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

Abstract

Background Canada 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. Methods A 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. Results Overall, 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. Conclusion While 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.

Nutrient intakes and top food categories contributing to intakes of energy and nutrients-of-concern consumed by Canadian adults that would require a ‘high-in’ front-of-pack symbol according to Canadian labelling regulations

“…We found Canadians consumed approximately a quarter of their total energy from “less healthy” foods (i.e., foods that would display a FOP symbol) and these foods accounted for up to 40% of intakes of nutrients-of-concern. Consistent with previous studies showing a high prevalence of pre-packaged foods that are high in levels of nutrients-of-concern in Canada [ 39 , 45 , 46 ] and a high consumption of pre-packaged foods among Canadians [ 47 , 48 ], our findings highlight the challenges Canadians currently face in identifying foods ‘high in’ nutrients-of-concern. Canada mandates the standardized back-of-pack nutrition labelling in the form of the NFt, which includes the mandatory declaration of energy, macronutrients, and some micronutrients per serving size [ 37 ].…”

“…Product reformulations may help decrease the overall intake of nutrients-of-concern from these food categories. However, an earlier analysis of the Canadian food supply using the pre-published Canada Gazette I [ 62 ], proposals for FOP labelling revealed a high prevalence of food products in these categories that would display a FOP symbol [ 39 ]. For instance, ≥90% of products in Fruit juices and drinks and Meat and substitutes categories would have needed to display a FOP symbol as of 2017 [ 39 ], suggesting a potential need for other public health measures to promote dietary substitutions across food categories rather than within food categories (e.g., Nuts & Seeds for Processed meats).…”

“…However, an earlier analysis of the Canadian food supply using the pre-published Canada Gazette I [ 62 ], proposals for FOP labelling revealed a high prevalence of food products in these categories that would display a FOP symbol [ 39 ]. For instance, ≥90% of products in Fruit juices and drinks and Meat and substitutes categories would have needed to display a FOP symbol as of 2017 [ 39 ], suggesting a potential need for other public health measures to promote dietary substitutions across food categories rather than within food categories (e.g., Nuts & Seeds for Processed meats). Within food category substitutions may be more suitable for other commonly-consumed food categories that can have a more diverse nutritional profile of foods (e.g., Breads), given positive industry reformulation responses take place to improve the availability of ‘more healthy’ foods in these categories.…”

“…All foods were categorized based on the total number of ‘high in’ nutrient(s) (i.e., exempted from regulations, no FOP symbol, a FOP symbol for 1 nutrient, a FOP symbol for 2 nutrients, and a FOP symbol for 3 nutrients) and the type of ‘high in’ nutrient (i.e., saturated fat, sodium, and sugars) that a food would display, similar to the categories used in the nutrient profiling model developed using the pre-published FOP labelling regulations [ 39 ].…”

Estimating the dietary and health impact of implementing front-of-pack nutrition labeling in Canada: A macrosimulation modeling study

“…Therefore, it is imperative to accompany implementation of policies -such as 'high in' FOPL -with robust and independent evaluation and monitoring systems to monitor effectiveness and compliance with the policy, but also to detect and correct any unintended consequences. This is particularly important given that over 60% of packaged foods in the Canadian food supply would carry a 'high in' symbol (129). Additional measures could also be taken to mitigate possible unintended consequences following examples from other countries, for instance, flagging products containing non-nutritive sweeteners as Mexico (52) and Argentina (53) have done in their FOPL regulations.…”