The Availability and Quality of Food Labelling Components in the Canadian E-Grocery Retail Environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although packaged foods sold in retail stores must follow food labelling regulations, there are no e-grocery food labelling regulations to mandate and standardize the availability and presentation of product information. Therefore, the objective of the study was to evaluate the availability and quality of food labelling components in the Canadian e-grocery retail environment. METHODS: A sample of fresh and pre-packaged products was identified on eight leading grocery retail websites in Canada, to assess the availability and quality of food labelling components. RESULTS: Out of 555 product searches, all products were accompanied by product images with front-of-pack images more readily available (96.0%) than back-of-pack (12.4%) and other side panel images (3.1%). The following mandatory nutrition information was available for 61.1% of the products: nutrition facts table (68.8%), ingredient (73.9%), and allergen (53.8%) information. The majority of the nutrition information was available after scrolling down, clicking additionally on the description page, or viewing only as an image. Date markings were not available; packaging material information was available for 2.0% of the products. CONCLUSIONS: There was wide variability and inconsistencies in the presentation of food labelling components in the e-grocery retail environment, which can be barriers in enabling Canadians to make informed purchasing decisions.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".