MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415917015 · doi:10.1186/s40795-025-01186-z

Associations between the overall nutritional quality of prepackaged food categories consumed at breakfast or as snacks and the presence of nutrition-related labelling messages: a cross-sectional analysis of products sold in the province of Québec (Canada)

2025· article· en· W4415917015 on OpenAlexafffundabout
A. Vezina, Alicia Corriveau, Mylène Turcotte, Clara-Jane Rhéaume, Véronique Provencher, Marie‐Ève Labonté

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Nutrition · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicConsumer Attitudes and Food Labeling
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsLabellingClinical nutritionFood labellingNutrition LabelingQuality (philosophy)Food products

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In Canada, there are no requirements regarding the healthfulness of foods carrying nutrition claims. Also, as of 2026, most prepackaged foods with a high content in saturated fat, sugars and/or sodium will be required to display Health Canada's front-of-pack symbol (HC-FOPS), regardless of their overall nutritional quality. This study aims to evaluate the associations between the overall nutritional quality of prepackaged foods and the presence of nutrition claims as well as of HC-FOPS on those foods. METHODS: The score from -15 (more nutritious) to + 40 (less nutritious) or the accompanying grade from A to E generated by the Nutri-Score was used to assess the overall nutritional quality of four food categories from the Food Quality Observatory: Breakfast cereals (n = 310), Sliced breads (n = 261), Granola bars (n = 234), and Yogurts and dairy desserts (n = 279). Data were sales-weighted to better represent what consumers are buying. RESULTS: In all categories, products with nutrition claims had a better overall nutritional quality (i.e. lower sales-weighted mean score) than products without claims (e.g. 8.00 ± 5.70 vs. 12.14 ± 4.41, respectively, for Breakfast cereals; -0.56 ± 3.01 vs. 1.31 ± 2.04 for Sliced breads; 10.16 ± 3.50 vs. 15.56 ± 5.00 for Granola bars; 0.43 ± 1.65 vs. 1.38 ± 2.70 for Yogurts and dairy desserts; all p ≤ 0.0004). Conversely, products which would be required to carry HC-FOPS generally had a lower overall nutritional quality than products which would not carry the symbol. However, additional analyses showed that some less nutritious foods (i.e. graded with letters D or E) carried nutrition claims or would not be required to display HC-FOPS, particularly in the categories of Granola bars (43.2% and 38.5%, respectively) and Breakfast cereals (23.8% and 11.8%). CONCLUSIONS: These findings show that while the presence of nutrition claims and the absence of HC-FOPS are generally indicative of a better overall nutritional quality, inconsistencies persist. This highlights the importance of strong educational campaigns to help consumers use nutrition-related labelling messages adequately. Results could also be used to support a more stringent regulatory framework for nutrition claims and HC-FOPS.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.289
Threshold uncertainty score0.913

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC NutritionSame topicConsumer Attitudes and Food LabelingFrench-language works237,207