Research | Published:

UK children's breakfast cereals – an oral health perspective

BDJ volume 225, pages 164169 (27 July 2018) | Download Citation

Subjects

Key points

  • Suggests that most breakfast cereals marketed to children in the UK are very high in sugar and should not be regarded as a low sugar snack by members of the dental team.

  • Highlights that portion sizes on front of packet labelling are three times higher than those recommended.

  • Members of the dental team should be equipped to help patients achieve new UK sugar recommendations by suggesting low sugar alternatives.

Abstract

Background

Breakfast cereals remain popular with UK children. Although they are eaten primarily at breakfast time, they are regularly consumed between meals, because they are quick and easy to prepare. However, many breakfast cereals contain high levels of sugar, based on total product weight − with some values exceeding one-third sugar. Regular consumption of high-sugar breakfast cereals is concerning in terms of dental and general health, due to their relationship with dental caries and excess energy intake, which can lead to obesity and its associated conditions, including type 2 diabetes and coronary heart disease.

Aim

To investigate oral and general health messages contained on breakfast cereal packaging of brands popular with UK children.

Methods

Nine of the most popular branded cereals available in the UK, marketed to children, were evaluated in this study. One breakfast cereal (Coco Pops) was examined in greater detail, using all branded and UK supermarket own brand versions; culminating in a total of 13 breakfast cereals included in the study. The content of the packaging was analysed with regard to their imagery, health claims and nutritional content.

Results

At the manufacturer's suggested portion size, 8 of the 13 cereals provided over one-half of the recommended daily sugar intake for a 4–6-year-old child. Moreover, the imagery of the portion size on the front of the packaging was misleading − manufacturer's recommended portion sizes were at least two thirds less than those depicted. Nutritional claims focused on 'vitamins', especially folic acid and minerals, notably 'iron'. 'Whole grains' and 'no artificial colours or flavours' were legitimate claims. Only two cereals did not use the voluntary front-of-pack labelling system, both of which were supermarket brands. Cartoon characters, royal endorsements and QR codes were used to promote the breakfast cereals.

Conclusions

Most of the breakfast cereals contained high sugar levels, and although marketers made legitimate claims about other nutritional constituents, these claims might mislead consumers into thinking the cereals are healthier than they are. Imagery of portion size was grossly misleading and gives cause for concern. Dental and other health professionals need to be aware of the high sugar content of these cereals and the marketing techniques that are used by their manufacturers when giving advice to children and their parents. It is crucial that these professionals keep up to date with current evidence-based healthy eating guidelines.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. 1.

    Mintel. Breakfast Cereals. 2012. London: Mintel International.

  2. 2.

    Public Health England. National Diet and Nutrition Survey: results from Years 1 to 4 (combined) of the rolling programme for 2008 and 2009 to 2011 and 2012. 2014. Available at (accessed February 2018).

  3. 3.

    British Association for the Study of Community Dentistry. Position statement on recommended actions to reduce the consumption of free sugars and improve oral health. 2016. Available at: (accessed February 2018).

  4. 4.

    National Cancer Institute. Obesity and cancer. 2017. Available at (accessed December 2017).

  5. 5.

    , , , . At-home breakfast consumption among New Zealand children: associations with body mass index and related nutrition behaviours. J Am Diet Assoc 2007; 107: 570–576.

  6. 6.

    , , , . Swiss Children Consuming Breakfast Regularly Have Better Motor Functional Skills and Are Less Overweight Than Breakfast Skippers. J Am Coll Nutr 2012; 31: 87–93.

  7. 7.

    , , , . Fortified breakfast cereal consumed daily for 12 weeks leads to a significant improvement in micronutrient intake and micronutrient status in adolescent girls: a randomised controlled trial. Nutr J 2016; 15: 69.

  8. 8.

    Department of Health. Technical Guidance on Nutrition Labelling. 2016. Available at (accessed February 2018).

  9. 9.

    European Commission. Nutrition and Health Claims. 2017. Available at (accessed February 2018).

  10. 10.

    , . Qualitative analysis of content. In Wildemuth B M (ed) Applications of social research methods to questions in information and library science. pp 308–319. Westport, Connecticut: Libraries Unlimited, 2009.

  11. 11.

    European Breakfast Cereal Association (CEEREAL). Portion sizes rationale. 2016. Available at (accessed February 2018).

  12. 12.

    Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition. SACN carbohydrates and health report. 2015. Available at (accessed February 2018).

  13. 13.

    Public Health England. Why 5%? 2015. Available at (accessed December 2017).

  14. 14.

    Public Health England. National Diet and Nutrition Survey: results from Years 5 and 4 (combined). 2016. Available at (accessed February 2018).

  15. 15.

    , , . Depicted serving size: cereal packaging pictures exaggerate serving sizes and promote overserving. BMC Public Health 2017; 17: 169. 10.1186/s12889-017-4082-5.

  16. 16.

    . Sugar Puffs renamed Honey Monster Puffs as Halo cuts sugar from recipe and name. The Grocer. 2014 October 16.

  17. 17.

    , , , . Salt and sugars content of breakfast cereals in the UK from 1992 to 2015. Public Health Nutr 2017; 20: 1500–1512. 10.1017/S1368980016003463.

  18. 18.

    HM Government. Childhood obesity – a plan for action. 2016. Available at (accessed February 2018).

  19. 19.

    Public Health England. Sugar reduction and wider reformulation. 2017. Available at (accessed December 2017).

  20. 20.

    (ed). Conventional and advanced food processing technologies. Oxford: John Wiley and Sons Ltd, 2014.

  21. 21.

    Food Standards Agency. Salt targets. 2017. Available at (accessed June 2017).

  22. 22.

    , , , , , . The science on front-of-package food labels. Public Health Nutr 2013; 16: 430–439.

  23. 23.

    . Consumer understanding and use of health claims on foods. Nutr Rev 2015; 63: 256–264.

  24. 24.

    , , , , ., . Differences in the sodium content of bread products in the USA and UK: Implications for policy. Public Health Nutr 2018, 21: 632–636.

  25. 25.

    , , . Art of persuasion: An analysis of techniques used to market foods to children. J Paediatr Child Health 2011; 47: 776–782.

  26. 26.

    , , , . Systematic reviews of the evidence on the nature, extent and effects of food marketing to children. A retrospective summary. Appetite 2013; 62: 209–215.

  27. 27.

    , , , . Targeting Children in the Cereal Aisle. Am J Health Educ 2008; 39: 272–282.

  28. 28.

    Committee on Advertising Practice. Tougher new food and drink rules come into effect in children's media. 2017. Available at (accessed February 2018).

  29. 29.

    Change4Life. Sugar. 2018. Available at (accessed February 2018).

  30. 30.

    NHS Choices. Healthy breakfast cereals. 2018. Available at (accessed February 2018).

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Applied Clinical Research and Public Health, College of Biomedical and Life Sciences, Cardiff University, School of Dentistry, Heath Park, Cardiff, CF14 4XY

    • R. Khehra
    •  & M. Z. Morgan
  2. Cardiff Metropolitan University, Department of Healthcare and Food, Cardiff, CF5 2YB

    • R. M. Fairchild

Authors

  1. Search for R. Khehra in:

  2. Search for R. M. Fairchild in:

  3. Search for M. Z. Morgan in:

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Z. Morgan.

About this article

Publication history

Accepted

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2018.531