An online experiment found larger effects when potato chips had no or few existing nutrient warning labels.
Very low evidenceHuman studySome caution advised
Medical disclaimer: This article summarizes research findings and is for informational purposes only. It is not medical advice.
Editorial illustration — not from the study.
Participants were randomly shown potato-chip products with either Chile’s nutrient warning labels alone or those labels plus an additional ultraprocessed warning. The products differed in whether they had zero, one, or two nutrient warnings.
The added warning generally made participants more likely to recognize the products as ultraprocessed and less likely to say they would buy them or consider them healthy. The changes were largest for products without nutrient warnings and smallest for products with two nutrient warnings.
What was studied
Researchers conducted an online randomized controlled experiment in July and August 2025 with an analytical sample of 3,519 adults in Chile who were parents of children aged 2 to 14. Participants were recruited through an online convenience panel and randomly assigned to see three similar potato-chip products with either nutrient warning labels alone or the same labels plus a white warning stating “ULTRAPROCESSED.” All three products were ultraprocessed, but one had no nutrient warnings, one had one nutrient warning, and one had two. Participants reported whether they thought each product was ultraprocessed, how healthy they considered it, and how likely they would be to purchase it.
Key findings
Compared with nutrient labels alone, adding the ultraprocessed label improved correct identification for the product with no nutrient warnings by 12 percentage points and for the product with one nutrient warning by 4 percentage points. The difference was not statistically significant for the product with two nutrient warnings.
The added label also lowered reported purchase intentions by 0.32 points for the product with no nutrient warnings, 0.23 points for the product with one warning, and 0.20 points for the product with two warnings on the study’s 1-to-5 scale. Perceived healthfulness fell by 0.33, 0.17, and 0.11 points, respectively. These results show changes in responses within the experiment; they do not establish changes in actual purchasing or health.
Where this may apply
The results may be most relevant to Chilean parents similar to those recruited and to reactions to comparable packaged-food labels in an online viewing setting. They should not be assumed to apply equally to nonparents, people in other countries, other food categories, real grocery shopping, or long-term health outcomes. The study does not provide evidence about whether the labels improve health or change actual purchasing.
Why this matters
The findings indicate that, in this specific online experiment, an ultraprocessed warning added information beyond existing nutrient warnings, particularly for products without or with few nutrient warnings. This may be relevant to discussions about how food labels communicate different types of information. However, the study does not show whether such labels would change real shopping behavior, food intake, or health in the longer term.
Limitations & evidence assessment
The study used an online convenience sample of Chilean parents, so the participants may not represent all Chilean adults, parents elsewhere, or people with different backgrounds. It tested only three pictured potato-chip products, and participants were given a definition of “ultraprocessed” before the experiment. Purchase intentions and healthfulness ratings are reported perceptions rather than observed purchases or health measures. The excerpts provide limited information about follow-up beyond the immediate online experiment, and no longer-term effects were assessed.
Why this evidence level: Methodology unclear from available metadata; treated as preliminary.
Evidence levels are editorial estimates derived from study metadata — they are not clinical appraisals.
// Source
Frontiers in Nutrition · 2026 · DOI: 10.3389/fnut.2026.1973978
This systematic review and meta-analysis examined whether ultra-low-dose computed tomography (CT) can detect pulmonary, or lung, nodules while using less radiation than standard-dose CT. Across 42 studies involving 15,792 patients, pooled sensitivity for nodule detection was 91.9%, but results varied greatly between studies. The review also found that ultra-low-dose CT used an average effective dose of 0.22 millisieverts (mSv), while detection was less reliable for some small or hazy nodules and in patients with a high body mass index.
A systematic review and network meta-analysis examined nonhormonal prescription medicines for hot flashes and related symptoms among adult women with breast cancer or a history of breast cancer. Across 19 study or substudy records involving 2,224 participants, five medicines showed statistically greater symptom improvement than placebo, but the evidence for comparing safety between medicines was limited.
Researchers compared outcomes among people with relapsed or treatment-resistant multiple myeloma who received teclistamab plus daratumumab or one of two other daratumumab-based combinations. In this adjusted analysis of data from three clinical trials, the teclistamab combination was associated with longer progression-free and overall survival and deeper responses. Because the comparison used data from separate trials, it cannot establish that one regimen caused the better outcomes.
