Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-55b6f6c457-z8dxg Total loading time: 0.251 Render date: 2021-09-25T14:40:30.229Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Classification of Canadian bakery products by a nutrient profiling model that guides reformulation in comparison to a model that regulates health claims

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 March 2019

M. Ahmed
Affiliation:
Department of Nutritional Sciences, University of Toronto, Canada
U. Lehmann
Affiliation:
Department Nutrition and Dietary Recommendations, Nestlé Research, Switzerland.
T. N. Mak
Affiliation:
Department Nutrition and Dietary Recommendations, Nestlé Research, Switzerland.
M. L'Abbé
Affiliation:
Department of Nutritional Sciences, University of Toronto, Canada
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
Abstract
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2019 

Nutrient profiling (NP) ranks foods according to their nutritional composition and is used for public health initiatives such as educating consumers, food regulation or to guide reformulation(Reference Rayner1). It has the potential to help consumers make improved food choices(Reference Roodenburg2). The objective was to compare the classification of bakery products by a government-endorsed NP model that regulates health claims and an industry-specific model that drives reformulation.

Using the University of Toronto 2017 Food Label Information Program, bakery products (n = 2809) were evaluated using two NP models: Nestlé Nutrient Profiling System (NNPS) and Food Standards of Australia New Zealand Nutrient Profiling Scoring Criterion (FSANZ). Bakery products were the major contributor to sodium intake in the diets of Canadians in 2017. Percentage of products classified as ‘pass’ (if all nutrient targets were met) or ‘fail’ by the NNPS (by regulated reference amounts) and FSANZ (by 100g) were calculated.

The NNPS model categorised 51 % of the products as passing all NNPS criteria, compared with 31 % ‘pass’ by FSANZ. Overall, agreement was 73 % (range 23 %−88 %) and kappa= 0.46 (p < 0.001), defined as ‘moderate’ agreement between the models. Percent agreement and kappa-statistic for sub-categories between NNPS and FSANZ are shown in Figure 1. Sodium was lower in products that met the standards in all categories for both NP systems, except for savory snacks that passed the NNPS criteria. There were no differences in the sodium and sugar content of confectionary bars and cookies, cakes and desserts for products that failed both models’ standards, however, sugar was higher in products that ‘passed’ NNPS standards vs. those that ‘passed’ FSANZ.

Fig. 1. Comparison of proportion of products that met the standards of both FSANZ and NNPS (*p < 0.001).

In conclusion, FSANZ was more stringent for evaluating the nutrient content of bakery products in comparison with NNPS, particularly for some products with small serving sizes (e.g. savoury snacks/biscuits). NNPS highlighted reformulation potential in categories with multiple nutrients to limit (e.g. cakes, cookies and desserts, confectionary bars). This study provides information on the differences and similarities of NP models and potential evolution of profiling systems to guide reformulations and enable different public health initiatives.

References

1.Rayner, M (2017) Proc Nutr Soc 76, 230236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Roodenburg, AJC (2017) Proc Nutr Soc 76, 247254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Comparison of proportion of products that met the standards of both FSANZ and NNPS (*p < 0.001).

You have Access

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Classification of Canadian bakery products by a nutrient profiling model that guides reformulation in comparison to a model that regulates health claims
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Classification of Canadian bakery products by a nutrient profiling model that guides reformulation in comparison to a model that regulates health claims
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Classification of Canadian bakery products by a nutrient profiling model that guides reformulation in comparison to a model that regulates health claims
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *