首页> 外文期刊>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
【24h】

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

机译:符合并带有包装前标志的食品:一项横断面研究,检查制造商领导和非营利组织领导的计划

获取原文
           

摘要

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.
机译:背景技术人们一直担心,市场上多种包装(FOP)营养评级系统的共存可能会误导消费者,使他们相信带有FOP的特定食品比没有该符号的食品“更健康”。加拿大使用了11种汇总指标FOP系统,其中包括一种非营利性开发的系统,心脏与中风基金会的Health Check?和十种由制造商开发的系统,例如Kraft的Sensible Solutions?。这项研究通过比较有资格携带给定FOP符号的产品数量与实际带有该符号的产品数量,来评估FOP误导消费者的可能性。方法健康检查的营养标准?和明智的解决方案?该系统已应用于2010-2011年加拿大包装食品国家数据库。使用McNemar检验将符合特定FOP系统的食品比例与带有该符号的食品比例进行比较。结果可使用“健康检查?”数据库中10,487种食品中7503和3009的分类标准。和明智的解决方案?总共45%的食物属于健康检查?符合健康检查条件的类别?符号,而只有7.5%的食物带有该符号。属于“明智解决方案”类别的食品中多达79.1%符合“明智解决方案”的食品类别符号,而只有4.1%的食物带有该符号。有资格使用FOP系统并带有FOP系统的产品之间的协议水平在两种系统的大多数食品类别中都差强人意。 85种健康检查中有24种产品中超过75%的产品?子类别和11 of 9明智的解决方案?根据其营养成分符合其各自符号的类别/子类别。结论当前应用的FOP系统在大多数情况下不是识别超市中更健康食品的有用指南,因为与FOP上实际显示这些符号的产品数量和等级相比,符合这些系统条件的产品更多合格产品和携带产品之间的协议差强人意。采用单一的,标准化的FOP系统将使消费者确信,满足某些营养标准的所有产品都用该符号表示。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号