Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36203128›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2022

Evaluating the potential implications of canadian front-of-pack labelling regulations in generic and branded food composition databases.

Christine Mulligan, Jennifer J Lee, Laura Vergeer, Mavra Ahmed, Mary R L'Abbé

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Christine MulliganDepartment of Nutritional Sciences, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Medical Sciences Building, Room 5368, 1 King's College Circle, M5S 1A8, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Jennifer J LeeDepartment of Nutritional Sciences, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Medical Sciences Building, Room 5368, 1 King's College Circle, M5S 1A8, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Laura VergeerDepartment of Nutritional Sciences, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Medical Sciences Building, Room 5368, 1 King's College Circle, M5S 1A8, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Mavra AhmedDepartment of Nutritional Sciences, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Medical Sciences Building, Room 5368, 1 King's College Circle, M5S 1A8, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Mary R L'AbbéDepartment of Nutritional Sciences, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Medical Sciences Building, Room 5368, 1 King's College Circle, M5S 1A8, Toronto, ON, Canada. mary.labbe@utoronto.ca.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCanada proposed the implementation of mandatory front-of-pack (FOP) labelling regulations, whereby foods meeting or exceeding thresholds for nutrients-of-concern (i.e., total sugars, saturated fat, sodium) must display a 'high-in' FOP symbol (FOP). The objective of the study was to evaluate the potential implications of the proposed regulations using Canadian generic and branded food composition databases.

methodsA generic food composition database of products consumed by Canadians, Canadian Nutrient File (CNF) 2015 (n = 3,677), and a branded food composition database of packaged foods and beverages, Food Label Information Program (FLIP) 2017 (n = 17,521), were used to evaluate the number and proportion of foods that would display a FOP symbol based on the details of the proposed FOP labelling regulations published in 2018.

resultsOverall, 35.5% (n = 1,306) of products in CNF 2015 and 63.9% (n = 11,193) of products in FLIP 2017 would display a FOP symbol for at least one nutrient-of-concern exceeding proposed thresholds. Soups, Combination Dishes, and Desserts categories in CNF 2015 and Combination dishes, Soups, and Meats categories in FLIP 2017 would have the highest proportion of products that would display a FOP symbol. Although displaying a FOP symbol for one nutrient was most common in both CNF 2015 (n = 992; 27.0%) and FLIP 2017 (n = 7,296, 41.6%), the number (i.e., 0-3) and type (i.e., saturated fat, sodium, total sugar) of nutrients displayed varied by food category.

conclusionWhile the generic database, containing both packaged and unpackaged foods, revealed a low prevalence of foods that would display a FOP symbol, the branded database showed that the proposed FOP labelling regulations would identify over 60% of packaged foods with excess contents of nutrients-of-concern. Considering the high prevalence of packaged foods in Canada that would meet or exceed the thresholds of nutrients-of-concern, the proposed FOP labelling regulations should be implemented in a timely manner to help consumers easily identify foods high in nutrients-of-concern and encourage manufacturer-driven product reformulations.

Indexed as

Food LabelingSugarsCanadaHumansNutritive ValueSodiumSodiumSugarsFood compositionFood supply systemFront-of-pack labellingLabelling regulationsNutrients-of-concernNutrition symbolsPre-packaged foods

Identifiers

PMID36203128
PMCPMC9535871

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.