Human Nutrition Unit, Department of Food and Drug, University of Parma, Parco Area delle Scienze 47/A, 43124, Parma, Italy.
Food Quality and Design Group, Wageningen University, Wageningen, the Netherlands.
Plant Foods Hum Nutr. 2018 Jun;73(2):154-159. doi: 10.1007/s11130-018-0662-5.
Gluten-free (GF) products are consumed both by individuals with celiac disease and by an increasing number of people with no specific medical needs. Although the technological quality of GF products has been recently improved, their nutritional quality is still scarcely addressed. Moreover, the few published studies report conflicting results, mostly because the information from product nutrition facts is the only considered factor. The aim of the present study was to develop a score-based method for the nutritional evaluation of 134 packaged Italian GF bakery products and to compare it with that of 162 matched gluten-containing (GC) food items. The score included the information from the nutrition facts and the presence/absence of some nutritionally relevant components in the ingredients list. Results indicated an overall low nutritional quality of the considered GF bakery products. Additionally, with the sole exception of GF bread substitutes, there was no difference in nutritional quality between GF and equivalent GC bakery products. Future research and development of GF bakery products may take advantage of this scoring method, as it may represent an easy approach to evaluate their nutritional quality. The present findings do not justify the consumption of packaged GF bakery products by people without any specific medical needs.
无麸质(GF)产品既被乳糜泻患者食用,也被越来越多没有特定医疗需求的人食用。尽管 GF 产品的技术质量最近有所提高,但它们的营养质量仍然很少得到关注。此外,少数已发表的研究报告结果相互矛盾,主要是因为仅考虑了产品营养成分信息这一因素。本研究旨在开发一种基于评分的方法,用于评估 134 种意大利包装 GF 面包店产品的营养价值,并将其与 162 种匹配的含麸质(GC)食品进行比较。该评分包括营养成分表中的信息和成分列表中一些与营养相关的成分的存在/不存在。结果表明,所考虑的 GF 面包店产品的总体营养价值较低。此外,除 GF 面包替代品外,GF 和等效 GC 面包店产品之间在营养价值方面没有差异。未来 GF 面包店产品的研究和开发可以利用这种评分方法,因为它可能是评估其营养价值的一种简单方法。本研究结果并不支持没有特定医疗需求的人食用包装 GF 面包店产品。