↓ Skip to main content

Research and lobbying conflicting on the issue of a front-of-pack nutrition labelling in France

Overview of attention for article published in Archives of Public Health, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
19 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Research and lobbying conflicting on the issue of a front-of-pack nutrition labelling in France
Published in
Archives of Public Health, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13690-016-0162-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chantal Julia, Serge Hercberg

Abstract

Front-of-pack nutrition labelling has been highlighted as a promising strategy to help consumers making healthier food choices at the point of purchase. In France, a simplified front-of-pack nutrition labelling system was proposed in 2014, the 5-Colour Nutrition Label (5-CNL). It is supported by studies evaluating the various dimensions of the validation of both its underlying classification algorithm and its format. Opposed by agro-industry and retailers, multiples lobbying strategies have been deployed to stop or at least delay the implementation of the 5-CNL. Various alternative nutrition labels were proposed, and a full-scale trial was successfully argued for. This paper retraces the various steps of the opposition between public health and agro-industry lobbies on the topic of front-of-pack nutrition labelling in France.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 19%
Other 3 11%
Student > Bachelor 3 11%
Student > Master 2 7%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 6 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 3 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 7%
Other 5 19%
Unknown 10 37%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 September 2020.
All research outputs
#1,609,224
of 15,968,624 outputs
Outputs from Archives of Public Health
#65
of 479 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,696
of 391,818 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Archives of Public Health
#4
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,968,624 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 479 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 391,818 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.