Abstract
The aim of the study was to assess the nutrition of selected fermented dairy products available in Polish supermarkets and how many of them meet the criterion set by the European Parliament and Council Act (UE) no. 1924/2006 form 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods regarding low sugar content in a solid product. In the study 100 fermented products, widely available in Polish supermarkets, were selected, and their nutrition was analysed based on the information placed on the producer's label, and the carbohydrate content was compared against the recommended 5 g per 100 g of the solid product.
As a result, it was determined that among natural products, 92% of the kefirs and 36% fulfilled the carbohydrate content criterion, whereas out of the analysed flavoured products, only one.
Keywords: dairy fermented produce, kefir, yoghurt, nutritional value, energy value, carbohydrates, protein, fats
Introduction
According to the World Health Organisation’s definition, fermented milk products are a group of products made out of milk (full milk, semi or fully skimmed, powdered milk), which have been fermented by particular microorganisms. In a balanced diet dairy fermented produce, such as soured milk, kefir, and the new generation of milk products are recommended [1]. This group is a source of probiotics, and many vitamins and minerals necessary for normal body function [2]. The products included in this group have prophylactic properties in the therapy of many diet-related diseases. They have a beneficial influence on microbiota by supressing growth of pathogenic and putrid bacteria [3]. Fermented dairy produce increase fat, protein, and vitamin absorption. Moreover, they are safer for those afflicted by allergies in comparison with milk because they evoke less pronounced allergic reaction [4].
The most frequently fermented products chosen by the clients were kefirs and yoghurts [5]. They contain live bacteria cultures. The natural ones have different contents in comparison to the flavoured products. The flavoured fermented products are chosen for their sensory values. The producers offer various and more sophisticated flavours. Adding them enhances their taste and affects the quality and energy value of the products [6]. According to the Polish National Institute of Public Health – National Institute of Hygiene, the nutritional information label shows the amounts of nutrients: energy, fats, carbohydrates, proteins, and salt, which are contained in the product. Placing the information about nutrition value on food consistent with European Parliament and Council directive no. 1924/2006 enables customers to make an informed choice about the product [7].
According to WHO data, since the 1970s there has been a threefold increase in the obesity rate worldwide [8]. It is believed that the main causes are a decrease in physical activity and increased consumption of simple carbohydrates. It is the result of using saccharose and other additional sweeteners in the production of popular food products [9]. With this in mind, the nutritional value and carbohydrate content in particular are among the overriding indicators of good quality of a dairy product [10].
The aim of the study was to assess the nutrition value – carbohydrates in particular – of natural and flavoured kefirs and yoghurts available in Poland.
Material and methods
The study included over 100 randomly chosen, widely available kefirs and yoghurts between May and June 2020. Particular products were selected from chain supermarkets: Biedronka, Tesco, and Lidl. The products were divided into 4 groups: 1) natural kefirs (25 products), 2) flavoured kefirs (25 products), 3) natural yoghurts (25 products), and 4) flavoured yoghurts (25 products). Based on the information on the label, their nutrition was evaluated, with particular focus on carbohydrate content and energy value. Next, the mean nutrition for each group was calculated, and all the groups were compared. While selecting the products for the study, the main criterion was variety of dairy products manufacturers.
The obtained results were analysed with Student’s t-test, analysis of variance (ANOVA), and Tukey’s range tests. P < 0.05 was determined as statistically significant.
Results
In the group of natural kefirs the mean energy value in 100 g was 46.10 ±5.98 kcal (32.50–51.00 kcal). The mean carbohydrate content for 100 g of the natural kefir was 4.67 ±0.66 g (3.40–6.70 g). The mean fat content in 100 g of natural kefir was 1.64 ±0.64 g (0.00–3.00 g), and protein 3.14 ±0.68 g (0.50–4.00 g) in 100 g of the product. The nutrition of selected natural kefirs is presented in Table I.
Table I.
The nutrition (energy value, carbohydrates, fats, proteins) in natural kefir – information on the food labels from the lowest to the highest carbohydrate content
| No. | Brand | Name of the kefir | The nutrition value in a 100 g | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Energy (kcal) | Carbohydrates (g) | Fats (g) | Proteins (g) | |||
| 1 | Ayran | Kefir | 36.00 | 3.40 | 1.50 | 2.20 |
| 2 | Bakoma | Kefir 0.5% | 32.50 | 4.00 | 3.00 | 0.50 |
| 3 | Danone | Kefir 1.5% | 49.00 | 4.00 | 1.50 | 2.90 |
| 4 | Polana | Kefir 2% | 4500 | 4.00 | 2.00 | 2.70 |
| 5 | Mild | Kefir bio mild 1.5% | 44.00 | 4.10 | 1.00 | 3.40 |
| 6 | Robico | Kefir | 43.00 | 4.20 | 1.50 | 3.10 |
| 7 | Piątnica | Kefir 2% | 52.00 | 4.20 | 2.00 | 4.00 |
| 8 | OZO | Kefir | 43.00 | 4.50 | 1.50 | 3.20 |
| 9 | Tola | Kefir dense 1.5% | 44.00 | 4.50 | 1.50 | 3.20 |
| 10 | Mleczna dolina | Kefir 1.5% | 44.00 | 4.50 | 1.50 | 3.20 |
| 11 | Pszczyna | Kefir natural 1.5% | 46.00 | 4.60 | 1.50 | 3.40 |
| 12 | Activia | Kefir | 57.00 | 4.70 | 3,00 | 2.80 |
| 13 | Pilos | Kefir | 46.00 | 4.70 | 1.50 | 3.30 |
| 14 | Pilos | Kefir velvety 2% | 50.00 | 4.70 | 2.00 | 3.20 |
| 15 | Pilos | Kefir natural 2% | 50.00 | 4.70 | 2.00 | 3.20 |
| 16 | Łowicz | Kefir 1.5% | 46.00 | 4.70 | 1.50 | 3.30 |
| 17 | Opole | Kefir traditional 1.5% | 45.00 | 4.70 | 1.50 | 3.10 |
| 18 | Piątnica | Kefir 0% | 35.00 | 4.80 | 0.00 | 3.00 |
| 19 | Tola | Kefir 2% | 51.00 | 4.80 | 2.00 | 3.40 |
| 20 | Mlekpol | Kefir | 51.00 | 5.00 | 1.80 | 3.60 |
| 21 | Just fi | Kefir just fit | 37.00 | 5.00 | 0,10 | 3.90 |
| 22 | Pilos | Kefir creamy 2% | 50.00 | 5.00 | 2.00 | 4.00 |
| 23 | Bieluch | Kefir tola 2% | 51.00 | 5.00 | 2.00 | 3.30 |
| 24 | Radomsko | Kefir ale 1.5% | 54.00 | 6.20 | 1.50 | 3.80 |
| 25 | Auchan | Kefir 1.5% | 51.00 | 6.70 | 1.50 | 2.70 |
| MEAN | 46.10 | 4.67 | 1.64 | 3.14 | ||
In the group of flavoured kefirs the mean energy value for 100 g of the product was 74.84 ±28.50 kcal (36.00–144.00 kcal). The mean carbohydrate content for 100 g of the flavoured kefir was 11.31 ±3.74 g (3.40–22.00 g). The mean fat content in 100 g was 2.04 ±2.24 g (0.05–7.50 g), and protein was 3.36 ±1.43 g (1.30–8.00 g). Table II presents the nutritional value of selected flavoured kefirs.
Table II.
Nutrition (energy value, carbohydrates, fats, proteins) in the flavoured kefirs – information on the food labels from the lowest to the highest carbohydrate content
| No. | Brand | Name of the kefir | The nutrition value in a 100 g | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Energy (kcal) | Carbohydrates (g) | Fats (g) | Proteins (g) | ||||
| 1 | Maluta | Avran | 36.00 | 3.40 | 2.20 | 1.50 | |
| 2 | Somlek | Kefir with cucumber and dill | 49.00 | 5.00 | 1.80 | 3.20 | |
| 3 | Mleczna dolina | Kefir with cucumber and garlic | 53.00 | 5.60 | 1.90 | 3.30 | |
| 4 | Paturages | Kefir with forest fruits | 50.00 | 9.00 | 0.05 | 3.30 | |
| 5 | Jovi | Kefir with cranberries | 50.00 | 9.00 | 0.05 | 3.30 | |
| 6 | Sunmilk | Kefir light forest fruits | 51.00 | 9.00 | 0.10 | 3.40 | |
| 7 | OSM Rawicz | Kefir strawberry | 66.00 | 10.00 | 1.50 | 3.20 | |
| 8 | Piątnica | Dessert kefir with plum jam | 108.00 | 10.50 | 5.90 | 3.00 | |
| 9 | Kaufland | Kefir with vanilla flavour | 66.00 | 10.50 | 1.30 | 3.00 | |
| 10 | Jan | Kefir refreshing with strawberry | 66.00 | 10.50 | 1.30 | 3.00 | |
| 11 | Piotr i Paweł | Kefir strawberry | 66.00 | 10.50 | 1.30 | 3.00 | |
| 12 | Jovi | Kefir with appetizing strawberry | 67.00 | 10.70 | 2.80 | 1.30 | |
| 13 | Tola | Kefir prune | 67.00 | 10.70 | 1.30 | 3.00 | |
| 14 | Piątnica | Kefir with cherry and apple jam | 108.00 | 10.70 | 5.30 | 3.00 | |
| 15 | Pilos | Kefir just fit | 59.00 | 11.00 | 0.10 | 3.40 | |
| 16 | OSM Grodzisk | Kefir 0% with vanilla | 60.00 | 12.00 | 0.05 | 6.00 | |
| 17 | Helios | Kefir strawberry – honey | 62.00 | 12.10 | 0.00 | 6.60 | |
| 18 | Carrefour | Flavoured jumbo | 65.00 | 12.90 | 0.10 | 3.40 | |
| 19 | Jan | Kefir with chocolate | 76.00 | 12.90 | 1.50 | 2.60 | |
| 20 | FigAND | Kefir forest fruits | 67.00 | 13.10 | 0.05 | 3.40 | |
| 21 | Isolda | Kefir strawberry | 81.00 | 14.00 | 2.00 | 3.00 | |
| 22 | Jagr 200 | Kefir apricot | 82.00 | 14.80 | 1.50 | 2.40 | |
| 23 | Milbona | Kefir mild berry | 142.00 | 16.30 | 7.40 | 2.40 | |
| 24 | Lanfein | Kefir Sahne | 144.00 | 16.60 | 7.50 | 2.30 | |
| 25 | Biedronka | Kefir with forest fruits | 130.00 | 22.00 | 0.00 | 8.00 | |
| MEAN | 74.84 | 11.32 | 2.04 | 3.36 | |||
The comparison of mean nutrition between both groups of kefirs is presented in Table III.
Table III.
The comparison of mean nutrition (energy value, carbohydrates, fats, proteins) between the 2 studied groups of kefirs– natural vs. flavoured
| Nutritional value | Mean ±SD | p-value for Student’s t-test | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Natural kefirs | Flavoured kefirs | ||
| Energy value in 100 g (kcal) | 46.1 ±6.103 | 74.84 ±29.09 | < 0.001 |
| Carbohydrate contents in 100 g of the product (g) | 4.67 ±0.67 | 11.31 ±3.83 | < 0.001 |
| Fats contents in 100 g of the product (g) | 1.64 ±0.66 | 1.88 ±2.26 | 0.608 |
| Proteins contents in 100 g of the product (g) | 3.14 ±0.69 | 3.36 ±1.46 | 0.504 |
The energy value and the carbohydrate content was significantly lower in the natural kefirs than in the flavoured ones. There was no statistically significant difference determined in fat or protein content between natural and flavoured kefirs.
In natural yoghurts the mean energy value for 100 g of the produce was 71.60 ±25 kcal (38.00–125.00 kcal). On the other hand, in the group of natural yoghurts, the mean carbohydrate content for 100 g of the product was 5.45 ±0.85 g (4.10–7.60 g), the average fat content in 100 g of the product was 4.00 ±3.04 g (1.00–10.00 g), and protein was 4.42 ±1.05 g (3.30–8.70 g). The nutrition of selected natural yoghurts is presented in Table IV.
Table IV.
The nutrition (energy value, carbohydrates, fats, proteins) in the natural yoghurts –information on the food labels from the lowest to the highest carbohydrate content
| No. | Brand | The name of the yoghurt | Energy value in 100 g | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Energy (kcal) | Carbohydrates (g) | Fats (g) | Proteins (g) | ||||
| 1 | Piątnica | Greek-type yogurt 0% fat | 51.00 | 4.10 | 0.00 | 8.70 | |
| 2 | Zott | Natural yogurt | 67.00 | 4.20 | 3.00 | 4.90 | |
| 3 | Candia | Greek-style natural yogurt | 121.00 | 4.40 | 10.00 | 3.30 | |
| 4 | Lidl Biotred | Bio yogurt [EKO] | 72.00 | 4.70 | 3.50 | 5.00 | |
| 5 | Zott | Natural yogurt Jogo Vita | 52.00 | 4.80 | 1.00 | 5.10 | |
| 6 | Bakoma | Natural yogurt Greek type | 102.00 | 4.90 | 7.50 | 3.70 | |
| 7 | Biedronka Tolonis | Natural yogurt Greek type | 125.00 | 5.00 | 10.00 | 3.80 | |
| 8 | Łowicz | Yogurt Greek | 125.00 | 5.00 | 10.00 | 3.80 | |
| 9 | Mlekovita | Natural yogurt Greek type | 115.00 | 5.00 | 9.00 | 3.60 | |
| 10 | Biedronka Tola | Yogurt natural | 57.00 | 5.10 | 2.50 | 3.50 | |
| 11 | Danone | Activia natural | 69.00 | 5.10 | 3.40 | 4.50 | |
| 12 | Bakoma | Natural thick yogurt | 60.00 | 5.20 | 2.80 | 3.60 | |
| 13 | Lidl Pilos | Yogurt natural 2.5% | 61.00 | 5.20 | 2.50 | 4.30 | |
| 14 | Mlekovita | Natural polish yogurt | 55.00 | 5.30 | 2.00 | 3.90 | |
