From the most to the least flexible nutritional profile: Classification of foods marketed in Brazil according to the Brazilian and Mexican models

• Published in: Frontiers in nutrition (Lausanne) Vol. 9; p. 919582
• Main Authors: Tomaz, Luiza Andrade, Pereira, Crislei Gonçalves, Braga, Luiza Vargas Mascarenhas, Prates, Sarah Morais Senna, Silva, Alessandro Rangel Carolino Sales, Soares, Ana Paula da Costa, Faria, Natália Cristina de, Anastácio, Lucilene Rezende
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Frontiers Media S.A 20.09.2022
• Subjects: food labeling; food legislation; front-of-pack nutrition; labeling policies; nutrient profile; Nutrition; sweetners
• ISSN: 2296-861X; 2296-861X
• DOI: 10.3389/fnut.2022.919582

Nutrient profiling is the science of classifying or ranking foods according to their nutritional composition, for reasons related to disease prevention and health promotion. To be effective, policies such as front-of-pack nutrition labeling (FoPNL) must have an adequate nutritional profile model, since it will determine which products will be eligible to receive a FoPNL. This study aimed to determine the percentage of packaged food and drink products available in Brazil that would be subject to FoPNL under two different legislations: Brazilian and Mexican. This is a cross-sectional study in which we collected information on food products (photos of the ingredients list, the front label, the barcode, and the nutrition facts table) from one of the largest stores of a supermarket chain in the city of Belo Horizonte-MG, Brazil, from March to May 2021 (~6 months after the publication of the Brazilian legislation about FoPNL and a year and a half before the legislation came into force). The products were classified in relation to the BNPM (added sugars, saturated fats, and sodium) and the MNPM (energy, free sugars, saturated fats, trans fats, sodium, non-sugar sweeteners, and caffeine). A total of 3384 products were collected and, after applying the exclusion criteria, 3,335 products were evaluated. Of these, 2,901 would be eligible to receive FoPNL in Brazil and 2,914 would be eligible to receive FoPNL in Mexico. According to the BNPM, 56.7% (95% CI 54.9; 58.5%) of the products were “high in” critical nutrients, 27.1% (95% CI 25.5; 28.7%) of the products in added sugars, 26.7% (95% CI 25.2; 28.4%) of the products in saturated fats, and 21.4% (95% CI 19.9; 22.9%) of the products in sodium. As for the MNPM, 96.8% (95% CI 96.1; 97.4%) of them were “high in” up to five critical nutrients and up to two warning rectangles (caffeine and non-sugar sweeteners), 45.8% (95% CI 44.0; 47.6%) of them in free sugars, 43.7% (95% CI 41.9; 45.5%) of them in saturated fats, and 47.9% (95% CI 46.1; 49.7%) of them in sodium. We concluded that the eligibility to receive FoPNL by BNPM and MNPM was relatively similar between products; however, almost all products would have at least one FoPNL and/or warning rectangles according to Mexican legislation, and nearly half of them would have at least one FoPNL, considering BNPM. The MNPM is much more restrictive than the BNPM. The Nutrient Profile Model (NPM) that regulates FoPNL, and other health policies, must be carefully defined to ensure that foods are properly classified according to their healthiness.