H Brinsden1, T Lobstein. 1. International Association for the Study of Obesity, London, UK. hbrinsden@iaso.org
Abstract
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 European Union [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 Interagency Working Group (IWG) proposals, the United Kingdom Office of Communications (OfCom) regulations and the Danish Forum co-regulatory Code. 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 Ofcom regulations permitted 65 (37%) and the Danish Code permitted 13 (7%). CONCLUSION: Government-led schemes are significantly more restrictive than industry-led schemes, primarily due to their tougher sugar criteria. The Danish Forum (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.
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 European Union [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 Interagency Working Group (IWG) proposals, the United Kingdom Office of Communications (OfCom) regulations and the Danish Forum co-regulatory Code. 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 Ofcom regulations permitted 65 (37%) and the Danish Code permitted 13 (7%). CONCLUSION: Government-led schemes are significantly more restrictive than industry-led schemes, primarily due to their tougher sugar criteria. The Danish Forum (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.
Authors: Sofía Rincón-Gallardo Patiño; Lizbeth Tolentino-Mayo; Eric Alejandro Flores Monterrubio; Jennifer L Harris; Stefanie Vandevijvere; Juan A Rivera; Simón Barquera Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2016-08-05 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Stefan Storcksdieck Genannt Bonsmann; Marguerite Robinson; Jan Wollgast; Sandra Caldeira Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-10-23 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Alice James; Laura Birch; Peter Fletcher; Sally Pearson; Catherine Boyce; Andy R Ness; Julian P Hamilton-Shield; Fiona E Lithander Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-11-16 Impact factor: 2.692