SpringerLink
Log in

Information integration through benefit-risk messages on food with quality-adjusted life years from the public agency in Japan: a randomized control study

  • Research
  • Published:
Nutrire Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To clarify the impact of information integration by public agencies after the health impact assessment of foods with quality-adjusted life years (QALY) indicator.

Method

We conducted a randomized controlled study on June 9–10, 2022, among 300 Japanese consumers aged 18 years or above. Participants were divided into two groups and received benefit-risk information on fatty fish consumption in two formats: (i) Group A: Text (text only) and (ii) Group B: QALY (text-added QALY). The primary outcome was to identify differences in comprehension of the best food consumption practices among the general public, excluding high-risk groups. The secondary outcome was the relationship between no-risk acceptance and message format type.

Results

No significant difference was observed in participants’ comprehension (p = .643) between Group A: Text (53.3%) and Group B: QALY (56.7%). No relationship was observed between no-risk acceptance and message format type (OR: 0.840; 95% CI [0.436, 1.620]), adjusting for covariates such as gender, personal characteristics, benefit perception, and favorability toward fish.

Conclusion

There was no difference in participants’ comprehension between Group A: Text and Group B: QALY for the public after information integration. The different message format types had no relationship with risk acceptance in benefit-risk communication. QALY-based benefit-risk communication with consumers could be one of the options for future studies to explore.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (United Kingdom)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

All relevant data are presented in the paper and supporting information files.

References

  1. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. Basic act on food safety (Act no. 48 of 2003) (in Japanese). 2003. https://elaws.e-gov.go.jp/document?lawid=415AC0000000048. Accessed Sept 1 2022.

  2. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. What is risk communication? (in Japanese). 2020. https://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/seisakunitsuite/bunya/kenkou_iryou/shokuhin/syokuchu/01_00001.html. Accessed 1 Sept 2022.

  3. Albers MJ. Human–information interaction with complex information for decision-making. Informatics. 2015;2(2):4–19. https://doi.org/10.3390/informatics2020004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Iseki R, Kusumi T. Effects of source information on learning and integration of information on genetically modified foods. Psychologia. 2015;58(3):127–44. https://doi.org/10.2117/psysoc.2015.127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Vuong QH, Napier NK. Acculturation and global mindsponge: an emerging market perspective. Int J Intercult Relat. 2015;49:354–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.i**trel.2015.06.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Food safety Commission of Japan. Methylmercury in seafood. 2005. http://www.fsc.go.jp/fsciis/evaluationDocument/show/kya20040723175. Accessed 10 Feb 2023.

  7. van Dijk H, Fischer AR, Frewer LJ. Consumer responses to integrated risk-benefit information associated with the consumption of food. Risk Analysis: An Official Publication of the Society for Risk Analysis. 2011;31(3):429–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01505.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. National Food Institute, Food DTU, Assunção R, Pires SM, Nauta M. Risk-benefit assessment of foods. EFSA Journal. 2019;17(S2) https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2019.e170917.

  9. Iso H, Kobayashi M, Ishihara J, Sasaki S, Okada K, Kita Y, et al. Intake of fish and n3 fatty acids and risk of coronary heart disease among Japanese: the Japan Public Health Center-Based (JPHC) Study Cohort I. Circulation. 2006;113(2):195–202. https://doi.org/10.1161/circulationaha.105.581355.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kromhout D, Bosschieter EB, Coulander CD. The inverse relation between fish consumption and 20-year mortality from coronary heart disease. N Engl J Med. 1985;312(19):1205–9. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm198505093121901.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Daviglus ML, Stamler J, Orencia AJ, Dyer AR, Liu K, Greenland P, et al. Fish consumption and the 30-year risk of fatal myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 1997;336(15):1046–53. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199704103361502.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Albert CM, Hennekens CH, O’Donnell CJ, Ajani UA, Carey VJ, Willett WC, et al. Fish consumption and risk of sudden cardiac death. Jama. 1998;279(1):23–8. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.279.1.23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Tavani A, Pelucchi C, Negri E, Bertuzzi M, La Vecchia C. n-3 Polyunsaturated fatty acids, fish, and nonfatal acute myocardial infarction. Circulation. 2001;104(19):2269–72. https://doi.org/10.1161/hc4401.099450.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hu FB, Bronner L, Willett WC, Stampfer MJ, Rexrode KM, Albert CM, et al. Fish and omega-3 fatty acid intake and risk of coronary heart disease in women. Jama. 2002;287(14):1815–21. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.287.14.1815.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Yuan JM, Ross RK, Gao YT, Yu MC. Fish and shellfish consumption in relation to death from myocardial infarction among men in Shanghai. China. Am J Epidemiol. 2001;154(9):809–16. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/154.9.809.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Yamashita T, Suzuki T, Yokoyama Y. Fish diet and health: biological effects of methylmercury [in Japanese]. Tokyo: Kouseisha Kouseikaku; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Guevel MR, Sirot V, Volatier JL, Leblanc JC. A risk-benefit analysis of French high fish consumption: a QALY approach. Risk Anal. 2008;28(1):37–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01001.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hellberg RS, DeWitt CA, Morrissey MT. Risk-benefit analysis of seafood consumption: a review. Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf. 2012;11(5):490–517. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-4337.2012.00200.x.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Tanemura N, Kakizaki M, Kusumi T, Onodera R, Tominaga Y, Araki M, et al. Usefulness of integrated vs separated benefit/risk information on food safety with quality-adjusted life year indicators for consumers: a randomised control study. Nutrire. 2022;47(1):11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41110-022-00163-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. EFSA Scientific Committee. Guidance on human health risk-benefit assessment of foods. EFSA Journal. 2010;8(7):16731. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2010.1673.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. Precautions concerning ingestion of mercury-containing seafood [in Japanese]. 2003. https://www.mhlw.go.jp/topics/2003/06/tp0605-1.html. Accessed 1 July 2022.

