Reference serving sizes for the Brazilian population: An analysis of processed food labels

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare serving sizes reported on processed food labels with reference serving sizes according to nutrition labeling legislation and the "Food Guide for the Brazilian Population". METHODS: This cross-sectional study analyzed the labels of 2,072 processed foods in a supermarket of Florianópolis, Santa Caratina, Brazil. The foods were classified according to the Brazilian food labeling legislation. Central tendency and variability values were calculated for the serving sizes and energy values reported on the labels, as well as the ratio between the reported and reference energy value. The Spearman correlation test was performed between the reference serving size and the reference energy density, and also between the reference serving size and energy density of each study food. RESULTS: Nutrition labeling and the Food Guide presented reference servings with different sizes and energy values. The serving sizes reported on the labels did not follow either of the references and presented heterogeneous values, with a maximum range of 55-240 g among ready and semi-ready pre-prepared dishes. The reported energy values were between 0.1 times smaller and 2.4 times larger than the reference values. The reference serving sizes presented a highly inverse correlation with the reference energy density (Spearman coefficient= 0.9) and a very low inverse correlation with the energy density of the foods analyzed (Spearman coefficient= 0.2). CONCLUSION: This study showed the need for standardizing reference serving size information for the Brazilian population as well as reviewing nutrition labeling legislation in order to standardize the serving sizes reported on labels and to update the reference energy density used to calculate serving sizes.

Serving size on nutrition labeling for processed foods sold in Brazil: Relationship to energy value

“…However, research also emphasizes that it is essential to teach Brazilians on how to interpret nutrition labels so that this information can play a role in facilitating healthy food choices 33 . A recent study has also emphasized the need for updating the reference energy density used to calculate the recommended serving sizes per food product for the Brazilian nutrition labeling law 14 . This study analyzed 2,072 food products available in Brazil and found that the average energy density reported on these foods differed from the reference energy density used for calculating the recommended serving sizes.…”

“…Research suggests that a lack of serving size standardization among similar foods may affect the objectives of nutrition labeling, as it complicates food choices 6,[13][14][15] . Studies have suggested that this lack of serving size standardization may be related to the energy density of processed foods 16,17 .…”

Serving Size and Nutrition Labelling: Implications for Nutrition Information and Nutrition Claims on Packaged Foods

“…Yoghurts and dairy drinks had declared servings varying from 100 to 200 g, even though the serving size recommended by legislation is 200 g. The variation in serving size was greater than that allowed by Brazilian legislation (140–260 g). An even greater variation in serving sizes of dairy products marketed in Brazil was found by Kliemann et al [ 43 ]. The authors analysed serving sizes of all processed and ultraprocessed foods sold in a Brazilian supermarket, totalling 2072 products.…”

“…The authors analysed serving sizes of all processed and ultraprocessed foods sold in a Brazilian supermarket, totalling 2072 products. A great variation in serving size was observed among similar products—the serving sizes of dairy products varied from 75 to 300 g, whereas those of ready-to-eat and semi-ready products varied between 55 and 240 g. This variability may compromise the analysis and the comparison of foods by consumers at the time of purchase [ 43 ].…”

“…In general, the sodium content of foods with these claims was 43% higher than that of conventional foods, demonstrating how variation in serving size may compromise the analysis of the nutritional content of foods, inducing the perception that a food is free or reduced in nutrients when, in reality, it is not. This situation portrays the concern raised by several authors—that the lack of standardisation in serving size as well as the variation permitted by law may confuse the consumer at the time of purchase [ 18 , 37 , 43 , 63 ].…”