Premium
Comparison of nutrient profiling schemes for restricting the marketing of food and drink to children
Author(s) -
Brinsden H.,
Lobstein T.
Publication year - 2013
Publication title -
pediatric obesity
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.226
H-Index - 69
eISSN - 2047-6310
pISSN - 2047-6302
DOI - 10.1111/j.2047-6310.2013.00167.x
Subject(s) - profiling (computer programming) , nutrient , food marketing , medicine , marketing , advertising , environmental health , business , computer science , chemistry , organic chemistry , operating system
Summary What is already known about this subject Many companies have signed voluntary agreements to restrict the marketing of foods high in fat, sugar and salt directly to children. Several nutrient profiling schemes have been proposed for defining products which can be advertised to children.What this study adds Provides evidence that industry‐led nutrient profiling schemes are less effective in restricting the advertising of energy‐dense foods compared to government‐led models. Provides evidence that industry‐led nutrient profiling schemes particularly favour the continued advertising of foods high in sugar.Background The food and beverage industry have made voluntary pledges to reduce children's exposure to the marketing of energy‐dense foods and beverages, and in 2012 announced the replacement of company‐specific nutrient profiling schemes with uniform sets of criteria from 2013 (in the USA ) and 2014 (in the E uropean U nion [ EU ]). Objective To compare the proposed USA and EU nutrient profiling schemes and three government‐led schemes, paying particular attention to the differences in sugar criteria. Method Food and beverage products permitted to be advertised in the USA under pre‐2013 criteria were examined using five nutrient profiling schemes: the forthcoming USA and EU schemes and three government‐approved schemes: the US I nteragency W orking G roup ( IWG ) proposals, the U nited K ingdom O ffice of C ommunications ( O f C om) regulations and the D anish F orum co‐regulatory C ode. Results Under the new USA and EU nutrient profiling schemes, 88 (49%) and 73 (41%) of a total of 178 products would be permitted to be advertised, respectively. The US IWG permitted 25 (14%) products; the O fcom regulations permitted 65 (37%) and the D anish C ode permitted 13 (7%). Conclusion Government‐led schemes are significantly more restrictive than industry‐led schemes, primarily due to their tougher sugar criteria. The D anish F orum (93%) and USA IWG scheme (86%) are the most restrictive of the five examined. Further harmonization of nutrient profiling schemes is needed to reduce children's exposure to the promotion of energy‐dense foods.