| 15 | Bieluch | Natural light yogurt 0% | 38.00 | 5.50 | 0.00 | 4.00 | |
| 16 | Biedronka Tola | Natural yogurt with calcium | 58.00 | 5.70 | 2.00 | 4.30 | |
| 17 | Lidl Pilos | Natural yogurt 2% | 58.00 | 5.70 | 2.00 | 4.30 | |
| 18 | Danone | Natural mild yogurt | 69.00 | 5.80 | 3.00 | 4.60 | |
| 19 | Piątnica | Natural yogurt | 58.00 | 5.90 | 2.00 | 4.00 | |
| 20 | Krasnystaw | Natural yogurt | 58.00 | 6.00 | 2.00 | 4.10 | |
| 21 | Krasnystaw | Natural yogurt Calpro | 60.00 | 6.00 | 2.00 | 4.50 | |
| 22 | Biedronka Tola | Natural creamy yogurt | 70.00 | 6.30 | 3.00 | 4.40 | |
| 23 | Candia | Greek style natural light yogurt | 74.00 | 6.40 | 3.50 | 4.20 | |
| 24 | Bakoma | Natural yogurt mild taste | 63.00 | 7.30 | 1.50 | 5.00 | |
| 25 | Bakoma | Natural yogurt 0% | 52.00 | 7.60 | 0.00 | 5.50 | |
| MEAN | 71.60 | 5.45 | 4.00 | 4.42 | |||
In the analysed flavoured yoghurts the mean energy for 100 g of the product was 108.92 ±28.12 kcal (71.00–168.00 kcal). The mean carbohydrate content for 100 g of the flavoured yoghurts was 15.25 ±2.61 (11.10-21.50) g, the fat content was 3.73 ±2.47 g (1.30–10.10 g), and protein 3.21 ±1.17 g (3.20–7.00 g). Table V shows the energy value of the chosen flavoured yoghurts.
Table V.
The nutrition (energy value, carbohydrates, fats, proteins) in the flavoured yoghurts – information on the food labels from the lowest to the highest carbohydrates content
| No. | Brand | The name of the yoghurt | Energy value in 100 g | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Energy (kcal) | Carbohydrates (g) | Fats (g) | Proteins (g) | ||||
| 1 | Danone | Strawberry yogurt | 71.00 | 11.10 | 1.60 | 2.80 | |
| 2 | Zott | Yogurt with honey | 88.00 | 11.60 | 2.50 | 3.90 | |
| 3 | Zott | Yogurt with strawberry | 90.00 | 12.00 | 2.70 | 3.50 | |
| 4 | Krasnystaw | Pear yogi | 83.00 | 12.50 | 2.50 | 2.50 | |
| 5 | Piątnica | Piątuś | 105.00 | 13.00 | 3.00 | 6.20 | |
| 6 | Danone | Yogurt with sponge cakes | 122.00 | 13.40 | 4.10 | 2.80 | |
| 7 | Bakoma | BIO yogurt with plum and muesli | 90.00 | 13.70 | 2.30 | 3.50 | |
| 8 | Zott | Yogurt with coconut balls | 97.00 | 13.70 | 2.70 | 3.50 | |
| 9 | Danone | Yogurt with coconut balls | 145.00 | 14.10 | 8.50 | 3.10 | |
| 10 | Bakoma | BIO yogurt with plum | 93.00 | 14.20 | 2.50 | 3.40 | |
| 11 | Piątnica | Yogurt 0% fat with berries | 78.00 | 14.40 | 0.00 | 7.00 | |
| 12 | Mlekovita | Yogurt polish with peach | 92.00 | 14.60 | 2.50 | 2.80 | |
| 13 | Zott | Yogurt strawberry - wild strawberry | 100.00 | 14.80 | 2.60 | 3.50 | |
| 14 | Mlekovita | Vanilla yogurt | 99.00 | 15.00 | 2.50 | 2.80 | |
| 15 | Bakoma | Yoghurt men | 93.00 | 15.20 | 2.40 | 2.90 | |
| 16 | Lidl Pilos | Yogurt with peach | 101.00 | 15.50 | 2.30 | 3.70 | |
| 17 | Danone | Fantasy with tangerine | 121.00 | 15.90 | 5.30 | 2.30 | |
| 18 | Danone | Fantasy with white chocolate | 168.00 | 16.00 | 10.10 | 3.20 | |
| 19 | Danone | Fantasy with milk chocolate | 166.00 | 16.90 | 9.30 | 3.30 | |
| 20 | Lidl Pilos | Yogurt with passion fruit | 107.00 | 17.20 | 2.20 | 1.70 | |
| 21 | Danone | Gratka | 73.00 | 17.60 | 1.30 | 1.80 | |
| 22 | Bakoma | Creamy yogurt with peach mousse | 119.00 | 18.00 | 4.30 | 2.10 | |
| 23 | Danone | Twisted yogurt | 118.00 | 19.40 | 3.30 | 2.50 | |
| 24 | Bakoma | Yogurt for the senses | 152.00 | 19.80 | 6.80 | 2.60 | |
| 25 | Bakoma | Creamy yogurt with fruit and gronolaggranola moussegranola mousse | 152.00 | 21.50 | 5.80 | 2.90 | |
| MEAN | 108.92 | 15.25 | 3.73 | 3.21 | |||
Table VI shows the comparison of the energy value between the 2 groups of yoghurts.
Table VI.
Comparison of mean nutrition (energy value, carbohydrates, fats, proteins) between the 2 studied groups of yoghurts – natural vs. flavoured
| Nutritional value | Mean ±SD | p-value for Student’s t-test | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Natural yoghurts | Flavoured yoghurts | ||
| Energy value in 100 g of the product (kcal) | 71.6 ±25 | 108.92 ±28.11 | < 0.001 |
| Carbohydrates content in 100 g of the product (g) | 5.45 ±0.85 | 15.24 ±2.61 | < 0.001 |
| Fat content in 100 g of the product (g) | 3.53 ±3.14 | 3.72 ±2.54 | 0.808 |
| Protein contents in 100 g of the product (g) | 4.42 ±1.05 | 3.21 ±1.17 | < 0.001 |
The energy value and carbohydrate content was significantly lower in natural than in flavoured yoghurts. There was no significant difference in fat content between natural and flavoured yoghurts.
The lowest mean energy value was determined in the group of natural kefirs (46.10 kcal/100 g). Natural yoghurts and flavoured kefirs had similar energy value: 71.60 kcal/100 g (34.08 kcal more than natural kefirs) and 74.84 kcal/100 g (37.32 kcal more than natural kefirs), respectively. Flavoured yoghurts had the highest energy value (108.92 kcal/100 g) – 62.82 kcal more than natural kefirs.
Table VII.
Comparison of the mean nutrition value (energy value, carbohydrates, fats, proteins) between studied groups of fermented milk products: natural kefirs – A, natural yoghurts – B, flavoured kefirs – C, flavoured yoghurts – D
| Nutritional value | Natural kefirs (A) | Natural yoghurts (B) | Flavoured kefirs (C) | Flavoured yoghurts (D) | The value for the ANOVA Test |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean energy value in 100 g of the product (kcal) | 46.1 B,C,D | 71.6 C,D | 74.84 C,D | 108.92 A,D | < 0.001 |
| Mean carbohydrates value in 100 g of the product (kcal) | 4.67 C,D | 5.45 C,D | 11.31 A,B,D | 15.24 A,B,C | < 0.001 |
| Mean fat value in 100 g of the product (kcal) | 1.64 B,D | 3.53 C,D | 1.88 A,B,D | 3.72 A,C | < 0.001 |
| Mean fat value in 100 g of the product (kcal) | 3.14 B | 4.42 A,C,D | 3.36 B | 3.21 B | < 0.001 |
Natural kefirs had the least carbohydrates (4.67 g/100 g). The natural yoghurts had only slightly higher content of the carbohydrates (5.45 g/100 g). Flavoured kefirs had 6.64 g more carbohydrates than natural kefirs and 5.86 g more than natural yoghurts. Flavoured yoghurts had the most carbohydrates – 10.58 g more than natural kefirs, 9.80 g more than natural yoghurts, and 3.94 g more than flavoured kefirs.
The comparison of the energy value between the studied groups of the dairy fermented products is presented in Table VII.
ANOVA analysis and Tukey’s test revealed that natural kefirs had the lowest energy value and carbohydrate contents out of the 4 groups of studied fermented milk products, and the difference was statistically significant.
Discussion
This study assessed the nutritional value of kefirs and yoghurts widely available for purchase in Polish supermarkets. According to the European Parliament and Council Act (UE) no. 1924/2006 from 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods [7], an appropriate/low sugar content in a solid product can be claimed if it contains no more than 5 g of sugar per 100 g. The term carbohydrate is used by the authors in respect to all types of carbohydrates contained in the studied milk products, both naturally occurring and added sugars.
In the conducted study Polish flavoured kefirs and yoghurts on average contained, respectively, 11.31 g and 15.24 g of carbohydrates per 100 g of the product. Therefore, it can be said that flavoured kefirs available on the Polish market contain twice and flavoured yoghurts contain three times the recommended amount of sugar. However, the natural kefirs and yoghurts contain, respectively 4.67 g and 5.45 g per 100 g of the product; therefore, they are composed from considerably lower amounts of carbohydrate in comparison to their flavoured counterparts. It should be noted that in both groups (natural kefirs and yoghurts) there are products that do not fulfil the criterion regarding maximum carbohydrate content. Within the studied group of natural kefirs, 8% exceeded the recommended maximum carbohydrate content, and within the natural yoghurts - as much as 64% did not meet this recommendation.
There were no significant changes reported in the results of this study compared to the results obtained by Wierzejska 5 years prior, in which sugar content in flavoured kefirs and yoghurts available on the Polish market was determined as 11 g and 13 g, respectively, per 100 g, whereas in natural kefirs and yoghurts the amounts were 4.4 g and 5.4 g per 100 g [11]. In other countries: Australia, Great Britain, and the Republic of South Africa, the observations of Coyle in 2019 indicated considerably lower sugar contents in flavoured yoghurts and milks (respectively, 11.9, 12.4, and 10.1 g) [12].
Analysis conducted by Azaïs-Braesco in 10 European countries indicate that 15–21% of energy requirements in adults and 16–26% in children are covered by simple carbohydrates. According to this analysis, the main source of simple carbohydrates are sweets (36 to 61% in adults and 40 to 50% in children), beverages (12 to 31% in adults and 20 to 34% in children, fruit juices excluded), and dairy products (4 to 15% in adults and 6 to 18% in children) [13].
The important aspect is to answer the question regarding how many among the fermented dairy products available in the Polish market fulfil the norms of the previously mentioned act [7]. The authors have not found the answer in available publications. According to their own and the quoted research, one could conclude with a reasonable level of certainty that it is a small percentage of fermented milk products available in Poland. It was established in this study that 34% of all examined milk products contained the appropriate amount of carbohydrates. For example, the analysis from Great Britain reported that only 9% of the yoghurts available on the market contained the recommended (≤ 5 g/100 g) quantity of carbohydrates [14]. The results obtained in Ireland were slightly more optimistic, reporting that out of 486 studied flavoured yoghurts available, 37% contained an appropriate (≤ 5 g/100 g) amount of carbohydrates [15].
The latest reports regarding carbohydrate content in dairy products dedicated to children are noteworthy. The observations of Lythgoe revealed higher free sugar content in milk products for children than in their standard equivalents [16]. According to the WHO, free sugars are sugars added to beverages and food by the producer, cook, or consumer as well as sugars naturally occurring in honey, fruit juices, syrups, and fruit juice concentrate [17]. Another analysis of yoghurts for children in Great Britain, Equador, Guatemala, and Mexico revealed alarmingly high carbohydrate content. According to the results, the average carbohydrate content in the yoghurts in the previously mentioned countries exceeded the EU recommended carbohydrate content (5 g/100 g) at least fivefold [18]. It is acknowledged that consumption of high-quality fermented milk products significantly influences diet quality. This fact is particularly significant regarding children experiencing intense growth. The publication by Hobbs serves as an example. The authors documented that daily yoghurt consumption above 60 g in children between 4 and 10 years of age contributes to lowering blood pressure and in children between 11 and 18 years of age to lowering of HbA1c level [19]. Also, Zhu noted that consumption of fermented dairy products by children contributes to an increase in phosphorus, calcium, magnesium, and potassium intake, simultaneously lowering fat and sodium consumption [20]. Nevertheless, as indicated above, fermented dairy products dedicated to children often present less favourable contents than products without such dedication.
According to the food pyramid, the healthy eating plate, and current dietary guidelines of Polish National Institute of Public Health - National Institute of Hygiene, it is recommended that 2 portions of dairy products are incorporated in our everyday diet. As a result, consuming flavoured, fermented dairy products could lead to exceeding the daily recommended carbohydrate intake [21]. This fact seems to be amplified by the constantly growing popularity of flavoured products. The wide availability of such products is one of the main determinants of the consumers’ choices [11].
Data printed on the label enables the consumer to assess the nutritional value of a particular product. The label of each product ought to contain information regarding the content of sugars and sweeteners. The role of such information is to protect the consumer against eating products with potentially unfavourable contents [22]. The Vargas-Meza study from 2019 conducted among Mexican consumers confirmed the importance of clear labelling of products. According to its results, clear labelling of food items contributes to better dietary choices among consumers [23].
In the flavoured milk products, the most common flavoured addition, apart from added sugars, is processed fruit, which contains significant amounts of carbohydrates. Considering that currently the producers have no obligation to inform about the amount of added sugars on the label, the consumer is not able to determine how much of the carbohydrates mentioned on the label come from flavoured additives [20]. Dairy fermented products enriched by flavoured additives prove high stability of polyphenolic compounds and anthocyanins in cooling conditions, which is important for the producers [24]. Therefore, it should be noted that introducing the obligation to give more detailed labelling regarding carbohydrate content in flavoured fermented dairy products, e.g. the amount of added sugars, or the control their amount per 100 g of the product, seems necessary.
A diet rich in simple carbohydrates is widely recognised as one of the main causes of being overweight and obese. It is vital to follow the guidelines limiting the consumption of products containing their large quantity, including milk products [25]. Strategies of reduction of added sugars are present in health policy programs in Poland and many other countries [26]. Multiple studies indicate that government initiatives have a positive influence on sugar intake reduction, and they result in improvement of health. An example of that is the analysis by Hashem, published in 2019, concerning the initiatives of sugar intake reduction. It proved that such initiatives can reduce sugar consumption by up to 11%, which corresponds with a reduction of sugar intake of 91 g per day [27]. Multiple studies confirm the positive influence of reduction of sugar consumption on the occurrence of body weight and obesity [28]. The strategy mentioned above might be aided by information regarding the analysis of the rejection threshold of fermented dairy products by the consumer. The rejection threshold is the minimum amount of a particular ingredient below which the product stops being attractive in the consumer’s opinion [29]. According to Hashem, the carbohydrates can be effectively reduced to half of the initial amount. The quoted research and the conclusions should be taken into consideration while devising new guidelines regarding fermented dairy products as well as shaping consumers’ awareness and therefore the health of the society.
Limitations of the study
It was impossible to determine the content of free sugars in the products due to a lack of such information on the food labelling. The studied products were not analysed depending on the type of free sugar added (to determine the amount of added saccharose, glucose-fructose syrup, and fructose).
Conclusions
Natural kefirs and yoghurts available for the Polish consumer are the most beneficial fermented milk products.
We confirm that out of the dairy fermented products available in Poland, mostly natural kefirs fulfil the criteria of the European Parliament and Council Act (UE) no. 1924/2006 from 20 December 2006 nutrition and health claims made on foods.
Acknowledgements
Special thanks to Mr Peadar De Burca who checked the English language standard of the article.
Footnotes
Conflict of interests: none declared.
References
- 1.FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme , Distribution of the report of the thirty-fifth session of the codex committee on food additives and contaminants, 2003, 56, https://www.maff.go.jp/j/syouan/nouan/kome/k_cd/04_kijyun/attach/pdf/01_int-1.pdf (Access 3.05.2021). [Google Scholar]
- 2.Pasin G, Comerford KB. Dairy foods and dairy proteins in the management of type 2 diabetes: a systematic review of the clinical evidence. Adv Nutr 2015; 6: 245–259. 10.3945/an.114.007690. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Fernandez A, Panahi S, Daniel N, et al. Yogurt and Cardiometabolic Diseases: A Critical Review of Potential Mechanisms, Adv Nutr 2017; 8: 812–829. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Szwedziak K, Antczak D. Health proprerties of flavored yoghurt. Postępy Techniki Przetwórstwa Spożywczego 2016, 1: 19–21. [Google Scholar]
- 5.Gueimonde M, Salminen S. The role of yogurt in food-based dietary guidelines. Nutr Rev 2018; 76 (Suppl 1): 29–39. 10.1093/nutrit/nuy059. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Stankiewicz J, Kwiatkowska E. Assessment of the Influence of the Flavour Additive on the Size of Lactic Acid Bacteria Population in a Selected Food Product Intended for Special Medical Purposes, Scientific Journal of Gdynia Maritime University 2018; 104: 55–62. [Google Scholar]
- 7.Regulation (ec) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:404:0009:0025:En:PDF (Access 3.05.2021).
