A number of recommendations for policy and program interventions to limit excess free sugar consumption have emerged, however there are a lack of data describing the amounts and types of sugar in foods. This study presents an assessment of sugar in Canadian prepackaged foods including: (a) the first systematic calculation of free sugar contents; (b) a comprehensive assessment of total sugar and free sugar levels; and (c) sweetener and free sugar ingredient use, using the University of Toronto’s Food Label Information Program (FLIP) database 2013 (n = 15,342). Food groups with the highest proportion of foods containing free sugar ingredients also had the highest median total sugar and free sugar contents (per 100 g/mL): desserts (94%, 15 g, and 12 g), sugars and sweets (91%, 50 g, and 50 g), and bakery products (83%, 16 g, and 14 g, proportion with free sugar ingredients, median total sugar and free sugar content in Canadian foods, respectively). Free sugar accounted for 64% of total sugar content. Eight of 17 food groups had ≥75% of the total sugar derived from free sugar. Free sugar contributed 20% of calories overall in prepackaged foods and beverages, with the highest at 70% in beverages. These data can be used to inform interventions aimed at limiting free sugar consumption.

Nutrient content claims, health claims, and front-of-pack symbols (henceforth referred to as “nutrition claims” in the present study) are often found on food labels in Canada. However, it is currently unknown whether foods and beverages (F&Bs) carrying nutrition claims have a more favourable nutritional profile than those without such claims. This study examined differences in the global nutritional quality, as determined by the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Nutrient Profiling Scoring Criterion (FSANZ-NPSC), of Canadian F&B bearing nutrition claims as compared to those without, as well as in their nutritional composition. Data (n = 15,184) was obtained from the University of Toronto 2013 Food Label Information Program. Forty-two percent of F&Bs carrying nutrition claims (n = 2930/6990) were found to be ineligible to carry claims based on the FSANZ-NPSC, in comparison to 66% of F&Bs without (n = 5401/8194, p < 0.001). Sugars and sweets, and miscellaneous products were the food categories with larger proportions of foods carrying nutrition claims not meeting the FSANZ-NPSC eligibility criteria. F&Bs with nutrition claims had fewer calories, less saturated fat, sodium, and sugar, and higher content of protein and fibre than comparable products without nutrition claims (p < 0.05 in all cases). In conclusion, nearly half of F&Bs carrying nutrition claims in Canada did not meet the FSANZ-NPSC threshold, although Canadian products carrying nutrition claims have an overall “healthier” profile than their counterparts without such claims.

The objective of this study was to evaluate differences in calories, nutrient content, overall healthfulness, and use of sweetener ingredients between products with and without sugar claims. Consumers assume products with sugar claims are healthier and lower in calories. It is therefore important claims be found on comparatively healthier items. This study is a cross-sectional analysis of the University of Toronto’s 2013 Food Label Database. Subcategories where at least 5% of products (and n ≥ 5) carried a sugar claim were included (n = 3048). Differences in median calorie content, nutrient content, and overall healthfulness, using the Food Standards Australia/New Zealand Nutrient Profiling Scoring criterion, between products with and without sugar claims, were determined. Proportion of products with and without claims that had excess free sugar levels (≥10% of calories from free sugar) and that contained sweeteners was also determined. Almost half (48%) of products with sugar claims contained excess free sugar, and a greater proportion contained sweeteners than products without such claims (30% vs 5%, χ² = 338.6, p < 0.0001). Overall, products with sugar claims were “healthier” and had lower median calorie, free sugar, total sugar, and sodium contents than products without claims. At the subcategory level, reductions in free sugar contents were not always met with similar reductions in calorie contents. This study highlights concerns with regards to the nutritional composition of products bearing sugar claims. Findings can support educational messaging to assist consumer interpretation of sugar claims and can inform changes in nutrition policies, for example, permitting sugar claims only on products with calorie reductions and without excess free sugar.

In 2010, nutrition claims were investigated in Canadian foods; however, many nutrition and other claims have been introduced since then. This study aimed to determine: i) the proportion of foods carrying claims in 2013, ii) the types and prevalence of nutrition claims (nutrient content claims, health claims, general health claims) and other claims displayed on labels in 2013, iii) and trends in use of nutrition claims between 2010 and 2013. Repeated cross-sectional analysis of the University of Toronto Food Label Information Program (FLIP) of Canadian foods (2010/11 n = 10,487; 2013 n = 15,342). Regulated nutrition claims (nutrient content, health claims) were classified according to Canadian regulations. A decision tree was used to classify non-regulated general health claims (e.g., front-of-pack claims). Other claims (e.g., gluten-free) were also collected. Proportions of claims in 2013 were determined and χ2 was used to test significant differences for different types of claims between 2010 and 2013. Overall, 49% of products in 2013 displayed any type of claim and 46% of foods in FLIP 2013 carried a nutrition claim (nutrient content claim, health claim, general health claim). Meal replacements and fruits/fruits juices were the categories with the largest proportion of foods with claims. At least one approved nutrient content claim was carried on 42.9% of products compared to 45.5% in 2010 (p < 0.001). Health claims, specifically disease risk reduction claims, were slightly lower in 2013 (1.5%) compared to 1.7% in 2010 (p = 0.225). General health claims, specifically front-of-pack claims, were carried on 20% of foods compared to 18.9% in 2010 (p = 0.020). Other claims, specifically gluten-free, were present on 7.3% of foods. Nutrition and other claims were used on half of Canadian prepackaged foods in 2013. Many claims guidelines and regulations have been released since 2010; however, little impact has been seen in the prevalence of such claims in the food supply. Claims related to nutrients of public health priority, such as sugars and sodium, were not commonly used on food labels. Monitoring trends in the use of nutrition and other claims is essential to determine if their use on food labels reflects public health objectives, or instead are being used as marketing tools.

The association between the degree of processing and healthfulness of foods remains unclear. Most evidence of this relationship is based on dietary intake surveys rather than individual products and varies depending on the food processing classification system used. This study aimed to compare the nutritional quality of more- versus less-processed packaged foods and beverages in Canada, using a large, branded food database and two processing classification systems. Nutritional information for products (n = 17,269) was sourced from the University of Toronto FLIP 2017 database. Products were categorized using the NOVA and Poti et al. processing classification systems. Calories, sodium, saturated fat, total and free sugars, fibre and protein per 100 g (or mL) were examined by processing category using descriptive statistics and linear regression. Overall, the most-processed products under both systems were more likely to be lower in protein, and higher in total and free sugars, compared with less-processed foods (p < 0.05); the direction and strength of the association between other nutrients/components and level of processing were less consistent. These findings demonstrate that calorie- and nutrient-dense foods exist across different levels of processing, suggesting that food choices and dietary recommendations should be based primarily on energy or nutrient density rather than processing classification.