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

BMC Public Health, Sep 2013

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.

A PDF file should load here. If you do not see its contents the file may be temporarily unavailable at the journal website or you do not have a PDF plug-in installed and enabled in your browser.

Alternatively, you can download the file locally and open with any standalone PDF reader:

http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2458-13-846.pdf

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

BMC Public Health 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 Teri E Emrich 0 1 Joanna E Cohen 1 2 3 Wendy Y Lou 1 2 Mary R L'Abb 0 1 0 Department of Nutritional Sciences , FitzGerald Building , University of Toronto , 150 College Street, Toronto , Canada 1 Authors' information Teri Emrich MPH , RD (PhD Candidate) Joanna Cohen , PhD Associate Professor Director, Institute of Global Tobacco Control Wendy Lou, PhD Professor Canada Research Chair in Statistical Methods for Health Care Mary L'Abbe, PhD Earle W. McHenry Professor and Chair Department of Nutritional Sciences 2 Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto , 155 College Street, Toronto , Canada 3 Department of Health, Behavior and Society, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health , 2213 McElderry Street, Baltimore , USA 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. Nutrition labelling; Front-of-pack nutrition rating systems; Nutrient criteria - Background The World Health Organization has stated consumers require accurate, standardized and comprehensible information on the content of food items in order to make healthy choices [1]. To that end, mandatory nutrition labels have been adopted in more than 20 countries, including the European Union member states, Mexico, and China, and voluntary nutrition labels have been adopted in at least 11 more [2]. In Canada, regulations mandating nutrition labelling on most packaged foods were adopted 2003 in response to mounting evidence of the contribution of diet to chronic disease [3]. The Canadian Nutrition Facts table reports the amount of calories, fat, saturated and trans fat, cholesterol, sodium, carbohydrate, fibre, sugar, protein, vitamin A, vitamin C, calcium, and iron per serving of a food and is similar to the Nutrition Information and Nutrition Facts panels used in countries such as the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand. At the same time the Nutrition Facts table was adopted, Canada updated regulations for the use of nutrient content claims and established rules for the use of diet-related health claims on food products. Canada is just one of many countries, including Japan, China, Australia and New Zealand, European Union member states, and the United States, permitting some form of nutrient or health claims on food labels [4]. Not included in Canadas 2003 regulatory revisions was another form of food label nutrition information, front-of-pack (FOP) nutrition rating systems and symbols. FOP systems provide simplified information about the nutritional characteristics of a food and have been in use internationally sin (...truncated)


This is a preview of a remote PDF: http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2458-13-846.pdf

Teri E Emrich, Joanna E Cohen, Wendy Y Lou, Mary R L’Abbé. 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, BMC Public Health, 2013, pp. 846, 13, DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-13-846