Food-Label Reading Linked to Higher Cardiovascular Health Scores
Key Takeaways
- Among adults attending voluntary public-venue screenings in Italy, those who always read food labels more often met the fruit-and-vegetable diet indicator than less frequent or nonreaders.
- Regular exercise was more common and measured BMI lower among consistent readers of both sexes.
- Life’s Essential 8 scores were higher in both sexes, and adjusted odds of a score below 40 were lower among consistent readers.
Investigators in the Look-Up 8+ study analyzed January–December 2025 data from voluntary public-venue screenings across several Italian regions. Of 7,492 adults assessed, 7,401 entered the cross-sectional analysis after exclusions for missing blood pressure, cholesterol, or glucose data.
Participants were aged 18 or older. Interviewers recorded reported label use, diet, and activity. Those who said they always read labels were compared with a pooled group answering sometimes, never, or not interested. The diet indicator required at least three daily portions of fruit and/or vegetables.
Regular exercise meant at least 30 minutes on two or more days weekly during the preceding year. Investigators measured height, weight, blood pressure, and point-of-care cholesterol and glucose. Mediterranean-diet adherence was assessed separately.
Life’s Essential 8 averaged component scores for diet, activity, smoking, sleep, body mass index (BMI), blood pressure, cholesterol, and glucose; each component was scored from 0 to 100.
Models for the diet indicator, normal BMI (<25 kg/m²), and a Life’s Essential 8 score <40 adjusted for age, gender, and education. The low-score threshold described the composite, not observed cardiovascular events.
In both sexes, consistent readers more often met the fruit-and-vegetable diet indicator and reported regular exercise than the pooled comparison group; their measured BMI was lower. Mean Life’s Essential 8 scores were 66.7 versus 62.2 in men and 67.6 versus 64.4 in women, respectively. Hypertension prevalence and total cholesterol did not differ significantly by reading status.
After adjustment for age, gender, and education, always reading labels was associated with higher odds of meeting the diet indicator (odds ratio [OR] 2.07, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.82–2.35), lower odds of a Life’s Essential 8 score below the defined threshold (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.54–0.83), and higher odds of normal BMI (OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.15–1.51).
The cross-sectional data cannot show whether label reading preceded other health-oriented behaviors. Label use and food intake were self-reported; voluntary recruitment and the pooled comparison group limit interpretation. Adjustment does not rule out differences in health literacy, socioeconomic circumstances, or psychological factors. The diet indicator does not capture overall diet quality, and diet, activity, and BMI also contribute to Life’s Essential 8, so these findings are not independent effects. The Italian volunteer sample does not establish applicability to U.S. adults.
Label reading accompanied favorable lifestyle and cardiovascular-health profiles in this Italian sample, but longitudinal work is needed to clarify the direction of these associations.
Clinician Questions
How did food-label reading relate to Mediterranean-diet adherence across age groups in Italian adults?
Separately from the fruit-and-vegetable indicator, investigators used MEDI-LITE to assess Mediterranean-diet adherence and found higher scores among consistent label readers across adult age groups. This observation does not establish that label reading changed their diets.
Did Italian adults who did not read food labels perceive their diets as healthy?
Many nonreaders considered their diets healthy, but this self-reported perception did not verify overall diet quality.