence that it affected total daily revenues, implying that participating licensed premises did not lose money as a result of removing the largest serving size for glasses of wine, perhaps due to the higher profit margins of smaller serving sizes of wine. However, it is important to note that the study was not designed to provide statistically meaningful data on these points.

First author Dr Eleni Mantzari, from the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge, said: “It looks like when the largest serving size of wine by the glass was unavailable, people shifted towards the smaller options, but didn’t then drink the equivalent amount of wine.

“People tend to consume a specific number of ‘units’ – in this case glasses – regardless of portion size. So, someone might decide at the outset they’ll limit themselves to a couple of glasses of wine, and with less alcohol in each glass they drink less overall.”

Professor Dame Theresa Marteau, the study’s senior author and an Honorary Fellow at Christ’s College Cambridge, added: “It’s worth remembering that no level of alcohol consumption is considered safe for health, with even light consumption contributing to the development of many cancers. Although the reduction in the amount of wine sold at each premise was relatively small, even a small reduction could make a meaningful contribution to population health.”

Evidence suggests that the public prefer information-based interventions, such as health warning labels, to reductions in serving or package sizes. However, in this study, managers at just four of the 21 premises reported receiving complaints from customers.

̽��ֱ��researchers note that although the intervention would potentially be acceptable to pub or bar managers, given there was no evidence that it can result in a loss in revenue, a nationwide policy would likely be resisted by the alcohol industry given its potential to reduce sales of targeted drinks. Public support for such a policy would depend on its effectiveness and how clearly this was communicated.

̽��ֱ��research was funded by Wellcome.

Reference
Mantzari, E et al. Impact on wine sales of removing the largest serving size by the glass: an A-B-A reversal trial in 21 pubs, bars and restaurants in England. PLOS Medicine; DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1004313

Taking away the largest serving of wine by the glass – in most cases the 250ml option – led to an average reduction in the amount of wine sold at pubs and bars of just under 8%, new research led by a team at the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge has discovered.

When the largest serving size of wine by the glass was unavailable, people shifted towards the smaller options, but didn’t then drink the equivalent amount of wine

Eleni Mantzari

hcdeharder (Pixabay)

Red and white wine in glasses

Yes

Licence type:

Public Domain

̽��ֱ�� academics ranked among best in the world

hcf38 — Thu, 21 Dec 2023 10:57:57 +0000

̽��ֱ��Research.com Best Female Scientists in the World 2023 rankings are based on an analysis of more than 166,000 profiles of scientists across the globe. Position in the ranking is according to a scientist’s total ‘H-index’ - rate of the publications made within a given area of research as well as awards and recognitions. Only the top 1000 scholars with the highest H-index are featured in the ranking.

Kay-Tee Khaw, an Emeritus Professor in Gerontology and a Gonville & Caius Fellow, is placed fifth worldwide and tops the list for Europe. Professor Khaw, who was named a CBE in 2003 for Services to Medicine, published a study on how modest differences in lifestyle are associated with better life expectancy which informed the UK Government’s ‘Small changes, big difference’ campaign in 2006.

Also high in the rankings is Barbara Sahakian, Professor of Clinical Neuropsychology in the Department of Psychiatry and a Fellow of Clare Hall, who is placed sixth in the UK. Professor Sahakian’s recent research includes a study showing the benefits to mental health and cognitive performance of reading for pleasure at an early age, and seven healthy lifestyle factors that reduce the risk of depression.

Joining Professor Khaw and Professor Sahakian in the top 10 in the UK is Carol Brayne, Professor of Public Health Medicine in the Department of Psychiatry and Fellow of Darwin. Awarded a CBE in 2017 for Services to Public Health Medicine, Professor Brayne has pioneered the study of dementia in populations.

Nine other ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge scientists also make the rankings:

Professor Gillian Murphy (Department of Oncology), an international leader in the field of metalloproteinases, who has defined their roles in arthritis and cancer.

Professor Claudia Langenberg (MRC Epidemiology Unit), a public health specialist combining her expertise with research focused on molecular epidemiology.

Professor Nita Forouhi (MRC Epidemiology Unit), a physician scientist, MRC Investigator and Programme Leader in Nutritional Epidemiology, whose research on the link between diet, nutrition and chronic diseases like type 2 diabetes has informed health policy.

Professor Alison Dunning (Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Oncology), a genetic epidemiologist working on the risk of breast and other hormonal cancers.

Professor Karalyn Patterson (MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, Cambridge Centre for Frontotemporal Dementia and Related Disorders), a Fellow of Darwin College, who specialises in what we can learn about the organisation and neural representation of language and memory from the study of neurological patients suffering from the onset of brain disease or damage in adulthood.

Professor Dame Clare Grey (Department of Chemistry), a materials chemist whose work has paved the way for less expensive, longer-lasting batteries and helped improve storage systems for renewable energy, she is Chief Scientist and co-founder of Nyobolt, a company that is developing ultrafast-charging batteries for electric vehicles.

Professor Sharon Peacock (Department of Medicine), who has built her scientific expertise around pathogen genomics, antimicrobial resistance, and a range of tropical diseases, was the founding director of the COVID-19 Genomics UK Consortium which informed the COVID-19 pandemic response.

Professor Maria Grazia Spillantini (Department of Clinical Neurosciences and Fellow of Clare Hall) has been researching the cause of dementia for many years and was the first to identify the specific protein deposit found in Parkinson’s disease.

Professor Dame Theresa Marteau (Department of Public Health and Primary Care and Honorary Fellow of Christ’s College), a behavioural scientist, focuses on the development and evaluation of interventions to change behaviour (principally food, tobacco and alcohol consumption) to improve population health and reduce health inequalities, with a particular focus on targeting non-conscious processes.

Speaking on publication of this year’s rankings, Imed Bouchrika, Co-Founder of Research.com and Chief Data Scientist, said: “ ̽��ֱ��purpose of this online ranking of the world's leading female scientists is to recognize the efforts of every female scientist who has made the courageous decision to pursue opportunities despite barriers.

“Their unwavering determination in the face of difficulties serves as a source of motivation for all young women and girls who pursue careers in science.”

Twelve academics from the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge have been ranked among the top female scientists in the world - with one claiming the top spot for Europe.

Gonville & Caius College

Professor Kay-Tee Khaw who has been named as the top female scientist in Europe by Research.com

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Images, including our videos, are Copyright © ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge and licensors/contributors as identified. All rights reserved. We make our image and video content available in a number of ways – as here, on our main website under its Terms and conditions, and on a range of channels including social media that permit your use and sharing of our content under their respective Terms.

Yes

Weak policies and political ideologies risk jeopardising plans to tackle health and climate change, says Cambridge expert

cjb250 — Mon, 19 Jun 2023 23:01:02 +0000

Writing in the journal Science and Public Policy, Professor Marteau argues that this ‘evidence-neglect’ is a result of incentive structures that encourage politicians to set ambitious policy goals while simultaneously disincentivising them from implementing the policies needed to achieve them, and of political ideologies and interests that conflict with effective policies.

Two changes could mitigate these factors, she writes: engaging citizens more in policy-making so their interests dominate; and increasing the accountability of politicians through legally binding systems for all stages of policy-making.

Recent UK governments have set ambitious goals to improve the nation’s health and tackle climate change. These include halving childhood obesity by 2030, eradicating smoking by 2030, narrowing the gap in healthy life expectancy by 2030, and achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2050.

But, says Professor Marteau, Director of the Behaviour and Health Research Unit at Cambridge, “None of these ambitions is on course. Of course, scientific evidence is just one of many sources of information for policymakers to consider, but neglecting evidence is a sure-fire route to unsuccessful policymaking.”

According to predictions, childhood obesity is on track to double, not halve, by 2030. Smoking eradication is on track sometime after 2050, not by 2030. By 2030, the gap in healthy life expectancy between local areas where it is highest and lowest will have narrowed, but by 2035 is set to rise by five years. And the UK Sixth Carbon Budget – a key target towards achieving net zero carbon emissions – is likely to be missed by “a huge margin”.

Achieving each of these ambitions requires sustained changes in several sets of behaviour across all socio-economic groups including what we eat, drink, whether we smoke, and how we travel. A wealth of research demonstrates that achieving such change is difficult, requiring many interventions that change the environments or systems that too readily cue, reinforce and maintain unhealthier and unsustainable behaviours.

“There are many possible reasons why these policy ambitions are so far off-track, but chief among them is the neglect of evidence, particularly around achieving sustained changes in behaviour across populations,” said Professor Marteau.

“Put simply, these failures are baked-in, given the policies designed to achieve these ambitions are based on interventions that cannot achieve the change required.”

Part of the problem, she says, lies in the incentive structures for politicians, which favour setting ambitious policy goals whether as part of achieving election promises, attracting positive publicity or both. But they also discourage the policies needed to achieve them.

