20120328 - Marketing claims and the nutritional balance of breakfast cereals - 2012

[Data]

[<Normal page] [PEREZGONZALEZ Jose D (2012). Marketing claims and the nutritional balance of breakfast cereals. Journal of Knowledge Advancement & Integration (ISSN 1177-4576), 2012, pages 97-104.]

Table of Contents

Marketing claims and the nutritional balance of breakfast cereals

Generalization potential

Marketing claims and the nutritional balance of breakfast cereals

Perezgonzalez assessed the nutritional balance of breakfast cereals in 2012 (see b³,c⁴,d⁵,e⁶,f⁷,g⁸). The same data can be analysed further, to ascertain whether marketing claims may (unintentionally) inform about the overall nutritional balance of above products. The claims of greatest interest are nutrition-related claims (such as low-sodium, low-sugar, high-fiber, and low-fat), as well as more generic claims related to health or wellbeing (such as wholegrain, heart-health -eg, the Heart Foundation's "Tick"-, and overall health -eg, Pams' "Pick Me sun" logo).

Illustration 1 collates information per group within claims, namely group size, as well as nutritional balance (BNI) median and interquartile range. Illustration 2 collates information about mean ranks per group, as well as tests for equality of independent ranked distributions (Mann-Whitney U tests and equivalent Z areas).

Illustration 1: Group size, median & interquartile range per claim group
Claims	'No'			'Yes'
	n	median	( IQR )	n	median	( IQR )
High fiber	53	56.21	( 55.13 )	26	36.81	( 33.09 )
Low sodium	58	40.89	( 55.12 )	21	33.14	( 23.98 )
Low sugar	75	39.68	( 51.82 )	4	22.04	( 27.60 )
Low fat	39	35.40	( 50.28 )	40	44.65	( 43.44 )

Wholegrains	65	55.58	( 54.70 )	14	34.27	( 19.73 )
Pick Me sun	76	39.59	( 52.17 )	3	29.53	( … )
Heart health	56	36.99	( 61.22 )	23	40.89	( 27.27 )
[Tick	57	37.23	( 60.85 )	22	40.20	( 27.55)]
(Medians closer to 0.0 indicate greater balance.)

According to these results, it can be concluded that:

Cereals grouped according to 'wholegrain' claims show ranked group distances so extreme that, by chance alone, such distances would only occur about 4 times in a 1000. As 'wholegrain' cereals have a lower median (34.27) than otherwise (55.58), it can be concluded that cereals with a 'wholegrain' claim are more balanced nutritionally. Indeed, such claim alone would identify some 32% of more nutritionally balanced breakfast cereals (see rho values in illustration 3).
Cereals grouped according to 'low sugar' claims show ranked group distances so extreme that, by chance alone, they would only occur about 5 times in a 100. As these cereals have a lower median (22.04) than otherwise (39.68), it can be concluded that cereals with a 'low sugar' claim are more balanced nutritionally. Indeed, such claim alone would identify some 22% of more nutritionally balanced breakfast cereals.
Cereals grouped according to 'low fat' claims show ranked group distances so extreme that, by chance alone, they would only occur about 2 times in a 100. As these cereals have a higher median (44.65) than otherwise (35.40), it can be concluded that cereals with a 'low fat' claim are less balanced nutritionally. Indeed, such claim alone would identify some 26% of less nutritionally balanced breakfast cereals.
Cereals with 'high fiber' and 'low sodium' claims, and, perhaps, those with the 'Pick Me sun' logo, may help identify the nutritional balance of breakfast cereals. However, this procedure is increasingly less dependable, for, by chance alone, group differences in nutritional balance would occur about 10 times in a 100 for cereals with 'high fiber' claims, about 13 times in a 100 for cereals with 'low sodium' claims, and about 19 times in a 100 for cereals with the 'Pick Me sun' logo. Furthermore, at most the nutritional balance of 19%, 17% and 15% of cereals would be identified with any of those claims, respectively.
'Heart health' claims (including the Heart Foundation's 'Tick' logo) inform practically nothing about the nutritional balance of breakfast cereals.

