Cargando…

Food products qualifying for and carrying front-of-pack symbols: a cross-sectional study examining a manufacturer led and a non-profit organization led program

BACKGROUND: Concern has been raised that the coexistence of multiple front-of-pack (FOP) nutrition rating systems in a marketplace may mislead consumers into believing that a specific food with a FOP is ‘healthier’ than foods without the symbol. Eleven summary indicator FOP systems are in use in Can...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Emrich, Teri E, Cohen, Joanna E, Lou, Wendy Y, L’Abbé, Mary R
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3847373/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24034717
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-846
_version_ 1782293601924939776
author Emrich, Teri E
Cohen, Joanna E
Lou, Wendy Y
L’Abbé, Mary R
author_facet Emrich, Teri E
Cohen, Joanna E
Lou, Wendy Y
L’Abbé, Mary R
author_sort Emrich, Teri E
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Concern has been raised that the coexistence of multiple front-of-pack (FOP) nutrition rating systems in a marketplace may mislead consumers into believing that a specific food with a FOP is ‘healthier’ than foods without the symbol. Eleven summary indicator FOP systems are in use in Canada, including one non-profit developed system, the Heart and Stroke Foundation’s Health Check™, and ten manufacturer-developed systems, like Kraft’s Sensible Solutions™. This study evaluated FOP’s potential to mislead consumers by comparing the number of products qualifying to carry a given FOP symbol to the number of products that actually carry the symbol. METHODS: The nutritional criteria for the Health Check™ and the Sensible Solutions™ systems were applied to a 2010–2011 Canadian national database of packaged food products. The proportion of foods qualifying for a given FOP system was compared to the proportion carrying the symbol using McNemar’s test. RESULTS: Criteria were available to categorize 7503 and 3009 of the 10,487 foods in the database under Health Check™ and Sensible Solutions™, respectively. Overall 45% of the foods belonging to a Health Check™ category qualified for Health Check’s™ symbol, while only 7.5% of the foods carried the symbol. Up to 79.1% of the foods belonging to a Sensible Solutions™, category qualified for Sensible Solutions’s™ symbol while only 4.1% of the foods carried the symbol. The level of agreement between products qualifying for and carrying FOP systems was poor to moderate in the majority of food categories for both systems. More than 75% of the products in 24 of the 85 Health Check™ subcategories and 9 of 11 Sensible Solution™ categories/subcategories qualified for their respective symbols based on their nutritional composition. CONCLUSIONS: FOP systems as they are currently applied are not, in most instances, a useful guide to identifying healthier food products in the supermarket as many more products qualify for these systems than the number of products actually displaying these symbols on FOP, and the level of agreement between qualifying and carrying products is poor to moderate. The adoption of a single, standardized FOP system would assure consumers that all products meeting certain nutritional standards are designated by the symbol.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3847373
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-38473732013-12-04 Food products qualifying for and carrying front-of-pack symbols: a cross-sectional study examining a manufacturer led and a non-profit organization led program Emrich, Teri E Cohen, Joanna E Lou, Wendy Y L’Abbé, Mary R BMC Public Health Research Article BACKGROUND: Concern has been raised that the coexistence of multiple front-of-pack (FOP) nutrition rating systems in a marketplace may mislead consumers into believing that a specific food with a FOP is ‘healthier’ than foods without the symbol. Eleven summary indicator FOP systems are in use in Canada, including one non-profit developed system, the Heart and Stroke Foundation’s Health Check™, and ten manufacturer-developed systems, like Kraft’s Sensible Solutions™. This study evaluated FOP’s potential to mislead consumers by comparing the number of products qualifying to carry a given FOP symbol to the number of products that actually carry the symbol. METHODS: The nutritional criteria for the Health Check™ and the Sensible Solutions™ systems were applied to a 2010–2011 Canadian national database of packaged food products. The proportion of foods qualifying for a given FOP system was compared to the proportion carrying the symbol using McNemar’s test. RESULTS: Criteria were available to categorize 7503 and 3009 of the 10,487 foods in the database under Health Check™ and Sensible Solutions™, respectively. Overall 45% of the foods belonging to a Health Check™ category qualified for Health Check’s™ symbol, while only 7.5% of the foods carried the symbol. Up to 79.1% of the foods belonging to a Sensible Solutions™, category qualified for Sensible Solutions’s™ symbol while only 4.1% of the foods carried the symbol. The level of agreement between products qualifying for and carrying FOP systems was poor to moderate in the majority of food categories for both systems. More than 75% of the products in 24 of the 85 Health Check™ subcategories and 9 of 11 Sensible Solution™ categories/subcategories qualified for their respective symbols based on their nutritional composition. CONCLUSIONS: FOP systems as they are currently applied are not, in most instances, a useful guide to identifying healthier food products in the supermarket as many more products qualify for these systems than the number of products actually displaying these symbols on FOP, and the level of agreement between qualifying and carrying products is poor to moderate. The adoption of a single, standardized FOP system would assure consumers that all products meeting certain nutritional standards are designated by the symbol. BioMed Central 2013-09-13 /pmc/articles/PMC3847373/ /pubmed/24034717 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-846 Text en Copyright © 2013 Emrich et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Emrich, Teri E
Cohen, Joanna E
Lou, Wendy Y
L’Abbé, Mary R
Food products qualifying for and carrying front-of-pack symbols: a cross-sectional study examining a manufacturer led and a non-profit organization led program
title Food products qualifying for and carrying front-of-pack symbols: a cross-sectional study examining a manufacturer led and a non-profit organization led program
title_full Food products qualifying for and carrying front-of-pack symbols: a cross-sectional study examining a manufacturer led and a non-profit organization led program
title_fullStr Food products qualifying for and carrying front-of-pack symbols: a cross-sectional study examining a manufacturer led and a non-profit organization led program
title_full_unstemmed Food products qualifying for and carrying front-of-pack symbols: a cross-sectional study examining a manufacturer led and a non-profit organization led program
title_short Food products qualifying for and carrying front-of-pack symbols: a cross-sectional study examining a manufacturer led and a non-profit organization led program
title_sort food products qualifying for and carrying front-of-pack symbols: a cross-sectional study examining a manufacturer led and a non-profit organization led program
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3847373/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24034717
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-846
work_keys_str_mv AT emrichterie foodproductsqualifyingforandcarryingfrontofpacksymbolsacrosssectionalstudyexaminingamanufacturerledandanonprofitorganizationledprogram
AT cohenjoannae foodproductsqualifyingforandcarryingfrontofpacksymbolsacrosssectionalstudyexaminingamanufacturerledandanonprofitorganizationledprogram
AT louwendyy foodproductsqualifyingforandcarryingfrontofpacksymbolsacrosssectionalstudyexaminingamanufacturerledandanonprofitorganizationledprogram
AT labbemaryr foodproductsqualifyingforandcarryingfrontofpacksymbolsacrosssectionalstudyexaminingamanufacturerledandanonprofitorganizationledprogram