Objective: Breakfast cereals are frequently consumed in Belgium, especially among children. We investigated the nutritional content, labelling and marketing of breakfast cereals and the changes in nutrient content and reformulation in anticipation of the implementation of the Nutri-Score front-of-pack label. Design: Pictures were taken of cereal packages. The WHO-Europe nutrient profiling tool was used to classify cereals into ‘permitted’/‘not-permitted’ to be marketed to children, while the nutritional quality was assessed using Nutri-Score. The proportion of cereals with nutrition and health claims and/or promotional characters on the front-of-pack was compared between permitted and not-permitted cereals and between different Nutriscore categories using Chi-squared tests. The average nutrient contents per 100g were compared between 2017 and 2018 using paired t-tests. Setting: Belgium. Participants: All breakfast cereals in the major supermarkets (n = 7) in 2017 and 2018. Results: Overall, 330 cereals were included. About 77.2% of cereals were not permitted to be marketed to children but, of those, 22.0% displayed promotional characters. More claims (68.9% of all claims) were found on ‘not-permitted’ compared with ‘permitted’ cereals, particularly nutrition claims. Most claims were displayed on cereals with the allocated Nutri-Score A (42.0%) and C (37.0%). A significant reformulation of cereals was found between 2017 and 2018, with reductions in total sugar (−5%) (p < 0.001) and sodium (−20%) (p = 0.002) and increases in fibre (+3%) (p = 0.012) and proteins (+2%) (p = 0.002). Conclusion: Breakfast cereals on the Belgian market are predominantly unhealthy and frequently carry claims and promotional characters. Minimal reformulation occurred over one year. Policy recommendations include restrictions on claims and marketing for not-permitted cereals.

Background Front-of-pack nutrition labels (FoPLs) are increasingly implemented by governments internationally to support consumers to make healthier food choices. Although the Nutri-Score FOPL has officially been implemented in Belgium since April 2019, no study has been conducted before its implementation to compare the effectiveness of different FOPLs. Methods The aim of this study was to compare food choices, objective understanding and perceptions of Belgian consumers in response to five different FOPLs, currently implemented in different countries internationally, namely the Health Star Ratings (HSR), the Multiple Traffic Lights (MTL), Nutri-Score, Guideline Daily Amounts (GDA), and Warning symbols. During the summer 2019, 1007 Belgian consumers were recruited and randomized to one of the five different FOPLs. Through an online questionnaire they were asked to choose one of three different foods within each of three categories (pizzas, cakes, breakfast cereals), as well as rank those same three foods according to nutritional quality, in the condition without as well as with FOPL. In addition, various questions were asked on their perceptions in relation to the FOPL they were exposed to. Results Perceptions of consumers were favorable for all FOPLs with no significant differences between the different FOPLs. There were no significant differences in food choices among the different FOPLs, but Nutri-Score performed best for ranking food products according to nutritional quality. Conclusions While there were no significant differences among different FOPLs for food choices and perceptions, the Nutri-Score was the most effective FOPL in informing Belgian consumers of the nutritional quality of food products.

No abstract

BackgroundOne of the driving factors of dietary overconsumption throughout the last decennia is the increase of food portion sizes. Larger portions induce higher daily energy intake, so reducing portion size may reduce intake of excess calories. However, real-life studies about the effects of portion size reduction are lacking. Therefore, this study examined the effect of a French fries portion size reduction on French fries consumption, French fries plate waste, satiety and caloric intake during the subsequent afternoon among university students and employees in a Belgian on-campus restaurant setting. Moreover, this study evaluated consumers’ perception about the portion size reduction.MethodsThe study took place over a two-time (i.e. baseline and intervention week) 4-day period (Tuesday–Friday) in the on-campus restaurant where ±1200 meals are served every day. French fries’ portions were reduced by 20% by replacing the usual porcelain bowl served during the baseline week (±200 g) with smaller volume paper bags during the intervention week (±159 g) in a pre-post real-life experiment. French fries consumption and plate waste were measured in 2056 consumers at baseline and 2175 consumers at intervention. Additionally, interviews were conducted directly after lunch and again between 4 and 6 p.m. on the same day to assess satiety and caloric intake at pre and post in a small subsample of both French fries consumers (n = 19) and non-French fries consumers (n = 14). Post-intervention, the same subsample was interviewed about their perception of the portion size reduction (n = 28).ResultsTotal French fries intake decreased by 9.1%, and total plate waste decreased by 66.4%. No differences were found in satiety or caloric intake between baseline and intervention week among the French fries’ consumers. The majority (n = 24, 86%) of French fries consumers noticed the reduction in portion size during the intervention. Although most participants (n = 19, 68%) perceived the reduced portion size as sufficient, only a minority of participants (n = 9, 32%) indicated post-intervention that they would agree with a permanent implementation.ConclusionsReducing portion size may lead to reduced caloric intake, without changing perceived levels of satiety.