Skip to main content

Table 4 Percentage of RTECs that met the respective nutrient profiles by sample, target group and claim type

From: Health-related on-pack communication and nutritional value of ready-to-eat breakfast cereals evaluated against five nutrient profiling schemes

Parameter Keyhole IWG EU OFCOM FSANZ
yes yes yes yes yes
% (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n)
All German RTECs 2010 (n = 128) 4 (5) 16 (20) 28 (36) 14 (18) 23 (29)
Products by target (sample 2010)
Children RTECs (n = 58) 0 (0) 0 (0) 9 (5) 2 (1) 9 (5)
Non-Children RTECs (n = 70) 7 (5) 30 (21) 44 (31) 24 (17) 34 (24)
Chi-square test a 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001
Products by claim type (sample 2010)
Nutrition or Health Claim (n = 77) 5 (4) 22 (17) 35 (27) 16 (12) 26 (20)
No Nutrition or Health Claim (n = 51) 2 (1) 8 (4) 18 (9) 12 (6) 18 (9)
Chi-square test a 0.049 0.044 0.612 0.291
Whole grain claim (n = 39) 10 (4) 41 (16) 46 (18) 21 (8) 36 (14)
No whole grain claim (n = 89) 1 (1) 6 (5) 20 (18) 11 (10) 17 (15)
Chi-square test a 0.000 0.005 0.177 0.023
Clean labelling (n = 15) 13 (2) 27 (4) 40 (6) 40 (6) 47 (7)
No clean labelling (n = 113) 3 (3) 15 (17) 27 (30) 11 (12) 19 (22)
Chi-square Test a a a a a
Healthy ingredients mentioned in product names (sample 2010)
Any healthy ingredient (n = 73) 6 (4) 23 (17) 33 (24) 15 (11) 25 (18)
No healthy ingredient (n = 55) 2 (1) 7 (4) 22 (12) 13 (7) 20 (11)
Chi-square Test a 0.017 0.233 0.801 0.670
Products by production method (sample 2010)
Organically certified (n = 11) 9 (1) 18 (2) 46 (5) 46 (5) 55 (6)
Conventional (n = 117) 3 (4) 16 (19) 27 (31) 11 (13) 20 (23)
Chi-square Test a a a a a
Products by country (sample 2012)
German RTECs 2012 (n = 73) 7 (5) 16 (12) 36 (26) 14 (10) 26 (19)
Norwegian RTECs 2012 (n = 38) 32 (12) 40 (15) 66 (25) 41 (15)b 60 (22)b
Chi-square Test 0.001 0.010 0.003 0.003 0.001
  1. a)Chi-square Test could not be applied, expected cell frequencies were below the adequate expected counts of 5 b)n = 37.