  22. Cohen JT, Bellinger DC, Connor WE, Kris-Etherton PM, Lawrence RS, Savitz DA, et al. A quantitative risk-benefit analysis of changes in population fish consumption. Am J Prev Med. 2005;29(4):325–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2005.07.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Ministry of Economy Trade and Industry. Ethical guidelines for medical and biological research involving human subjects. 2021. https://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/seisakunitsuite/bunya/hokabunya/kenkyujigyou/i-kenkyu/index.html. Accessed 1 Aug 2022.

  24. Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications. Census of population. (2015). https://www.stat.go.jp/data/kokusei/2015/kekka.html. Accessed 1 July 2022.

  25. Kusumi T. Effects of reference ratio information and personal risk orientation on decision making: decision-making as a patient in medical practice. In: Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Japanese Psychological Association; 1992. p. 549.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Kanda Y. Investigation of the freely available easy-to-use software ‘EZR’ for medical statistics. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2013;48(3):452–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/bmt.2012.244.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Lautenbach DM, Christensen KD, Sparks JA, Green RC. Communicating genetic risk information for common disorders in the era of genomic medicine. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genets. 2013;14(1):491–513. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-genom-092010-110722.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Knoshita T. Structure of risk perception and its international comparison. J Japan Soc Safety Eng. 2002;41(6):356–63. https://doi.org/10.18943/safety.41.6_356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. van Dijk H, E. van Kleef E, Owen H, Frewer LJ. Consumer preferences regarding food-related risk-benefit messages. Br Food J. 2012;114(3):387-400. https://doi.org/10.1108/00070701211213483.

  30. Sanjari SS, Jahn S, Boztug Y. Dual-process theory and consumer response to front-of-package nutrition label formats. Nutr Rev. 2017;75(11):871–82. https://doi.org/10.1093/nutrit/nux043.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Brust-Renck PG, Nolte J, Reyna VF. Numeracy in health and risk messaging. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We received generous support from Y. Fu**ami and Yohei Morita. We also received support from three researchers at the Dentsu Diversity Lab in producing scientific illustrations on the concept of QALY. We are grateful to the editors at Editage for providing English language editing for our manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by a Health and Labour Sciences Research Grant (21KA3002) from the Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Institutes of Biomedical Innovation, Health and Nutrition, 1-23-1 Toyama, Shinjuku-ku 162-8636, Tokyo, Japan

    Nanae Tanemura, Michihiro Araki & Tsuyoshi Chiba

  2. Nagoya City University, 1 Kawasumi, Mizuho-cho, Mizuho-ku, Nagoya-shi, Aichi, Japan

    Masako Kakizaki

  3. Kyoto University, Yoshida-honmachi, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto-shi, Kyoto, Japan

    Takashi Kusumi

  4. Osaka City University, 3-3-138 Sugimoto, Sumiyoshi-ku, Osaka-shi, Osaka, Japan

    Rie Onodera

  5. Niigata University of Pharmacy and Applied Life Sciences, 265-1 Higashijima, Akiha-ku, Niigata City, Niigata, Japan

    Yoshiko Tominaga

Authors
  1. Nanae Tanemura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Masako Kakizaki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Takashi Kusumi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Rie Onodera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yoshiko Tominaga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Michihiro Araki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Tsuyoshi Chiba
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

NT, MK, TK, RO, YT, MA, and TC were involved in the study design and data interpretation. MK and NT were involved in the data analysis. All authors critically revised the report, commented on manuscript drafts, and approved the final report.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nanae Tanemura.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

This research was approved on May 18, 2022 (no. 171-2), by the Ethics Committee for Research Involving Humans by the National Institute of Health and Nutrition, National Institutes of Biomedical Innovation, Health, and Nutrition. This study was conducted per the ethical standards established in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its subsequent amendments.

Consent to participate

A description of the study outline and objectives was provided on the webpage to facilitate participants’ understanding. Completing the survey was regarded as providing voluntary consent based on the ethical standard guidelines published in Japan.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tanemura, N., Kakizaki, M., Kusumi, T. et al. Information integration through benefit-risk messages on food with quality-adjusted life years from the public agency in Japan: a randomized control study. Nutrire 48, 18 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41110-023-00200-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41110-023-00200-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation