scholarly journals The nutritional quality of foods carrying health-related claims in Germany, The Netherlands, Spain, Slovenia and the United Kingdom

2016 ◽  
Vol 70 (12) ◽  
pp. 1388-1395 ◽  
Author(s):  
A Kaur ◽  
P Scarborough ◽  
S Hieke ◽  
A Kusar ◽  
I Pravst ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
Nutritional Quality ◽  
Health Claims ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Nutrition Claims ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Health Related ◽  
Packaged Foods

Abstract Backgroung/Objectives: Compares the nutritional quality of pre-packaged foods carrying health-related claims with foods that do not carry health-related claims. Subject/Methods: Cross-sectional survey of pre-packaged foods available in Germany, The Netherlands, Spain, Slovenia and the United Kingdom in 2013. A total of 2034 foods were randomly sampled from three food store types (a supermarket, a neighbourhood store and a discounter). Nutritional information was taken from nutrient declarations present on food labels and assessed through a comparison of mean levels, regression analyses and the application of a nutrient profile model currently used to regulate health claims in Australia and New Zealand (Food Standards Australia New Zealand’s Nutrient Profiling Scoring Criterion, FSANZ NPSC). Results: Foods carrying health claims had, on average, lower levels, per 100 g, of the following nutrients, energy—29.3 kcal (P<0.05), protein—1.2 g (P<0.01), total sugars—3.1 g (P<0.05), saturated fat—2.4 g (P<0.001), and sodium—842 mg (P<0.001), and higher levels of fibre—0.8 g (P<0.001). A similar pattern was observed for foods carrying nutrition claims. Forty-three percent (confidence interval (CI) 41%, 45%) of foods passed the FSANZ NPSC, with foods carrying health claims more likely to pass (70%, CI 64%, 76%) than foods carrying nutrition claims (61%, CI 57%, 66%) or foods that did not carry either type of claim (36%, CI 34%, 38%). Conclusions: Foods carrying health-related claims have marginally better nutrition profiles than those that do not carry claims; these differences would be increased if the FSANZ NPSC was used to regulate health-related claims. It is unclear whether these relatively small differences have significant impacts on health.

scholarly journals Declaration of nutrition information on and nutritional quality of Thai ready-to-eat packaged food products

2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (8) ◽  
pp. 1409-1417 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suladda Pongutta ◽  
Pitipa Chongwatpol ◽  
Parwin Tantayapirak ◽  
Stefanie Vandevijvere
Keyword(s):  
Nutritional Quality ◽  
Food Products ◽  
Health Claims ◽  
Nutrition Information ◽  
Nutrient Profile ◽  
Profile Model ◽  
Health Related ◽  
Packaged Foods ◽  
Packaged Food

AbstractObjectiveThe present study assessed the nutrition information displayed on ready-to-eat packaged foods and the nutritional quality of those food products in Thailand.DesignIn March 2015, the nutrition information panels and nutrition and health claims on ready-to-eat packaged foods were collected from the biggest store of each of the twelve major retailers, using protocols developed by the International Network for Food and Obesity/Non-communicable Diseases Research, Monitoring and Action Support (INFORMAS). The Thai Nutrient Profile Model was used to classify food products according to their nutritional quality as ‘healthier’ or ‘less healthy’.ResultsIn total, information from 7205 food products was collected across five broad food categories. Out of those products, 5707 (79·2 %), 2536 (35·2 %) and 1487 (20·6 %) carried a nutrition facts panel, a Guideline Daily Amount (GDA) label and health-related claims, respectively. Only 4691 (65·1 %) and 2484 (34·5 %) of the products that displayed the nutrition facts or a GDA label, respectively, followed the guidelines of the Thai Food and Drug Administration. In total, 4689 products (65·1 %) could be classified according to the Thai Nutrient Profile Model, of which 432 products (9·2 %) were classified as healthier. Moreover, among the 1487 products carrying health-related claims, 1219 (82·0 %) were classified as less healthy. Allowing less healthy food products to carry claims could mislead consumers and result in overconsumption of ready-to-eat food products.ConclusionsThe findings suggest effective policies should be implemented to increase the relative availability of healthier ready-to-eat packaged foods, as well as to improve the provision of nutrition information on labels in Thailand.

scholarly journals Nutritional quality of prepackaged food that carry health or nutritional claims and their compliance with SFDA regulations in Saudi Arabia

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amal Almughthim ◽  
Hoda Jr
Keyword(s):  
Saudi Arabia ◽  
Nutritional Quality ◽  
Saturated Fat ◽  
Health Claims ◽  
Accurate Information ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Nutrition Claims ◽  
The Uk

Abstract Background Products that carry health or nutrition claims may be perceived by consumers as healthier than those that do not carry claims. Therefore, they will have a more favorable attitude towards it and may also be easily misled about the nutritional profile and may misinterpret it. Nutritional quality of those products should be assessed to protect consumers against being misled and ensuring that they receive accurate information about food products carrying a claim.Methods a cross-sectional survey for a total of 1153 foods were randomly sampled from fourteen stores in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The data were collected from nutritional facts present on food labels and evaluated by comparing the mean level of nutrients between products that carried claims and those that did not using the UK nutrient profile model (UKNPM).Results Overall, 29% of products carried either health or nutritional claims. Only 19.2% of foods that carried health claims met SFDA requirements, while 28.9% of all products that carried nutritional claims met SFDA criteria. The results indicate that products that carried health or nutritional claims were significantly lower in sugar (9.67 g/100 g), fat (9.2 g/100 g), saturated fat (3.2 g/100 g), and sodium (371.36 mg/100 g). According to the UK nutrient profiling model, 46.9% of the products carrying claims were less healthy than those not carrying claims, and statistically significant differences were observed by product origin and category (p=0.005 and p=0.000, respectively).Conclusion a great need for the regulation and monitoring of claims on food packages for the optimal protection of the population’s health.

scholarly journals Examining the Nutritional Quality of Canadian Packaged Foods and Beverages with and without Nutrition Claims

Nutrients ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (7) ◽  
pp. 832 ◽  
Author(s):  
Beatriz Franco-Arellano ◽  
Marie-Ève Labonté ◽  
Jodi Bernstein ◽  
Mary L’Abbé
Keyword(s):  
Nutritional Quality ◽  
Nutrition Claims ◽  
Packaged Foods

scholarly journals Modelling the dietary impact of health-related claims on food labels in the UK

2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (OCE2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Asha Kaur ◽  
Peter Scarborough ◽  
Mike Rayner
Keyword(s):  
Nutritional Quality ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Saturated Fat ◽  
Nutritional Composition ◽  
Health Claims ◽  
Baseline Scenario ◽  
Health Related ◽  
Mathematical Equations ◽  
The Impact

AbstractHealth-related claims (HRCs) are statements found on food packets that convey the nutritional quality of a food (nutrition claims) and/or its impact on a health outcome (health claims). Foods carrying HRCs have a slightly improved nutritional profile than foods without HRCs, however, it's unclear whether this translates into dietary improvements. We conducted a modelling study to measure the effect of HRCs on diet. As HRCs are already present on foods it is assumed that any impact that they have upon diet are already in effect. We modelled the impact on food purchases of removing HRCs, by assuming that the sales boost they receive is neutralised. These results can be inverted to estimate the current dietary impact of HRCs. Using the Living Costs Food (LCF) survey data, we calculate the average purchases and nutrient intake per person, per day. The LCF data is divided into sales of products with HRCs and sales of products without HRCs through solving mathematical equations combining LCF sales data with odds ratios from a meta-analysis examining the impact of HRCs on choices and data from a survey of foods examining the prevalence of HRCs and the nutritional quality of foods that carry them so that the sum of the sales of products with HRCs and without HRCs is equal to the total sales of products. Similarly, mathematical equations are solved that combine nutritional composition data with the sales of foods carrying and not carrying HRCs. In the baseline scenario foods carrying HRCs made-up 37% of the total purchases, and contributed 29% (559kcal) of the total kcals purchased (1907kcal). When HRCs are removed from foods there is an average increase of 18kcal/d (95% Uncertainty Intervals [UI] -15, 52), + 2g/d increase in total fat (95% UI -1, 4) and saturated fat (95% UI 1, 3), smaller changes are seen for protein (+ 0.5g/d, 95% UI -1, 2), total sugar (+ 0.5g/d, 95% UI -4, 7) and carbohydrate (-0.5g/d, 95% UI -5, 7). There is reduction in the amount of fruit (-11g/d, 95% UI -34, 26) but an increase in vegetables (+ 6g/d, 95% UI -6, 19). These results should be interpreted with caution due to the large uncertainty intervals. When HRCs are removed, we see a small deterioration in the quality of the average diet. If we invert these findings we can assume HRCs currently have a positive, albeit small, impact on diet.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document