Illustration 2. Mann-Whitney U tests
Claims	m.rank 'no'	m.rank 'yes'	U	Z	( p )
Wholegrain	45.15	29.50	416.0	-2.85	( .004 )
Low fat	36.48	49.71	405.0	-2.26	( .024 )
Low sugar	41.18	17.88	61.5	-1.98	( .048 )

High fiber	44.40	35.71	608.5	-1.68	( .093 )
Low sodium	41.81	31.61	337.5	-1.51	( .131 )
Pick Me sun	40.68	22.83	62.5	-1.32	( .186 )
Heart health	39.38	41.52	609.0	-.38	( .706 )
[Tick	39.68	40.82	609.0	-.20	( .844 )]
(Mean ranks closer to 0.0 indicate greater balance. 2-tailed significance tests)

Illustration 3 collates information about three multiple regression models which explore combinations of claims. Overall, when considering all seven claims at once (regression model 1, R1, 'enter' procedure), the nutritional balance of 52% of breakfast cereals in the sample can be identified correctly (ie, more claims predict a more balanced product even if not all claims appear on the same product). The second regression model (R2, 'enter' procedure) eliminates the less relevant claims from model 1, and is able to identify the nutritional balance of about 52% of breakfast cereals in the sample by attending to just five claims: 'wholegrain', '[absence of] low fat', 'low sugar', the 'Pick Me sun' logo, and '[absence of] heart health-related claims'. The third regression model (R3, 'stepwise' procedure) retains the three claims found significant earlier (those presented in illustration 2), and is able to identify the nutritional balance of about 48% of breakfast cereals in the sample by attending to just three claims: 'wholegrain', 'low sugar', and '[absence of] low fat'. Each model is able to predict the nutritional balance of breakfast cereals in approximately the same proportion, but the latter models allow to do so by attending to a lesser number of claims, thus being more efficient. Indeed, the 'usability' of each regression model for predicting the nutritional balance of breakfast cereals not in the sample is, approximately, 45%, 47% and 45%, respectively (adjusted Rs).

Illustration 3. Multiple regression models on the ranked BNI
			R1		R2		R3
	rho	( p )	β	( p )	β	( p )	β	( p )
Wholegrain	-.323	( .004 )	-.356	( .003 )	-.380	( .001 )	-.318	( .002 )
Low fat	.256	( .023 )	.284	( .008 )	.271	( .010 )	.272	( .009 )
Low sugar	-.224	( .047 )	-.170	( .182 )	-.195	( .112 )	-.270	( .010 )
High fiber	-.190	( .093 )	-.034	( .789 )
Low sodium	-.171	( .132 )	-.069	( .569 )
Pick Me sun	-.150	( .188 )	-.156	( .222 )	-.169	( .180 )
Heart health	.043	( .708 )	.154	( .165 )	.159	( .141 )

		R1 =	.524	( .001 )
				R2 =	.517	( .000 )
						R3 =	.482	( .000 )

		Adj.R1 =	.451	Adj.R2 =	.467	Adj.R3 =	.449
(Dependent variable = BNI. 2-tailed significance tests)

Methods

Research approach

Exploratory study.

Sample

The research sample included 79 breakfast cereals (ie, oats, wheat, rice, corn, bran and muesli). Although the research aimed for a stratified sampling procedure, products were nonetheless collected in a convenient manner (see Perezgonzalez, 2012a²).

Materials

The main (or dependent) variables was the BNI classification for each food as assessed using the Balanced Nutrition Index™ (BNI™) technology (see Perezgonzalez, 2011¹).

Grouping (or independent) variables were seven nutrition-related or health-related claims: high fiber, low sodium, low sugar, low fat, wholegrain, heart health, and Pams' "Pick Me sun" logo. A claim was considered valid for research independently of whether the claim was a broad statement (eg, low fat) or a specific one (eg, 98% fat free). Other claims deemed less relevant were not considered for this research (eg, high protein, low GI, etc). (Illustration 4 identifies the products that fell within each group.)

