The healthfulness and prominence of sugar in child-targeted breakfast cereals in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to compare the nutritional content and healthfulness of child-targeted and "not child-targeted" breakfast cereals and to assess the predominance of added sugar in these products. METHODS: We collected data on the nutritional content of 262 unique breakfast cereals found in the five largest grocery store chains in Ottawa (Ontario) and Gatineau (Quebec). We noted the first five ingredients and the number of added sugars present in each cereal from the ingredients list. The various cereal brands were then classified as either "healthier" or "less healthy" using the UK Nutrient Profile Model. We assessed each cereal to determine if it was child-targeted or not, based on set criteria. Statistical comparisons were made between child and not child-targeted cereals. RESULTS: 19.8% of all breakfast cereals were child-targeted, and these were significantly lower in total and saturated fat. Child-targeted cereals were significantly higher in sodium and sugar and lower in fibre and protein, and were three times more likely to be classified as "less healthy" compared to not child-targeted cereals. No child-targeted cereals were sugar-free, and sugar was the second most common ingredient in 75% of cereals. Six breakfast cereal companies had child-targeted product lines that consisted entirely of "less healthy" cereals. CONCLUSION: There is a need for regulations that restrict food marketing to children and youth under the age of 17 on packaging to reduce their appeal to this age group. Children's breakfast cereals also need to be reformulated through government-set targets, or through regulation should compliance be deemed unacceptable.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".