{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02467811158798283, 'fraction_numerical': 0.012875536480686695, 'mean_word_length': 5.346938775510204, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Possible impact of the Tick Programme in New Zealand on selected nutrient intakes: tentative estimates and methodological complexities.

Various countries allow health-related endorsements in the form of symbols or logos on packaged foods.1–3 This is also the case for the Heart Foundation in Australia and New Zealand with Tick Programmes.4 There is some evidence in favour of such endorsement programmes from experiments,5 changes in food composition,6,7 and in terms of cost-effectiveness.8 However, the likely impact in the New Zealand setting is largely unquantified, with just one study published in 2002 on sodium reductions.4To inform modelling work on the cost-effectiveness of cardiovascular disease prevention strategies, we aimed to estimate the difference in selected nutrients in the diet between: (i) New Zealand with the Tick Programme; and (ii) the counterfactual of no Tick Programme having existed in the country.