“Fear of electoral damage plays a role here. Take taxes on tobacco, alcohol, junk food and carbon emissions: these are among the most effective interventions for improving health and the climate, but they are unpopular with the public and so politicians are unwilling to adopt them.”

Such policies may not just be unpopular with the public – they may also run counter to political interests and ideologies. Neoliberalism, for example, emphasises a small role for governments in the economy and public policy more generally, and a larger role for individuals to be personally responsible for behaving in ways to achieve health, wealth and happiness. Such ideologies often portray attempts by the government to intervene as ‘Nanny Statism’.

Certain industries, too, focus on personal responsibility to discourage politicians from adopting effective policies that conflict with their industries’ interests, such as those aimed at reducing consumption of fossil fuels, tobacco, alcohol, meat and junk food. These industries may cast doubt on the effectiveness of policies that would reduce their sales, as well as lobbying governments to persuade them of the business case for the status quo.

Professor Marteau added: “There are no quick or single fixes to overcoming these problems, but there are two changes which could help: engaging citizens more in priority setting and policy design, and increasing the accountability of politicians through introducing legally-binding systems for reporting progress on policy ambitions.”

There are a number of options available to policymakers when it comes to engaging citizens, including: surveys, focus groups, town hall meetings and citizen assemblies, as well as working with civil society organisations. This approach has the potential to reduce the political costs of unpopular policies by exposing citizens to evidence for the effectiveness of policies, which – across many studies – has been shown to increase policy support. Policies designed with citizen engagement also attract more public support, such policies being seen as fairer and more successful as a result.

Introducing legally binding systems for reporting policies and progress on policy ambitions, with plans to get back on track if progress is off course, could be a powerful way to decrease the neglect of evidence which is central to policy success.

An example of this is the UK government’s recent Levelling Up strategy paper, which included plans to introduce a statutory obligation for government to report annually on progress towards meeting the Levelling Up missions. Alongside these plans, it published a set of metrics against which to measure progress against the missions and evaluate the success of the strategy.

“Although these requirements are by no means perfect, the legislation as drafted will at least allow parliament significantly more scrutiny of progress towards a government ambition than is often the case.”

Failure to take into account the evidence, says Professor Marteau, risks undermining the government’s attempts to take action.

“Laudable policy ambitions to improve a nation’s health and protect life on the planet will remain unfulfilled ambitions unless and until evidence is given a more central role in the policy-making process.”

Reference
Marteau, TM. Evidence-neglect: addressing a barrier to UK health and climate policy ambitions. Science and Public Policy; 20 June 2023; DOI: 10.1093/scipol/scad021

Efforts to tackle major issues facing the UK, including the nation’s health and climate change, are being hampered because politicians often ignore the existing evidence when setting policies, according to Dame Theresa Marteau, a public health expert at the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge.

Neglecting evidence is a sure-fire route to unsuccessful policymaking

Theresa Marteau

DesignOil (Pixabay)

Burger and fries

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Images, including our videos, are Copyright © ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge and licensors/contributors as identified. All rights reserved. We make our image and video content available in a number of ways – as here, on our main website under its Terms and conditions, and on a range of channels including social media that permit your use and sharing of our content under their respective Terms.

Yes

Licence type:

Public Domain

Increasing availability of non-alcoholic drinks may reduce amount of alcohol purchased online

cjb250 — Thu, 30 Mar 2023 18:00:42 +0000

̽��ֱ��team used a simulated supermarket that presented shoppers with varying proportions of alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks and asked them to select drinks to purchase for their next online shop. They found that shoppers who were exposed to more non-alcoholic drinks selected and purchased fewer units of alcohol. ̽��ֱ��findings are published in PLOS Medicine.

Excessive alcohol consumption is a major risk factor for a number of diseases, including cancer, heart disease and stroke. Encouraging people to change their behaviour could therefore have significant health benefits at both an individual and population level.

There is increasing evidence that people can be ‘nudged’ towards reducing their alcohol consumption by making small adjustments to their environment. For example, scientists at Cambridge’s Behaviour and Health Research Unit have previously shown that serving wine in smaller glasses – even while keeping the amount of wine in the glasses the same – led to people consuming less alcohol.

A recent analysis found that reducing the proportion of unhealthy snacks available can reduce how much of these food products people consume, though the evidence included was limited in both quality and quantity. ̽��ֱ��Cambridge team wanted to see if a similar approach might work to nudge people towards consuming fewer alcoholic drinks.

̽��ֱ��researchers recruited 737 adults living in England and Wales, all of whom regularly purchased alcohol online, to take part in the study. Of these, just over 600 completed the study and were included in the final analysis – 60% were female and the average (mean) age was 38.

Participants selected drinks from 64 options in a simulated online supermarket designed to look and function like a real online supermarket. Options included a range of beers, ciders, alcohol-free beer and cider alternatives, and soft drinks.

Participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups, each of which was presented with a different proportion of alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks. 25% of the drinks seen by Group 1 were non-alcoholic. For Group 2, this increased to 50%, and for Group 3 the proportion of non-alcoholic drinks seen rose to 75%.

Those exposed to the highest proportion of non-alcoholic drinks (Group 3) selected fewer alcohol units, 17.5 units, compared to 29.4 units in those exposed to the lowest proportion of non-alcoholic drinks (Group 1) – equivalent to a reduction of about 41%.

Participants were then asked to actually purchase the same drinks in an online supermarket, Tesco, the largest national supermarket in the UK. Around two-thirds of participants completed this second stage, with 422 participants going on to purchase drinks. ̽��ֱ��researchers point out that ‘cart abandonment’ – where people do not purchase items they put in their shopping cart – is common in online shopping contexts.

̽��ֱ��researchers found that amongst participants exposed to the highest proportion of non-alcoholic drinks, 52% of the drinks purchased were alcoholic, compared to 70% of drinks that were purchased by those exposed to the lowest proportion of non-alcoholic drinks.

Lead author Dr Natasha Clarke said: “We created our simulated supermarket to be as close as possible to an actual online supermarket and found that increasing the proportion of non-alcoholic drinks that shoppers were exposed to made a meaningful difference to their alcohol selection. Though we’d need to confirm these findings using only a real online supermarket, they are very promising.”

While the current market for alcohol-free beer, wine and spirits represents only a small share of the global alcohol industry, it is rapidly growing. For example, low and no-alcohol beer currently accounts for 3% of the total beer market, but this is forecast to increase by nearly 13% per year over the next 3 years and is the fastest growing drinks segment in the UK.

Senior author Dr Gareth Hollands said: “Supermarkets typically stock a wider range of alcoholic drinks than non-alcoholic alternatives aimed at adults, but this is slowly changing. Our results suggest that if non-alcoholic options were to become the majority instead, we might expect to see substantial reductions in alcohol purchasing.”

Importantly, the overall number of drinks that participants selected and purchased remained similar between groups, suggesting that effects were a result of shifting people’s choices. This implies overall drink sales and potentially revenues may be relatively unchanged, dependent on the pricing of non-alcoholic drinks.

Professor Dame Theresa Marteau, Director of the Behaviour and Health Research Unit and a Bye-Fellow at Christ's College, said: “We all know that drinking too much alcohol is bad for us, but we’re often unaware of how much we are influenced by the environment around us. Making changes to this environment – from exposing people to a greater proportion of healthier options through to changing the sizes of the utensils we eat and drink from – can help us cut down on potentially unhealthy habits. Even relatively small changes can make a difference both to individuals and at a population level.”

Although some of the non-alcoholic drink options in the current study contained no sugar and were generally lower in calories than the alcoholic options – an average of 64 calories per non-alcoholic drink versus 233 calories per alcoholic drink – many soft drinks and alcohol-free alternatives still contain large amounts of sugar and calories. ̽��ֱ��researchers argue that, given the health risks associated with sugary drink consumption, continued regulation and policies to reduce sugar content and consumption from both alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks is needed to mitigate these risks.

̽��ֱ��research was funded by Wellcome and carried out at the Behaviour and Health Research Unit, ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge. Dr Clarke is now a Lecturer in Psychology at Bath Spa ̽��ֱ��. Dr Hollands is a Principal Research Fellow at UCL.

Reference
Clarke, N et al. Impact on alcohol selection and online purchasing of changing the proportion of available non-alcoholic versus alcoholic drinks: A randomised controlled trial. PLOS Med; 30 Mar 2023; DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1004193

Increasing the proportion of non-alcoholic drinks on sale in online supermarkets could reduce the amount of alcohol people purchase, suggests a study published today led by researchers at the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge.

We all know that drinking too much alcohol is bad for us, but we’re often unaware of how much we are influenced by the environment around us

Theresa Marteau

aire images (Getty Images)

Hand holding a smartphone inside a cafeteria with an app to buy in the supermarket

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Images, including our videos, are Copyright © ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge and licensors/contributors as identified. All rights reserved. We make our image and video content available in a number of ways – as here, on our main website under its Terms and conditions, and on a range of channels including social media that permit your use and sharing of our content under their respective Terms.

Yes

No evidence that physical activity calorie-equivalent labelling changes food purchasing – study

cjb250 — Wed, 09 Nov 2022 08:30:30 +0000

More than three in five UK adults are overweight or obese, increasing their risk of diseases such as type 2 diabetes and cancer. A major factor that contributes to this is excess energy intake – in other words, eating too many calories. Measures that can help reduce energy intake could help tackle the obesity problem.

In the UK, adults eat as many as a third of their meals out of home, including in workplace cafeterias, and these meals are often much higher in calories than meals eaten at home. Since April 2022 calorie labelling is now required on food and drink served out of the home in businesses employing 250 or more people. While many people welcome this information, evidence for its effectiveness in reducing calories purchased or consumed is limited in quantity and quality. For example, two previous studies conducted by the authors in nine worksite cafeterias found no evidence for an effect of simple calorie labelling (kcal) on calories purchased.

Another option is to show the amount of exercise required to burn off these calories – so-called PACE (physical activity calorie-equivalent) labels – for example, a 1014kcal ‘large battered haddock’ portion would take upwards of five hours walking (278 minutes) to burn off. A recent systematic review – a type of study that brings together existing evidence – concluded that PACE labels may reduce energy selected from menus and decrease the energy consumed when compared with simple calorie labels or no labels, but only one of the 15 studies reviewed was in a ‘real world’ setting.

To explore whether PACE levels can make a difference in real world settings, researchers from the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge’s Behaviour and Health Research Unit carried out an experiment across 10 workplace cafeterias in England over a 12 week period in 2021. Their results are published today in PLOS Medicine.

̽��ֱ��team collected baseline sales data for a period of business-as-usual for the cafeterias ahead of the experiment. During this period, most labels and menus featured only the product name and price, though some products included standardised front-of-pack nutrition labels on branded and in-house products. During the intervention period the ten cafeterias included calorie information and PACE labels alongside food and drinks items and on items including hot meals, sandwiches, cold drinks and desserts. These labels displayed the minutes of walking that would be needed to burn off the calories in the product.

̽��ֱ��team found no evidence that including PACE labels resulted in an overall change in energy purchased from labelled items. However, there was a great deal of variability, with one cafeteria reporting a fall per transaction of 161kcal and another an increase of 69kcal, while five of the cafeterias reported no significant change.

First author Dr James Reynolds from the School of Psychology, Aston ̽��ֱ��, who carried out the research while at Cambridge, said: “Although we found that showing the amount of exercise required to burn off calories made little difference to the number of calories purchased – and, we can assume, eaten and drunk – there was considerable variability between cafeterias. This suggests that other factors may have influenced the effectiveness of these labels, such as the type of food sold in the cafeteria or the characteristics of those using them.”

̽��ֱ��number of calories purchased from items that did not feature the PACE labels did not change and the labels made little difference to the revenue for the cafeterias – just a small increase of 3p per transaction.

Senior author Professor Dame Theresa Marteau, Director of the Behaviour and Health Research Unit and Bye-Fellow of Christ’s College, ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge, said: “This is the largest study in a real world setting to look at the impact of PACE labels on food and drink purchases, examining 250,000 transactions across 10 worksite cafeterias. ̽��ֱ��findings suggest that PACE labels, contrary to expectations, may have little or no impact on the food people buy in worksite cafeterias.”

Reference
Reynolds, JP et al. Evaluation of physical activity calorie equivalent (PACE) labels’ impact on energy purchased in cafeterias: a stepped-wedge randomised controlled trial. PLOS Med; 8 Nov 2022; DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1004116

An experiment carried out across ten workplace cafeterias found no significant change in the overall number of calories purchased when food and drink labels showed the amount of physical activity required to burn off their calories.

̽��ֱ��findings suggest that physical activity calorie-equivalent labels, contrary to expectations, may have little or no impact on the food people buy in worksite cafeterias

Theresa Marteau

̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge

PACE labels alongside menus

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Images, including our videos, are Copyright © ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge and licensors/contributors as identified. All rights reserved. We make our image and video content available in a number of ways – as here, on our main website under its Terms and conditions, and on a range of channels including social media that permit your use and sharing of our content under their respective Terms.

Yes

Licence type:

Attribution