Assessing the nutritional quality of gluten-free packaged foods for children

Purpose To examine the nutritional quality and nature of gluten-free (GF) products targeted to children. Design/methodology/approach All child-targeted foods were collected from two national grocery retailers in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Child-targeted products with a GF claim were compared with those without such a claim using two nutrient profiling models, the Pan American Health Organization Nutrient Profiling Model (PAHO) and the 2023 World Health Organization (WHO) Nutrient Profile Model. A secondary analysis then compared the nutrient profile of child-targeted GF products to their product “equivalents”. Findings Approximately 15% ( n = 65) of the 448 products assessed had a GF claim. All products – those with and without a GF claim – had similar levels of protein, fat, saturated fat and trans fat, while 80% of GF claim products had high sugar levels. Ninety-eight percent of GF products exceed nutrients of concern for fat, sugars and/or sodium according to PAHO criteria. When examined using WHO criteria, only 1.5% of GF products would be permitted to be marketed to children—an ironic finding given that all products were included in the study because they were designed to appeal to children. No products in the paired analysis would be permitted to be marketed to children (per WHO). Originality/value Child-targeted GF foods do not warrant the health halo accorded to such products by many consumers. Almost all GFC products exceed thresholds of concern for either sugar, sodium and/or fat. Parents who believe these products are “healthier” options for their children are mistaken.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
British Food Journal
Published
2025-04-23
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1108/bfj-11-2024-1170
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Consumer Attitudes and Food Labeling
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.88
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Assessing the nutritional quality of gluten-free packaged foods for children

Charlene Elliott
1 citations
British Food Journal
Consumer Attitudes and Food Labeling
1.88
article

Assessing the nutritional quality of gluten-free packaged foods for children

Charlene Elliott
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Purpose To examine the nutritional quality and nature of gluten-free (GF) products targeted to children. Design/methodology/approach All child-targeted foods were collected from two national grocery retailers in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Child-targeted products with a GF claim were compared with those without such a claim using two nutrient profiling models, the Pan American Health Organization Nutrient Profiling Model (PAHO) and the 2023 World Health Organization (WHO) Nutrient Profile Model. A secondary analysis then compared the nutrient profile of child-targeted GF products to their product “equivalents”. Findings Approximately 15% ( n = 65) of the 448 products assessed had a GF claim. All products – those with and without a GF claim – had similar levels of protein, fat, saturated fat and trans fat, while 80% of GF claim products had high sugar levels. Ninety-eight percent of GF products exceed nutrients of concern for fat, sugars and/or sodium according to PAHO criteria. When examined using WHO criteria, only 1.5% of GF products would be permitted to be marketed to children—an ironic finding given that all products were included in the study because they were designed to appeal to children. No products in the paired analysis would be permitted to be marketed to children (per WHO). Originality/value Child-targeted GF foods do not warrant the health halo accorded to such products by many consumers. Almost all GFC products exceed thresholds of concern for either sugar, sodium and/or fat. Parents who believe these products are “healthier” options for their children are mistaken.

British Food JournalVol. 127(7)
Openalex Percentile: Top 17%
Consumer Attitudes and Food Labeling
1.88
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.