Analysis reveals 74.4% of child-appealing foods exceed FOP labelling thresholds, indicating concern for children's health.
Objective: Canadian front-of-package (FOP) labelling regulations aim to improve dietary patterns by identifying foods high in sodium, sugars, and/or saturated fat with a ‘high in’ FOP nutrition symbol. However, child-appealing marketing on product packaging may undermine these efforts. Therefore, this study 1) compared the prevalence of FOP symbols between products with child-appealing and non-child appealing packaging in the Canadian food supply, and 2) identified the number and types of FOP symbols on products with child-appealing packaging. Design: Using the University of Toronto’s Food Label Information and Price 2017 database, 5,850 packaged foods were analyzed, 746 of which had child-appealing packaging. Products were assessed against FOP labelling regulations. Setting: Large grocery retailers by market share in Canada. Participants: Foods and beverages available in 2017. Results: 74.4% of products with child-appealing packaging would require a ‘high in’ FOP symbol, significantly higher than the 65.7% of products with non-child-appealing packaging. Notably, 54.4% of products with child-appealing packaging exceeded FOP labelling thresholds for sugars compared to 37.8% of products with non-child-appealing packaging. Conclusions: Findings highlight a policy gap in Canadian nutrition regulations, as child-appealing packaging remains a major source of marketing of unhealthy foods to children, undermining the impact of FOP labelling. To address this, food packaging should be included in Canada’s marketing restrictions, and products displaying a ‘high in’ FOP symbol should be automatically restricted from marketing to children. This study underscores the urgent need to harmonize Canadian nutrition regulations to synergistically promote healthier food choices among children and improve their health.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vergeer et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: