Range of processed foods available in France and nutrition labelling according to the type of brand

A comparison of the nutritional content of processed foods available on the French market, according to the type of brand, and potential impact on nutrient intakes—An Oqali study

“…Indeed, as considered products were collected between 2008 and 2011, when EU regulation n°1169/2011, which makes detailed nutritional labeling mandatory, was not yet in force, too few products labeled Big 8 components (energy, proteins, carbohydrate, sugars, fat, saturated fat, fibers, and sodium) on their back‐of‐pack nutrition tables. Moreover, there are great differences in detailed nutrition labeling between types of brands (Perrin et al., ) as evoked before (OQALI, ).…”

“…It should first be noted that much more nutrition data were available for national and retailer brand products (compare to hard discount and entry‐level retailer brands), mainly thanks to their higher number of products on the market. Moreover, national and retailer brand products had the highest frequencies of nutrition labeling (94% for retailer brands, 90% for national brands versus 87% for hard discount, and 71% for entry‐level retailer brands) and also of detailed nutrition labeling (76% for retailer brands, 61% for national brands versus 41% for hard discount, and 28% for entry‐level retailer brands) (Perrin et al, ). This is why comparisons were mainly feasible between retailer brands and national brands.…”

“…In the present study, 94% of retailer brands, 90% of national brands versus 87% of hard discount, and 71% of entry‐level retailer brands labeled Big 4 component contents (energy, fats, proteins, and carbohydrates). Concerning Big 8 components (previous components plus sugars, fibers, sodium, saturated fatty acids), a wider gap was observed: 76% for retailer brands, 61% for national brands versus 41% for hard discount, and 28% for entry‐level retailer brands (Perrin et al., ). It must be pointed out that considered products were collected between 2008 and 2011, when EU regulation n°1169/2011, which makes detailed nutritional labeling mandatory, was not yet in force.…”

“…It should be emphasized that the difficulty of studying labeled nutrition values is due in particular to the availability of such labeling. A study published in 2007 on first-price foods as compared to branded ones (Joly et al, 2007) for hard discount, and 28% for entry-level retailer brands (Perrin et al, 2017). It must be pointed out that considered products were collected between 2008 and 2011, when EU regulation n°1169/2011, which makes detailed nutritional labeling mandatory, was not yet in force.…”

Nutrient composition databases in the age of big data: foodDB, a comprehensive, real-time database infrastructure

“…Such a method could collate up-to-date nutritional data on a comprehensive set of foods that are purchased within a specific setting, although limited to only the nutritional data that are provided on food packaging. There have been various attempts to collate such databases: by crowdsourcing food label data using mobile phones (eg, FoodSwitch5) or web applications (eg, Open Food Facts6); by collecting data through contact with food manufacturers,7 industry or by periodic audits of foods on the market8; and by public–private partnerships aimed at extending national food composition tables 9–13. However, these databases are limited for research purposes as they do not regularly update nutritional data on products5 6 9–12; do not achieve comprehensive coverage of targeted foods5 6 10–13; require high levels of resources to maintain and update5; do not have transparent methods or adequate audit trails8; or rely on ongoing contributions from the food industry 9–13…”