Illustration 4: Breakfast cereals with nutritional or health claims
Product100g	BNI	Low sugar	High fiber	Low sodium	Low fat	Whole grain	Heart health	Pick Me sun
Be Natural multi grain porridge	6.07	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	No
Harraways organic rolled oats	6.83	No	No	No	No	No	Yes	No
Traditional Porridge brown sugar & cinnamon	6.89	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	No
Be Natural cashew, almond, hazelnut & coconut	8.25	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	No
Homebrand traditional muesli	9.77	No	Yes	No	No	No	No	No
Harraways organic wholegrain oats	12.21	No	No	No	No	No	No	No
Harraways traditional wholegrain oats	12.21	No	No	No	No	No	No	No
Harraways rolled oats	12.21	No	Yes	No	No	No	No	No
Harraways Scotch oats	12.21	No	Yes	No	No	No	No	No
Oat Singles plain	12.21	No	No	No	No	No	Yes	No
Creamy porridge	12.21	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes
Home Brand Quick Oats	12.26	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	No
Be Natural vanilla almond porridge	12.64	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	No
Oat Singles chocolate	16.64	No	No	No	No	No	No	No
Simply Reduced Fat Muesli cranberry & vanilla	18.04	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	No	No
Vogel's rolled oats plus	18.24	No	No	No	No	No	No	No
Simply toasted muesli original	19.69	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	No
Pams natural muesli	20.25	No	No	No	No	No	No	No
Big Breakfast toasted muesli	20.26	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	No
Simply toasted muesli 5 golden grains	20.35	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	No
Woolworths Select muesli morning crunch	20.83	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	No
Pams toasted muesli	24.16	No	No	No	No	No	No	No
Be Natural pink lady, flame raisins & fruit	24.76	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	No
Oats Smooth & Tasty vanilla	26.26	No	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	No
Pams reduced fat toasted muesli	29.53	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes
Uncle Tobys Plus omega 3	29.81	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	No
Sanitarium puffed wheat	31.88	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No
Vogel's manuka, honey & apricot porridge	33.54	No	No	No	No	No	No	No
Oats Smooth & Tasty strawberry	34.13	No	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	No
Simply toasted muesli apricot	34.40	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	No
Oats Smooth & Tasty honey	34.51	No	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	No
Weet-Bix	35.26	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	No
Oat Singles honey & golden syrup	35.55	No	No	No	No	No	No	No
Sustain original	36.00	No	No	No	No	Yes	No	No
Pams wheat biskits	36.32	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	Yes
Oat Singles morning berry	36.74	No	No	No	No	No	No	No
Harraways fruit harvest	37.24	No	No	No	No	No	No	No
Mini Wheats mixed berry flavour	37.31	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No
Homebrand wheat biscuits	37.46	No	Yes	No	No	No	No	No
Mini Wheats blackcurrant flavor	38.79	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No
Bran & berries	39.51	No	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	No
Oat Singles apple, sultana & cinnamon	39.68	No	No	No	No	No	No	No
Bran & apricot	40.89	No	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	No
Sanitarium Honey Puffs	40.90	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No
Fibre Life bran flakes	41.40	No	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	No
Be Natural 5 whole grains	43.11	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	No
Pams Lite & Fruity apricot fruit	44.65	No	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	No
Freedom Foods rice flakes with psyllium	44.94	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No
Just Right original	54.64	No	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	No
Kellogg's sultana bran	55.58	No	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	No
J.R.Fields choc scoops	56.21	No	No	No	No	No	No	No
Special K	56.50	No	No	No	Yes	No	No	No
Budget tropical muesli	57.29	No	No	No	No	No	No	No
Alison Holst decadent delight	57.82	No	No	No	No	No	No	No
Bran & sultana	60.33	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	No
All-Bran Wheat Flakes honey almond	61.40	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	No
Heart 1st	67.46	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	No
All-Bran Wheat Flakes original	68.58	No	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	No
Nutri-Grain	70.08	No	No	No	No	No	No	No
Alison Holst rise & shine	72.63	No	No	No	No	No	Yes	No
J.R.Fields corns scoops	72.65	No	No	No	No	No	No	No
Kellogg's corn flakes	74.90	No	No	No	Yes	No	No	No
J.R.Fields rice pops	80.35	No	No	No	No	No	No	No
Coco Pops	81.29	No	No	No	Yes	No	No	No
Budget cocoa puffs	81.39	No	No	No	No	No	No	No
Homebrand cocoa puffs	81.39	No	No	No	No	No	No	No
Rice Bubbles	81.69	No	No	No	Yes	No	No	No
Homebrand corn flakes	81.93	No	No	No	No	No	No	No
Frosties	82.76	No	No	No	Yes	No	No	No
J.R.Fields honey wheats	84.04	No	No	No	No	No	No	No
Homebrand rice pops	84.05	No	No	No	No	No	No	No
Sanitarium Ricies	84.63	No	No	No	Yes	No	No	No
Crispix honey	87.65	No	No	No	Yes	No	No	No
Protein 1st	90.43	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	No
All-Bran original	97.55	No	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	No
Healtheries bran flakes	128.74	No	No	No	No	No	No	No
Brantastix	129.23	No	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	No
Homebrand natural brand	131.80	No	Yes	No	No	No	No	No
San Bran	156.01	No	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	No
(All cereals with a heart claim did so under the Heart Foundation's 'Tick' logo, except for 'Heart 1st'. Source: Perezgonzalez, 2012a²)*

