The Relationship Between Regulatory Frameworks for Protein Content Claims for Plant Protein Foods and the Nutrient Intakes of Canadian Adults.

IF 5 2区 医学 Q1 NUTRITION & DIETETICS
Nutrients Pub Date : 2025-09-18 DOI:10.3390/nu17182987
Songhee Back, Christopher P F Marinangeli, Antonio Rossi, Lamar Elfaki, Mavra Ahmed, Victoria Chen, Shuting Yang, Andreea Zurbau, Alison M Duncan, Mary R L'Abbe, Cyril W C Kendall, John L Sievenpiper, Laura Chiavaroli
{"title":"The Relationship Between Regulatory Frameworks for Protein Content Claims for Plant Protein Foods and the Nutrient Intakes of Canadian Adults.","authors":"Songhee Back, Christopher P F Marinangeli, Antonio Rossi, Lamar Elfaki, Mavra Ahmed, Victoria Chen, Shuting Yang, Andreea Zurbau, Alison M Duncan, Mary R L'Abbe, Cyril W C Kendall, John L Sievenpiper, Laura Chiavaroli","doi":"10.3390/nu17182987","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> The inability to assign a protein content claim (PCC) to plant foods may impede efforts from Canada's Food Guide to increase consumption of plant protein. A systematic application of PCC frameworks from other regions to Canadian nutrition surveillance data would be useful to model potential effects of PCC regulations on the nutrient intake, protein quality, and corrected protein intake of diets. <b>Methods:</b> Plant food groups that qualified for a PCC within the Canadian Nutrient File according to regulations from Canada, the United States (US), Australia and New Zealand (ANZ), and the European Union (EU) were identified. Adults (≥19 years) (n = 11,817) from The Canadian Community Health Survey (2015) who consumed ≥1 plant food qualifying for a PCC in each region were allocated to the corresponding PCC group. The effects of Canadian PCC regulations on the protein quantity, quality (Digestible Indispensable Amino Acid Score, DIAAS), and nutrient intakes of Canadian diets in adults were compared to PCC groups from other regions. <b>Results:</b> Substantially more individuals were consumers of plant-based protein foods, using the ANZ and the EU PCC regulations, compared to the Canadian and US PCC groups. There were no differences in uncorrected protein intake across PCC groups. All DIAAS values were >0.94, and corrected protein intakes were >74-89 g/day or 16%E across PCC groups. Non-consumers of plant foods eligible for a PCC had corrected protein intakes that ranged between 68 and 78 g/d or 17%E. Generally, consumers of plant foods eligible for a PCC in the US, ANZ, and EU, or both Canada and the US/ANZ/EU, had higher intakes of positive nutrients, such as fibre, calcium, iron, magnesium, and zinc (<i>p</i> < 0.05) and lower saturated fat. <b>Conclusions:</b> Less restrictive regulatory frameworks for PCC used in ANZ and the EU did not substantially affect protein intake or the protein quality of Canadian diets in adults. These results suggest that more inclusive regulatory frameworks for protein PCCs could support increased intake of food sources of plant proteins in alignment with Canada's Food Guide.</p>","PeriodicalId":19486,"journal":{"name":"Nutrients","volume":"17 18","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12473015/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nutrients","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/nu17182987","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: The inability to assign a protein content claim (PCC) to plant foods may impede efforts from Canada's Food Guide to increase consumption of plant protein. A systematic application of PCC frameworks from other regions to Canadian nutrition surveillance data would be useful to model potential effects of PCC regulations on the nutrient intake, protein quality, and corrected protein intake of diets. Methods: Plant food groups that qualified for a PCC within the Canadian Nutrient File according to regulations from Canada, the United States (US), Australia and New Zealand (ANZ), and the European Union (EU) were identified. Adults (≥19 years) (n = 11,817) from The Canadian Community Health Survey (2015) who consumed ≥1 plant food qualifying for a PCC in each region were allocated to the corresponding PCC group. The effects of Canadian PCC regulations on the protein quantity, quality (Digestible Indispensable Amino Acid Score, DIAAS), and nutrient intakes of Canadian diets in adults were compared to PCC groups from other regions. Results: Substantially more individuals were consumers of plant-based protein foods, using the ANZ and the EU PCC regulations, compared to the Canadian and US PCC groups. There were no differences in uncorrected protein intake across PCC groups. All DIAAS values were >0.94, and corrected protein intakes were >74-89 g/day or 16%E across PCC groups. Non-consumers of plant foods eligible for a PCC had corrected protein intakes that ranged between 68 and 78 g/d or 17%E. Generally, consumers of plant foods eligible for a PCC in the US, ANZ, and EU, or both Canada and the US/ANZ/EU, had higher intakes of positive nutrients, such as fibre, calcium, iron, magnesium, and zinc (p < 0.05) and lower saturated fat. Conclusions: Less restrictive regulatory frameworks for PCC used in ANZ and the EU did not substantially affect protein intake or the protein quality of Canadian diets in adults. These results suggest that more inclusive regulatory frameworks for protein PCCs could support increased intake of food sources of plant proteins in alignment with Canada's Food Guide.

植物蛋白食品蛋白质含量声明的监管框架与加拿大成年人营养摄入量的关系。
背景:无法为植物性食品指定蛋白质含量声明(PCC)可能会阻碍加拿大食品指南增加植物蛋白消费的努力。将其他地区的PCC框架系统地应用于加拿大营养监测数据,将有助于模拟PCC法规对膳食营养摄入量、蛋白质质量和校正后蛋白质摄入量的潜在影响。方法:根据加拿大、美国、澳大利亚和新西兰以及欧盟的规定,对加拿大营养文件中符合PCC要求的植物性食品进行鉴定。来自加拿大社区健康调查(2015)的成年人(≥19岁)(n = 11,817)在每个地区食用≥1种符合PCC的植物性食品,被分配到相应的PCC组。比较了加拿大PCC法规对加拿大成人日粮蛋白质数量、质量(可消化必需氨基酸评分,DIAAS)和营养素摄入量的影响。结果:与加拿大和美国的PCC组相比,使用ANZ和欧盟PCC法规,更多的人是植物性蛋白食品的消费者。未校正蛋白质摄入量在PCC组之间没有差异。各组的DIAAS值均为0.94,校正后的蛋白质摄入量为0.89 g/d (16%E)。符合PCC标准的植物性食品的非消费者的蛋白质摄入量在68 - 78克/天或17%E之间。一般来说,在美国、澳新银行和欧盟,或加拿大和美国/澳新银行/欧盟,符合PCC标准的植物性食品的消费者摄入了更多的有益营养物质,如纤维、钙、铁、镁和锌(p < 0.05),饱和脂肪含量较低。结论:澳新银行和欧盟使用的PCC限制较少的监管框架并没有实质性地影响加拿大成人饮食中的蛋白质摄入量或蛋白质质量。这些结果表明,针对蛋白质PCCs的更具包容性的监管框架可以支持增加植物蛋白食物来源的摄入量,与加拿大食品指南保持一致。
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信