4.7 Article

Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Intake among Chilean Preschoolers and Adolescents in 2016: A Cross-Sectional Analysis

期刊

NUTRIENTS
卷 10, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nu10111767

关键词

beverage intake; children; adolescents; sugar-sweetened beverages; juice; milk

资金

  1. Bloomberg Philanthropies
  2. IDRC Grant [108180]
  3. CONICYT Fondecyt [1161436]
  4. EUNICE KENNEDY SHRIVER NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CHILD HEALTH & HUMAN DEVELOPMENT [P2CHD050924] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Chile has the highest sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) sales of any country and a growing burden of childhood obesity. This study examines SSB intake in Chilean children after a 5% SSB tax increase in 2014 but prior to marketing, labeling, and school policies implemented in 2016. Methods: 24-h recalls were collected in 2016 from two cohorts comprised of preschoolers 3-5 years of age (n = 961) and adolescents 12-14 years of age (n = 770) from low-moderate income neighborhoods. Beverages were categorized as regulated or unregulated according to whether they exceeded nutrient thresholds established by the 2016 policies. Results: Preschoolers consumed mainly beverage calories from regulated dairy beverages and substitutes (109 kcal, SD 30), unregulated dairy beverages (102 kcal, SD 24), and regulated fruit and vegetables drinks (44 kcal, SD 20). For adolescents, the greatest contributions came from regulated sodas (77 kcal, SD 47), regulated dairy beverages and substitutes (41 kcal, SD 16), and unregulated coffee and tea (41 kcal, SD 11). Overall, regulated beverages provided a greater proportion of calories than unregulated for preschoolers (15.0% vs. 11.8%) and for adolescents (9.1% vs. 5.0%). Conclusions: Before major policy implementation, regulated beverages accounted for a higher percentage of energy intake than unregulated beverages among both age groups. Future research will be needed to evaluate the impact of Chile's new policies on sugary beverage intake in children.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据