Analysis

Probability / significance testing (Fisher's approach), 2-tailed, taken the probability of the data (p) as evidence against the null hypothesis.
Assessment of statistical significance was based on the lower value of either the conventional upper limit of p ≤ .05 or more extreme probabilities.
The distribution of the BNI variable deviated from normality in a significant manner (see illustration 5), some of the claim groups were too small in size, and not all variables were related linearly with the dependent variable (BNI) (see illustration 6). Thus, a non-parametric approach was used for statistical analysis⁹. All analyses were carried out with SPSS-v18 (PASW Statistics 18).

Illustration 5. Assessment of normality of the BNI variable
Variable	Mean	Median	Skew.Z	( p )	Kurt.Z	( p )	K-S	df	( p )
BNI	47.97	38.78	3.76	( .000 )	1.74	( .082 )	.149	79	( .000 )
(2-tailed significance tests)

Illustration 6. Curve estimation for individual claims on the BNI
Claim	High fiber	Low sodium	Low sugar	Low fat	Wholegrain	Heart health	Pick Me sun
Linear fit (p)	(.178)	(.095)	(.098)	(.101)	(.002)	(.993)	(.238)
Best fit curve	compound	linear	compound	compound	linear	compound	linear
(p)	(.081)	(.095)	(.040)	(.022)	(.002)	(.578)	(.238)
(Dependent variable = BNI. 2-tailed significance tests)

Generalization potential

Most breakfast products were produced locally or imported and exported from or to Australia, respectively. Thus, the results of this study may be generalizable to the following populations (in order of decreasing generalization power):

Australia.
Internationally, assuming breakfast products to be of approximately similar nutritional composition anywhere.

References

1. PEREZGONZALEZ Jose D (2011). Balanced Nutrition Index™ (BNI™). Journal of Knowledge Advancement & Integration (ISSN 1177-4576), 2011, pages 20-21. Also retrievable from Wiki of Science.

2. PEREZGONZALEZ Jose D (2012a). Breakfast cereals. The Balanced Nutrition Index (ISSN 1177-8849), 2012, issue 3. (Retrievable from http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/BNI)

3. PEREZGONZALEZ Jose D (2012b). Nutritional balance of bran breakfast cereals. Journal of Knowledge Advancement & Integration (ISSN 1177-4576), 2012, pages 94-96.

4. PEREZGONZALEZ Jose D (2012c). Nutritional balance of corn breakfast cereals. Journal of Knowledge Advancement & Integration (ISSN 1177-4576), 2012, pages 88-90.

5. PEREZGONZALEZ Jose D (2012d). Nutritional balance of muesli breakfast cereals. Journal of Knowledge Advancement & Integration (ISSN 1177-4576), 2012, pages 81-84.

6. PEREZGONZALEZ Jose D (2012e). Nutritional balance of oat breakfast cereals. Journal of Knowledge Advancement & Integration (ISSN 1177-4576), 2012, pages 78-80.

7. PEREZGONZALEZ Jose D (2012f). Nutritional balance of rice breakfast cereals. Journal of Knowledge Advancement & Integration (ISSN 1177-4576), 2012, pages 91-93.

8. PEREZGONZALEZ Jose D (2012g). Nutritional balance of wheat breakfast cereals. Journal of Knowledge Advancement & Integration (ISSN 1177-4576), 2012, pages 85-87.

+++ Footnotes +++

9. 'Parametric' regression analyses were carried out on ranked data, thus approaching non-parametric analyses.

Want to know more?

BNI™ database: The database offers individual nutrition analyses for foods, including the food referred to in above article.
BNI™ journal (2012, issue 3) - Breakfast cereals: This issue of the Balanced Nutrition Index™ journal collates all BNI™ nutrition information for the original sample in a single book.
Wiki of Science - Nutritional balance of foods: This Wiki of Science page collates information about several foods on a single page and provides useful links to the appropiate files.