Ultra-Processed Foods in the Food Supply: Prevalence, Nutritional Composition and Use of Voluntary Labelling Schemes.

IF 4.8 2区 医学 Q1 NUTRITION & DIETETICS
Nutrients Pub Date : 2025-05-20 DOI:10.3390/nu17101731
Edvina Hafner, Maša Hribar, Igor Pravst
{"title":"Ultra-Processed Foods in the Food Supply: Prevalence, Nutritional Composition and Use of Voluntary Labelling Schemes.","authors":"Edvina Hafner, Maša Hribar, Igor Pravst","doi":"10.3390/nu17101731","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) represent a substantial part of modern diets, with a growing prevalence in food environments worldwide. Their unfavourable nutritional composition and adverse health effects present growing public health concerns.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study examines the prevalence of UPFs in the Slovenian food supply, their nutritional quality and the use of different food symbols and labelling schemes on food packaging. A cross-sectional analysis was conducted using the representative Slovenian branded foods database. A total of 23,173 prepacked foods and beverages were categorised into levels of processing according to the NOVA classification system. The nutritional composition of UPFs was compared to less processed products within 16 narrow subcategories. Additionally, the prevalence in the use of front-of-package nutrition labelling (FOPNL) and subjectively nutrition-related elements (SNREs) (such as EU Organic, Vegan labels etc.) were assessed across different food categories and processing levels.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Results show that UPFs represent 54.5% of the available products in the Slovenian food supply, with the highest prevalence in Confectionery (93%), Bread and bakery products (83%), Meat, meat products and alternatives (77%) and Convenience foods (74%). Comparison of nutritional composition indicated that UPFs had significantly poorer nutritional composition compared to less processed counterparts, including higher levels of sugar, salt and saturated fats, and a lower protein content. Breakfast cereals, Snack foods, Meat alternatives and Pre-prepared salads and sandwiches showed the most significant differences between UPFs and less processed counterparts. Analysis of the prevalence of symbols and labelling schemes revealed that 33.8% of products carried at least one FOPNL (15.0%) or SNRE (19.1%), with SNREs being more prevalent on less processed products and FOPNL predominantly used on UPFs (<i>p</i> < 0.05). The most prevalent SNRE was the EU Organic logo (12.7%), followed by the Vegan (4.7%) and Non-GMO (3.1%) logos, whereas the most frequent FOPNL was Reference Intakes (RI), presenting only energy value RI-Energy (12.5%), followed by nutrient-specific RI (1.6%), while other FOPNL were scarce and limited to certain categories. An additional comparison of visual presentation highlighted the potentially selective use of voluntary FOPNL to improve product framing. This raises concerns about their role in guiding consumer choices versus serving as marketing tools, especially when it comes to UPFs.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings highlight the need for monitoring UPFs in the food supply together with harmonised, mandatory labelling regulations to ensure transparency and empower consumers to make healthier choices.</p>","PeriodicalId":19486,"journal":{"name":"Nutrients","volume":"17 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12113896/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nutrients","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/nu17101731","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NUTRITION & DIETETICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) represent a substantial part of modern diets, with a growing prevalence in food environments worldwide. Their unfavourable nutritional composition and adverse health effects present growing public health concerns.

Methods: This study examines the prevalence of UPFs in the Slovenian food supply, their nutritional quality and the use of different food symbols and labelling schemes on food packaging. A cross-sectional analysis was conducted using the representative Slovenian branded foods database. A total of 23,173 prepacked foods and beverages were categorised into levels of processing according to the NOVA classification system. The nutritional composition of UPFs was compared to less processed products within 16 narrow subcategories. Additionally, the prevalence in the use of front-of-package nutrition labelling (FOPNL) and subjectively nutrition-related elements (SNREs) (such as EU Organic, Vegan labels etc.) were assessed across different food categories and processing levels.

Results: Results show that UPFs represent 54.5% of the available products in the Slovenian food supply, with the highest prevalence in Confectionery (93%), Bread and bakery products (83%), Meat, meat products and alternatives (77%) and Convenience foods (74%). Comparison of nutritional composition indicated that UPFs had significantly poorer nutritional composition compared to less processed counterparts, including higher levels of sugar, salt and saturated fats, and a lower protein content. Breakfast cereals, Snack foods, Meat alternatives and Pre-prepared salads and sandwiches showed the most significant differences between UPFs and less processed counterparts. Analysis of the prevalence of symbols and labelling schemes revealed that 33.8% of products carried at least one FOPNL (15.0%) or SNRE (19.1%), with SNREs being more prevalent on less processed products and FOPNL predominantly used on UPFs (p < 0.05). The most prevalent SNRE was the EU Organic logo (12.7%), followed by the Vegan (4.7%) and Non-GMO (3.1%) logos, whereas the most frequent FOPNL was Reference Intakes (RI), presenting only energy value RI-Energy (12.5%), followed by nutrient-specific RI (1.6%), while other FOPNL were scarce and limited to certain categories. An additional comparison of visual presentation highlighted the potentially selective use of voluntary FOPNL to improve product framing. This raises concerns about their role in guiding consumer choices versus serving as marketing tools, especially when it comes to UPFs.

Conclusions: Our findings highlight the need for monitoring UPFs in the food supply together with harmonised, mandatory labelling regulations to ensure transparency and empower consumers to make healthier choices.

食物供应中的超加工食物:流行程度、营养成分及自愿标签计划的使用。
背景:超加工食品(upf)是现代饮食的重要组成部分,在世界各地的食品环境中越来越普遍。它们不利的营养成分和对健康的不利影响日益引起公众对健康的关注。方法:本研究考察了upf在斯洛文尼亚食品供应中的流行程度,它们的营养质量以及在食品包装上使用不同的食品符号和标签方案。使用斯洛文尼亚代表性品牌食品数据库进行了横断面分析。根据NOVA分类系统,共有23173种预包装食品和饮料被分类为不同的加工水平。upf的营养成分在16个狭窄的子类别中与加工较少的产品进行了比较。此外,对包装正面营养标签(FOPNL)和主观营养相关元素(SNREs)(如欧盟有机、素食标签等)在不同食品类别和加工水平上的使用情况进行了评估。结果:结果表明,upf占斯洛文尼亚食品供应中可用产品的54.5%,其中糖果(93%)、面包和烘焙产品(83%)、肉类、肉制品及其替代品(77%)和方便食品(74%)的患病率最高。营养成分的比较表明,与加工较少的同类产品相比,upf的营养成分明显较差,包括糖、盐和饱和脂肪含量较高,蛋白质含量较低。早餐谷物、休闲食品、肉类替代品和预先准备的沙拉和三明治在upf和较少加工的同类食品之间显示出最显著的差异。对符号和标签方案流行程度的分析显示,33.8%的产品至少携带一种FOPNL(15.0%)或信噪比(19.1%),信噪比在加工较少的产品中更为普遍,而FOPNL主要用于upf (p < 0.05)。最常见的SNRE是欧盟有机标识(12.7%),其次是纯素标识(4.7%)和非转基因标识(3.1%),而最常见的FOPNL是参考摄入量(RI),仅显示能量值RI- energy(12.5%),其次是营养特定的RI(1.6%),而其他FOPNL很少,仅限于某些类别。另一个视觉呈现的比较强调了潜在的选择性使用自愿FOPNL来改善产品框架。这引起了人们对它们在指导消费者选择方面的作用的关注,而不是作为营销工具,特别是在upf方面。结论:我们的研究结果强调了监测食品供应中的upf以及统一的强制性标签法规的必要性,以确保透明度并使消费者能够做出更健康的选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Nutrients
Nutrients NUTRITION & DIETETICS-
CiteScore
9.20
自引率
15.30%
发文量
4599
审稿时长
16.74 days
期刊介绍: Nutrients (ISSN 2072-6643) is an international, peer-reviewed open access advanced forum for studies related to Human Nutrition. It publishes reviews, regular research papers and short communications. Our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical results in as much detail as possible. There is no restriction on the length of the papers. The full experimental details must be provided so that the results can be reproduced.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信