MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Claims and promotional strategies declared on front‐of‐pack processed and ultra‐processed products related with children and adolescent obesity in Costa Rica

2017· article· en· W4389020664 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Tatiana Gamboa-Gamboa, Adriana Blanco‐Metzler, Ingrid Gómez‐Duarte, Manuel Ramírez‐Zea, Maria F. Kroker‐Lobos

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicConsumer Attitudes and Food Labeling
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInternational Development Research Centre
KeywordsObesityPopulationUnhealthy foodFood scienceAdvertisingFood productsEnvironmental healthMedicineProduct (mathematics)Agricultural scienceBusinessMathematicsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Obesity prevalence in children and adolescent population in Costa Rica is more than 20%. This population is vulnerable to persuasive marketing techniques contained on food packaging. Objective The aim of the study was to analyze the presence of claims and the promotional strategies included in front‐of‐pack processed and ultra‐processed products related with obesity in children and adolescents. Methods 2642 products were analyzed. Information was obtained from pictures of packages from the 2015 the Program to Decrease Salt/Sodium Consumption in Costa Rica database. Food products were categorized in non‐alcoholic beverages, dairy sweetened beverages, muffins, cookies, snacks, breakfast cereals, cereal bars and confectionery. Nutritional and health claims; presence of promotional characters and premium offers were analyzed using standardized international methodology. Food products were stratified in two groups according with brand sales information based on Euromonitor International data for Costa Rica. First group represent the 50% of sales for each food category (lead brand), and the second was the rest of brands. A Chi square test (95%CI) was used to determine differences of claims and promotional strategies by brand sales group. Results 92% of dairy sweetened beverages, 89% of cereal bars and 85% of breakfast cereals had at least one nutritional claim. These product categories declared most frequently the nutritional claims. Referring to health claims, 44% of dairy sweetened beverages and 32% of breakfast cereals had at least one health claim. Presence of promotional characters was more frequent in breakfast cereals (45%), snacks (43%) and dairy sweetened beverages (35%), and breakfast cereals presented more premium offers (17%). Out of all products with at least one front‐of‐pack claim, the density of claims varies between food categories. The highest average of nutrition claims per product was found in breakfast cereals 2.8 ±1.6 and cookies 2,6 ±1,6; and the highest density of health claims was presented in breakfast cereals with 2,7 ±1,2, followed by dairy sweetened beverages 2,0 ±1,0. The comparison of nutritional claims and promotional characters by brand sales groups showed that lead brans of non‐alcoholic beverages have more nutrient claims compared with the rest (p=0.000). Lead brands of breakfast cereals have more promotional characters than the rest of the food categories (p=0.017). Conclusion The use of nutritional claims and promotional strategies is widespread in all obesity‐related food products. Breakfast cereals and non‐alcoholic beverages showed a high frequency claims and promotional strategies, specially in lead brands. This data shows the need of front‐of‐pack labeling and promotion regulation in order to generate healthier food environments to prevent childhood obesity in Costa Rica. Support or Funding Information The research leading to these results has received funding from IDRC Grant Number 107213‐002. And the Program to Decrease Salt/Sodium Consumption in Costa Rica with the financial support of the Food, Environment and Health Program del IDRC (project # 106888‐001) facilitated the 2015 National Plan to Reduce Consumption of Salt/Sodium in Costa Rica database. The opinions expressed in this article are the authors' own and do not reflect the opinion of the IDRC o their board of governors (Memorandum of Grant Conditions IDRC‐FUNDEVI from project # 106888‐001, Feb 14, 2012).

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.112

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.240 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicConsumer Attitudes and Food LabelingFrench-language works237,207