1 Department of Society, Human Development and Health, Harvard School of Public Health Prevention Research Center, Harvard School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
Public Health Nutr. 2013 Dec;16(12):2255-64. doi: 10.1017/S1368980012005447. Epub 2013 Jan 4.
Eating whole grains (WG) is recommended for health, but multiple conflicting definitions exist for identifying whole grain (WG) products, limiting the ability of consumers and organizations to select such products. We investigated how five recommended WG criteria relate to healthfulness and price of grain products.
We categorized grain products by different WG criteria including: the industry-sponsored Whole Grain stamp (WG-Stamp); WG as the first ingredient (WG-first); WG as the first ingredient without added sugars (WG-first-no-added-sugars); the word ‘whole’ before any grain in the ingredients (‘whole’-anywhere); and a content of total carbohydrate to fibre of ≤10:1 (10:1-ratio). We investigated associations of each criterion with health-related characteristics including fibre, sugars, sodium, energy, trans-fats and price.
Two major grocery store chains.
Five hundred and forty-five grain products.
Each WG criterion identified products with higher fibre than products considered non-WG; the 10:1-ratio exhibited the largest differences (+3·15 g/serving, P < 0·0001). Products achieving the 10:1-ratio also contained lower sugar (−1·28 g/serving, P = 0·01), sodium (−15·4 mg/serving, P = 0·04) and likelihood of trans-fats (OR = 0·14, P < 0·0001), without energy differences. WG-first-no-added-sugars performed similarly, but identified many fewer products as WG and also not a lower likelihood of containing trans-fats. The WG-Stamp, WG-first and ‘whole’-anywhere criteria identified products with a lower likelihood of trans-fats, but also significantly more sugars and energy (P < 0·05 each). Products meeting the WG-Stamp or 10:1-ratio criterion were more expensive than products that did not (+$US 0·04/serving, P = 0·009 and +$US 0·05/serving, P = 0·003, respectively).
Among proposed WG criteria, the 10:1-ratio identified the most healthful WG products. Other criteria performed less well, including the industry-supported WG-Stamp which identified products with higher fibre and lower trans-fats, but also higher sugars and energy. These findings inform efforts by consumers, organizations and policy makers to identify healthful WG products.
食用全谷物对健康有益,但是目前有多种相互冲突的全谷物定义,这限制了消费者和组织选择此类产品的能力。本研究旨在探讨五种推荐的全谷物标准与谷物产品的健康度和价格之间的关系。
我们根据不同的全谷物标准对谷物产品进行分类,包括:行业赞助的全谷物印章(全谷物印章);全谷物作为第一成分(全谷物第一);全谷物作为第一成分且不含添加糖(全谷物第一且无糖);成分中“全”字出现在任何谷物之前(“全”字任意位置);以及总碳水化合物与膳食纤维的比例≤10:1(10:1 比)。我们研究了每种标准与纤维、糖、钠、能量、反式脂肪和价格等健康相关特征的关联。
两家大型连锁杂货店。
545 种谷物产品。
每种全谷物标准都能识别出纤维含量高于非全谷物产品的产品;10:1 比显示出最大的差异(+3.15 g/份,P<0.0001)。达到 10:1 比的产品还含有较低的糖(-1.28 g/份,P=0.01)、钠(-15.4 mg/份,P=0.04)和反式脂肪的可能性(OR=0.14,P<0.0001),而能量则没有差异。全谷物第一且无糖的标准表现相似,但识别出的全谷物产品较少,且不太可能含有反式脂肪。全谷物印章、全谷物第一和“全”字任意位置标准识别出的反式脂肪可能性较低,但糖和能量也显著较高(P<0.05 各标准)。符合全谷物印章或 10:1 比标准的产品比不符合的产品更贵(+0.04 美元/份,P=0.009 和+0.05 美元/份,P=0.003)。
在所提出的全谷物标准中,10:1 比标准识别出的全谷物产品最健康。其他标准的效果较差,包括行业支持的全谷物印章,该标准识别出的产品纤维含量较高,反式脂肪含量较低,但糖和能量含量也较高。这些发现为消费者、组织和政策制定者识别健康的全谷物产品提供了信息。