营养分析是根据食物的营养成分对食物进行分类或排名的科学,与疾病预防和健康促进有关的原因。为了有效,诸如包装前营养标签(FoPNL)等政策必须具有足够的营养概况模型,因为它将确定哪些产品有资格获得FiPNL。这项研究旨在确定巴西可获得的包装食品和饮料产品的百分比,这些产品将根据两个不同的立法受到FoPNL的限制:巴西和墨西哥。这是一项横断面研究,其中我们收集了有关食品的信息(成分清单的照片,前面的标签,条形码,和营养成分表)来自贝洛奥里藏特-MG市最大的连锁超市商店之一,巴西,2021年3月至5月(巴西关于FoPNL的立法公布后约6个月,立法生效前一年半)。产品根据BNPM(添加的糖,饱和脂肪,和钠)和MNPM(能量,免费糖,饱和脂肪,反式脂肪,钠,非糖甜味剂,和咖啡因)。总共收集了3384种产品,在应用排除标准后,评估了3,335个产品。其中,2,901将有资格在巴西获得FoPNL,2,914将有资格在墨西哥获得FoPNL。根据BNPM,56.7%(95%可信区间54.9;58.5%)的产品“富含”关键营养素,27.1%(95%CI25.5;28.7%)的添加糖产品,26.7%(95%CI25.2;28.4%)的饱和脂肪产品,和21.4%(95%CI19.9;22.9%)的钠产品。至于MNPM,其中96.8%(95%CI96.1;97.4%)的人“高”到五种关键营养素和两个警告矩形(咖啡因和非糖甜味剂),其中45.8%(95%CI44.0;47.6%)为游离糖,其中43.7%(95%CI41.9;45.5%)为饱和脂肪,其中47.9%(95%可信区间46.1;49.7%)为钠。我们得出的结论是,BNPM和MNPM获得FoPNL的资格在产品之间相对相似;然而,根据墨西哥法律,几乎所有产品都至少有一个FoPNL和/或警告矩形,将近一半的人会有至少一个FFPNL,考虑到BNPM。MNPM比BNPM更具限制性。调节FoPNL的营养概况模型(NPM),和其他卫生政策,必须仔细定义,以确保食物根据其健康程度进行适当分类。
Nutrient profiling is the science of classifying or ranking foods according to their nutritional composition, for reasons related to disease prevention and health promotion. To be effective, policies such as front-of-pack nutrition labeling (FoPNL) must have an adequate nutritional profile model, since it will determine which products will be eligible to receive a FoPNL. This study aimed to determine the percentage of packaged food and drink products available in Brazil that would be subject to FoPNL under two different legislations: Brazilian and Mexican. This is a cross-sectional study in which we collected information on food products (photos of the ingredients list, the front label, the barcode, and the nutrition facts table) from one of the largest stores of a supermarket chain in the city of Belo Horizonte-MG, Brazil, from March to May 2021 (~6 months after the publication of the Brazilian legislation about FoPNL and a year and a half before the legislation came into force). The products were classified in relation to the BNPM (added sugars, saturated fats, and sodium) and the MNPM (energy, free sugars, saturated fats, trans fats, sodium, non-sugar sweeteners, and caffeine). A total of 3384 products were collected and, after applying the exclusion criteria, 3,335 products were evaluated. Of these, 2,901 would be eligible to receive FoPNL in Brazil and 2,914 would be eligible to receive FoPNL in Mexico. According to the BNPM, 56.7% (95% CI 54.9; 58.5%) of the products were \"high in\" critical nutrients, 27.1% (95% CI 25.5; 28.7%) of the products in added sugars, 26.7% (95% CI 25.2; 28.4%) of the products in saturated fats, and 21.4% (95% CI 19.9; 22.9%) of the products in sodium. As for the MNPM, 96.8% (95% CI 96.1; 97.4%) of them were \"high in\" up to five critical nutrients and up to two warning rectangles (caffeine and non-sugar sweeteners), 45.8% (95% CI 44.0; 47.6%) of them in free sugars, 43.7% (95% CI 41.9; 45.5%) of them in saturated fats, and 47.9% (95% CI 46.1; 49.7%) of them in sodium. We concluded that the eligibility to receive FoPNL by BNPM and MNPM was relatively similar between products; however, almost all products would have at least one FoPNL and/or warning rectangles according to Mexican legislation, and nearly half of them would have at least one FoPNL, considering BNPM. The MNPM is much more restrictive than the BNPM. The Nutrient Profile Model (NPM) that regulates FoPNL, and other health policies, must be carefully defined to ensure that foods are properly classified according to their healthiness.