| Summary: | <h4>Background/objectives</h4> <p>Compares the nutritional quality of pre-packaged foods carrying health-related claims with foods that do not carry health-related claims. </p> <h4>Subjects/methods</h4> <p>Cross-sectional survey of pre-packaged foods available in Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, Slovenia, and the UK in 2013. 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).</p> <h4>Results</h4> <p>Foods carrying health claims had, on average, lower levels, per 100g, of the following nutrients; energy – 29.3kcal (p < 0.05), protein – 1.2g (p < 0.01), total sugars – 3.1g (p < 0.05), saturated fat – 2.4g (p<0.001), and sodium - 842mg (p<0.001), and higher levels of fibre – 0.8g (p<0.001). A similar pattern was observed for foods carrying nutrition claims. 43% (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 didn’t carry either type of claim 36% (CI 34%, 38%). </p> <h4>Conclusions</h4> <p>Foods carrying health-related claims have marginally better nutrition profile s 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. </p>
|
|---|