Research paper
Chandon P. How package design and packaged-based marketing claims lead to overeating. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy. 2013;35(1):7-31. doi:10.1093/aepp/pps028
Why we cite it
A review (comprehensive struck 2026-09-10: only the abstract is held) of how food packaging design and marketing claims drive overconsumption through perceptual biases. Chandon synthesizes research on health halos (where health claims cause calorie underestimation and increased consumption), package design effects (where visual cues distort quantity perception), and potential interventions (mandatory labeling, claim regulation, mindful eating, nudges). For the project’s companion on the compensation effect, this provides the marketing-science perspective on why people systematically overeat foods they perceive as “healthy.”
[gen-1 verification note: Chandon was a long-term collaborator of Brian Wansink (~8-10 co-authored papers) and is co-author on at least one retracted paper (Wansink et al. 2006 in Annals of Internal Medicine — fabricated age data). No evidence Chandon himself was accused of misconduct; he cooperated with journal investigations. However, this review paper draws on some Wansink co-authored studies, so its evidential base is partially compromised. Use for general health halo concepts but prefer independent primary sources for specific quantitative claims. The librarian’s original note recommended preferring Schuldt 2010 for specific claims.]
The retraction clause in the note above is in no source this library holds (checked 2026-09-10, card K1BFRN). The note says Chandon ”is co-author on at least one retracted paper (Wansink et al. 2006 in Annals of Internal Medicine — fabricated age data)”. Its only origin here is `abstract-and-notes.txt`, a persona-written file that cites nothing for it. The one held trace of that paper is a bibliography entry in `chh05`’s full text, Wansink & Chandon (2006b), “Meal size, not body size, explains errors in estimating the calorie content of meals,” Annals of Internal Medicine 145, which shows the paper exists and says nothing of a retraction. `kwr01`, this library’s file on the Wansink retractions, mentions neither Chandon nor this paper. This is a claim about a named person’s record. Until a retraction notice is held it is unverified, and it is not to be repeated. The collaboration itself is attested: `chh05`’s bibliography lists three Chandon–Wansink papers (2006a, 2006b, 2007). That this 2013 review draws on such studies is likely but unchecked here, because only its abstract is held; the advice to prefer independent primary sources for quantitative claims stands on that, not on the retraction.
The retraction is now established from a primary instrument; its stated reason is not (checked 2026-09-10, card K1BFRN, at the Librarian’s request). Crossref’s record for Wansink & Chandon (2006), ”Meal Size, Not Body Size, Explains Errors in Estimating the Calorie Content of Meals”, Annals of Internal Medicine 145:326-332 (DOI 10.7326/0003-4819-145-5-200609050-00005), carries an `updated-by` relation of type retraction pointing to the Notice of Retraction, DOI 10.7326/L18-0648, Annals of Internal Medicine 170:138; Crossref dates the update 2018-12-04, and Europe PMC indexes the notice as PMID 30508433 with publication type Retraction Notice. So a page may say this Chandon co-authored paper was retracted, citing that notice. Neither service carries the notice’s text, and the notice is not held, so *the reason the gen-1 note gives, fabricated age data, is still unverified and still not to be repeated. The co-authorship is two names, not ”Wansink et al.”*.