Nutritional Content According to the Presence of Front of Package Marketing Strategies: The Case of Ultra-Processed Snack Food Products Purchased in Costa Rica
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The industry uses nutrition and health claims, premium offers, and promotional characters as marketing strategies (MS). The inclusion of these MS on ultra-processed products may influence child and adolescent purchase behavior. This study determined the proportion of foods carrying claims and marketing strategies, also the proportion of products with critical nutrients declaration, and nutritional profile differences between products that carry or not claims and MS on the front-of-package (FoP) of ultra-processed food products sold in Costa Rica. Data were obtained from 2423 photographs of seven food groups consumed as snacks that were sold in one of the most widespread and popular hypermarket chains in Costa Rica in 2015. Ten percent of products lacked a nutrition facts panel. Sodium was the least reported critical nutrient. Energy and critical nutrients were significantly highest in products that did not include any nutrition or health claim and in products that included at least one MS. Forty-four percent and 10% of all products displayed at least one nutrition or at least one health claim, respectively, and 23% displayed at least one MS. In conclusion, regulations are needed to restrict claims and marketing on ultra-processed food packages to generate healthier food environments and contribute to the prevention of childhood and adolescent obesity in Costa Rica.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".