- 8.Mitchell N, Catenacci V, Wyatt H, et al. Obesity: overwiew of an epidemic. Psychiatr Clin North Am 2011; 34: 717–732. 10.1016/j.psc.2011.08.005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Jeschke A, Obesity–the epidemic of the XXIst century–can you fight it with fiscal methods? Journal of Health Policy, Insurance and Management 2018; 43–54. [Google Scholar]
- 10.Fidler Mis N, Braegger C, Bronsky J, et al. Sugar in Infants, Children and Adolescents: A Position Paper of the European Society for Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition Committee on Nutrition. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2017; 65: 681–696. 10.1097/MPG.0000000000001733 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Wierzejska R, Siuba-Strzelińska M, Jarosz M. Evaluation of dairy products available on the Polish market in the context of nutrient profiles. Clear arguments for reformulation of foodstuffs. Rocz Panstw Zakl Hig 2017; 68: 43–50. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Coyle DH, Ndanuko R, Singh S, Huang P, Wu JH. Variations in Sugar Content of Flavored Milks and Yogurts: A Cross-Sectional Study across 3 Countries. Curr Dev Nutr 2019; 3: nzz060. 10.1093/cdn/nzz060. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Azaïs-Braesco V, Sluik D, et al. A review of total & added sugar intakes and dietary sources in Europe. Nutr J 2017; 16: 6. d 10.1186/s12937-016-0225-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Moore B, Horti A, Fielding B, Evaluation of the nutrient content of yogurts: a comprehensive survey of yogurt products in the major UK supermarkets. BMJ Open 2018; 18: 1–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Kemp B, White-Flynn T, Lyons O, et al. Is it yoghurt or is it a dessert? Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 2017; 76. 10.1017/S0029665117001422.27995834 [DOI]
- 16.Lythgoe A, Roberts C, Madden AM, Rennie KL. Marketing foods to children: a comparison of nutrient content between children’s and non-children’s products. Public Health Nutr 2013; 16: 2221–2230. 10.1017/S1368980013000943. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.WHO calls on countries to reduce sugars intake among adults and children https://www.who.int/news/item/04-03-2015-who-calls-on-countries-to-reduce-sugars-intake-among-adults-and-children (Access: 3.05.21).
- 18.Garcia A, Ronquillo J, Morillo-Santander G, et al. Sugar Content and Nutritional Quality of Child Orientated Ready to Eat Cereals and Yoghurts in the UK and Latin America; Does Food Policy Matter? Nutrients 2020, 12: 856. 10.3390/nu12030856. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Hobbs DA, Givens DI, Lovegrove JA. Yogurt consumption is associated with higher nutrient intake, diet quality and favourable metabolic profile in children: a cross-sectional analysis using data from years 1-4 of the National diet and Nutrition Survey, UK. Eur J Nutr. 2019; 58: 409–422. 10.1007/s00394-017-1605-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Smith Z, Benoit V, Jain N, et al. Yogurt Consumption Is Associated with Better Dietary Intake and Diet Quality in School-aged Children. Curr Develop Nutr 2019; 3: 112–119. [Google Scholar]
- 21.Bucher T, Collins C, Rollo M, et al. Nudging consumers towards healthier choices: a systematic review of positional influences on food choice. Br J Nutr 2016; 115: 2252–2263. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Nawrot K. The Role of Information on the Label in the Process of Choosing Food Products. Intercathedra 2020; 1: 33–40. [Google Scholar]
- 23.Vargas-Meza J, Jáuregui A, Pacheco-Miranda S, et al. Front-of-pack nutritional labels: Understanding by low-and middle-income Mexican consumers. PLoS One 2019; 14: 1–16. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Raikos V, Ni H, Hayes H, et al. Antioxidant Properties of a Yogurt Beverage Enriched with Salal (Gaultheria shallon) Berries and Blackcurrant (Ribes nigrum) Pomace during Cold Storage. Beverages 2019; 5: 1–11. [Google Scholar]
- 25.Coyle D, Ndanuko R, Singh S, et al. Variations in Sugar Content of Flavored Milk sand Yogurts: A Cross-Sectional Study across 3 Countries. Community and Global Nutrition, 2019; 1–6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Tedstone A, Owtram G, Montel S, et al. Sugar reduction: juice and milk based drinks. A technical reportoutlining guidelines for industry, 2017 baseline levels for drinks in scopeand next steps. Public Health England 2018; 3–39. [Google Scholar]
- 27.Hashem K, He F, MacGregor G. Effects of product reformulation on sugar intake and health–a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nutr Rev 2019; 77: 181–196. 10.1093/nutrit/nuy015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Yeung C, Gohil P, Rangan A, et al. Modelling of the impact of universal added sugar reduction through food reformulation. Sci Rep 2017; 7: 1–8. 10.1038/s41598-017-17417-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Torrico D, Tam J, Fuentes S, et al. Consumer rejection threshold, acceptability rates, physicochemical properties, and shelf-life of strawberry-flavored yogurts with reductions of sugar. J Sci Food Agric 2020; 100: 3024–3035. 10.1002/jsfa.10333. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]