Nutrition cues on ready-to-drink alcoholic beverage containers sold in grocery stores in Québec City, Canada

Élisabeth Demers-Potvin; Alexa Gaucher-Holm; Erin Hobin; Véronique Provencher; Manon Niquette; Ariane Bélanger-Gravel; Lana Vanderlee

doi:10.1016/j.pmedr.2023.102164

Nutrition cues on ready-to-drink alcoholic beverage containers sold in grocery stores in Québec City, Canada

Prev Med Rep. 2023 Feb 23:32:102164. doi: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2023.102164. eCollection 2023 Apr.

Authors

Élisabeth Demers-Potvin^{1

2}, Alexa Gaucher-Holm^{1

2}, Erin Hobin^{3

4

5}, Véronique Provencher^{1

2}, Manon Niquette^{1

6}, Ariane Bélanger-Gravel^{1

6

7}, Lana Vanderlee^{1

2}

Affiliations

¹ Centre NUTRISS - Nutrition, santé et société, Institut sur la nutrition et les aliments fonctionnels (INAF), Université Laval, Québec, Canada.
² École de nutrition, Université Laval, Québec, Canada.
³ Public Health Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
⁴ Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
⁵ Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research, University of Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.
⁶ Département d'information et de communication, Université Laval, Québec City, Québec, Canada.
⁷ Institut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de Québec (IUCPQ), Québec City, Québec, Canada.

Abstract

Nutrition cues on ready-to-drink alcoholic beverages (RTDs) may create an illusion of healthfulness; however, nutrition information on alcohol in Canada is seldom regulated. This research aimed to systematically record the use of nutrition cues on a subsample of RTDs sold in grocery stores. In July 2021, all available RTDs were purchased from three major grocery store banners in Québec City, Canada. Data regarding container size, purchase format, alcohol-by-volume (ABV), presence of nutrition cues (nutrient claims, other food-related claims and nutrition facts tables [NFTs]) and container surface occupied by nutrition cues were recorded. RTDs were classified as hard seltzers or pre-mixed cocktails and their ABV as "light-strength" (3.5%-4.0% ABV) and "regular-strength" (>4.0%-7.0% ABV). In total (n = 193), 23% were hard seltzers and 17% light-strength. Most RTDs (68%) had ≥1 type of nutrition cue, most often natural flavour claims (45%), an NFT (38%), and calorie claims (29%). Light-strength beverages were more likely than regular-strength to carry any nutrient claim (97% vs. 19%, p < 0.0001), an NFT (97% vs. 26%, p < 0.0001) and other food-related claims (e.g., natural flavour) (88% vs. 52%, p = 0.0002). In adjusted regression analyses, hard seltzers were more likely than pre-mixed cocktails to carry any nutrient claim (AOR = 19.1, 95% CI:7.5,48.7), any other food-related claim (AOR = 7.5, 95% CI:2.9,19.4), and an NFT (AOR = 45.5, 95% CI:12.6,163.9). The mean container surface occupied by nutrition cues was higher for hard seltzers compared to pre-mixed cocktails (13% vs 3%, p < 0.0001). The high proportion of RTDs carrying nutrition cues supports the need to further regulate labelling and marketing of RTDs.

Keywords: ABV, Alcohol by volume; Alcohol labels; Alcohol policy; Alcoholic beverages; Food environment; NFT, Nutrition facts table; Nutrient claim; Nutrition claim; RTDs, ready-to-drink alcoholic beverages.