Skip to Main Content
TABLE 3

Difference in Proportion of Nutrition Categories for Child-Targeted GF Products Versus Product Equivalent With No Claim

Nutritional ValueMatched Data Set (N = 43)
GF Claim (n = 43), n (%)No Claim (n = 43), n (%)Pa
Sodium ratio ≥1 7 (16.3) 10 (23.3) .001 
Fat >30% 5 (11.6) 2 (4.7) <.001 
Sugar or free sugars >10% 34 (79.1) 35 (81.4) <.001 
Saturated fat ≥10% 6 (14.0) 5 (11.6) .08 
Trans fat ≥1% 2 (4.7) 1 (2.3) <.001 
Artificial sugars 5 (11.6) — 
Added sugars 32 (74.4) 33 (76.7) <.001 
Overall poor nutrition (PAHO criteria) 37 (88.1) 39 (92.9) <.001 
Overall not poor nutrition 5 (11.9) 3 (7.1) — 
Nutritional ValueMatched Data Set (N = 43)
GF Claim (n = 43), n (%)No Claim (n = 43), n (%)Pa
Sodium ratio ≥1 7 (16.3) 10 (23.3) .001 
Fat >30% 5 (11.6) 2 (4.7) <.001 
Sugar or free sugars >10% 34 (79.1) 35 (81.4) <.001 
Saturated fat ≥10% 6 (14.0) 5 (11.6) .08 
Trans fat ≥1% 2 (4.7) 1 (2.3) <.001 
Artificial sugars 5 (11.6) — 
Added sugars 32 (74.4) 33 (76.7) <.001 
Overall poor nutrition (PAHO criteria) 37 (88.1) 39 (92.9) <.001 
Overall not poor nutrition 5 (11.9) 3 (7.1) — 

—, not applicable.

a

χ2 test.

Close Modal

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal