Premium
Front‐of‐Pack Labelling is Positively Associated With Degree of Product Processing and Innovation
Author(s) -
Christoforou Anthea,
Tarasuk Valerie
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
the faseb journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.709
H-Index - 277
eISSN - 1530-6860
pISSN - 0892-6638
DOI - 10.1096/fasebj.30.1_supplement.674.39
Subject(s) - labelling , product (mathematics) , marketing , packaging and labeling , nutrition facts label , business , multinomial logistic regression , interchangeability , purchasing , food products , food science , computer science , psychology , mathematics , chemistry , statistics , geometry , criminology , programming language
Front‐of‐pack nutritional labelling is pervasive in the North American grocery channel. This labelling is voluntary and existing research has shown nutritional quality to be a weak predictor of its use by manufacturers. Insofar as Front‐of‐pack nutritional references influence consumer purchasing, better understanding of what drives this practice by manufacturers is needed. Our goal was to elucidate the conditions under which manufacturers display nutritional assertions and claims such as ‘natural’ and organic. Specifically, we examined how these Front‐of‐pack references relate to the degree of food processing and to product innovation, considering the labelling on foods designed explicitly as substitutes for traditional counterparts. Front‐of‐pack labelling was recorded from all packaged foods (n=20520 unique products) in 3 major Toronto grocery stores, representing 71% of the total Canadian retail market‐share. All foods were coded for degree of processing using the International Food Information Council's classification system, and further categorized as substitute or traditional counterparts if these had 1) immediate interchangeability within the diet and 2) inherently different formulation (e.g. butter and margarine). Multinomial logistic regression analyses were used to assess the relationship between the extent and nature of Front‐of‐pack references and product processing. 41% of products had some Front‐of‐pack nutritional labelling, 20% were labelled as ‘natural’, and 7% were labelled as organic. Highly processed, ready‐to‐eat products comprised 37% of our sample and half bore nutritional references. These products were more likely than less processed foods to bear organic (OR=1.12 95%CI:1.02, 1.41), ‘natural’ (OR=1.56 95%CI:1.39, 1.75), and nutritional references (OR=1.86 95%CI: 1.70, 2.05), and to make references to the absence or reduction in negative nutrients (OR= 4.03 95%CI:3.52, 4.62) (e.g. sodium, trans fat). Foods identified as substitutes for traditional foods were much more likely than other products to have Front‐of‐pack labels (OR=2.91 95%CI:2.55, 3.32), and to make reference to vitamin or mineral formulations (OR= 2.20 95%CI:1.91, 2.54). Within substitute pairs, substitutes were 2.2 times more likely than their traditional counterparts to have Front‐of‐pack nutritional labels. Taken together, these findings raise questions about the extent to which Front‐of‐pack labelling serves to complement corresponding public health efforts to improve dietary intakes of whole, fresh foods and lend support to calls for a mandatory, standardized system of Front‐of‐pack labelling across all prepackaged foods. Support or Funding Information Canadian Institutes of Health Research Operating Grant ( MOP ‐102655 )