Bo Jeong Gong; Segovia Lucas; Diewo Camara; Pauline E. Jolly; Chandrika Piyathilake; Taisun Hyun

doi:10.5720/kjcn.2024.00290

Articles

Page Path: HOME > Korean J Community Nutr > Volume 29(6); 2024 > Article

Research Article
Nutritional content and healthiness in sweet and salty snacks and beverages popular in South Korea and the United States assessed by nutrition labels: a cross-sectional comparative study: Bo Jeong Gong¹, Segovia Lucas², Diewo Camara³, Pauline E. Jolly⁴, Chandrika Piyathilake⁵, Taisun Hyun^6,†; Korean Journal of Community Nutrition 2024;29(6):467-479.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5720/kjcn.2024.00290
Published online: December 31, 2024

¹Doctoral Student, Department of Food and Nutrition, Chungbuk National University, Cheongju, Korea

²Bachelor of Arts, Latino Health Studies, Tufts University, Medford, MA, USA

³Bachelor of Science, Public Health, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA

⁴Professor Emeritas, Department of Epidemiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA

⁵Professor Emeritas, Department of Nutrition Science, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA

⁶Professor, Department of Food and Nutrition, Chungbuk National University, Cheongju, Korea

†Corresponding author: Taisun Hyun Department of Food and Nutrition, Chungbuk National University, 1 Chungdae-ro, Heungduk-gu, Cheongju 28644, Korea Tel: +82-43-261-2790 Fax: +82-43-267-2742 Email: taisun@cbnu.ac.kr

• Received: November 19, 2024 • Revised: December 23, 2024 • Accepted: December 26, 2024

This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

400 Views
18 Download

prev next

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract
INTRODUCTION
METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
NOTES
REFERENCES

Abstract

Objectives
This study investigated the nutritional differences between sweet and salty snacks and beverages in South Korea (Korea) and the United States (US). Nutritional content and healthiness were determined using back- and front-of-package nutrition labeling (FoPNL) systems.
Methods
Three snack and three beverage categories popular in Korea and the US were selected. Statistical data were used to determine the top 10–15 best-selling products in each category in each country. The selected products included chips (n = 15), cookies (n = 10), chocolate (n = 13), carbonated drinks (n = 10), fruit juices/drinks (n = 10, 5/5), and energy drinks (n = 10). The study excluded products that were artificially sweetened. Nutritional information and percentages of fruit and vegetable content in each product were collected from brand websites and grocery stores in each country. The FoPNL system was used to assess the healthiness of the products, which included multiple traffic light labels, a Health Star Rating, and a Nutri-Score.
Results
Overall, Korean snacks contained significantly more protein, total fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol than US snacks. However, the US chips and carbonated drinks contained more sodium, while the US energy drinks contained more caffeine than Korean products. The serving size of US carbonated drinks was significantly larger than that of Korean drinks, whereas the serving size of US chips was smaller than that of Korean products. The FoPNL system classified the majority of products as ‘less healthy.’
Conclusion
Our results suggest that Korean and US food manufacturers should improve the nutritional quality and/or serving size of commonly consumed food products. Policymakers in both countries should work to improve the presentation of nutrient information on nutrition labels to assist consumers in making healthier food choices.
Keywords: nutrition labeling; nutritional value; serving size; snacks

INTRODUCTION

Food choices and eating habits have changed dramatically in many countries around the world over the past several decades [1]. Similar to other developing nations, South Korea (Korea) has undergone a nutrition transition with economic growth, industrialization, urbanization, and globalization [2]. The traditional low-fat, high-fiber Korean diet has been replaced by processed foods high in fats and added sugars [3]. This dietary transition is particularly evident in beverage consumption, with non-alcoholic beverage intake increasing more than fourfold between 1998 and 2018 [3]. Additionally, snacks account for a larger proportion of daily calories, rising from 14% in 1998 to 19% in 2016–2018. Within these snacks, the contribution of calories from ultra-processed foods increased significantly from 31.8% to 62.6% over the same period [4]. These ultra-processed snacks are often high in calories, added sugar, fats, and sodium [5]. Therefore, excessive consumption of snacks, particularly sweet and salty snacks, can result in overconsumption of calories, sugars, fats, and sodium, which are known to increase the risk of obesity and metabolic diseases [5-7].

Efforts to reduce sodium and sugar intake are critical components of public health strategies worldwide [8, 9]. In Korea, various policies aimed at reducing sugar, fat, and sodium consumption have been implemented [10-12]. These initiatives focus on public education and collaboration with the food industry to reformulate products. Such policies have achieved measurable success, including a significant decrease in trans fat content in snack foods and a reduction in sodium intake among the Korean population. The Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (MFDS) in Korea continues to work with the food industry to further reduce sodium and sugar levels in processed foods. Similarly, in the United States (US), there was a marked reduction in the sodium content of packaged foods and beverages from 2000 to 2014 [13].

The World Health Organization recommends implementing nutrition labeling policies to help people make healthier food choices, with the goal of preventing obesity and noncommunicable diseases [14]. Studies have shown that reading nutrition labels is associated with improved diet quality [15-17]. Specifically, individuals who reported reading nutrition labels were more likely to practice healthier eating habits [18, 19]. However, a 2022 survey in Korea revealed notable gaps in nutrition label awareness and usage [20]. Although 57.6% of Korean adults reported being aware of nutrition labels, comprehension rates were substantially lower at 25.7%, and utilization of these labels during processed food selection was limited to 21.3% [20]. In both Korea and the US, nutrition labels are currently printed in small letters and numbers on the back of food packages [21]. Evidence suggests that the complexity of numerical information and its placement on the back of the package can make it difficult for consumers to understand and use the label effectively [22].

In an effort to help consumers make healthier food choices, easy-to-understand symbols and color-coded labels have recently been introduced on the front of the packages [23]. More than 30 countries have adopted voluntary or mandatory front-of-packages nutrition labeling (FoPNL) systems [24]. Generally, FoPNL can be categorized into nutrient-specific and summary indicator systems. The examples of FoPNL systems are presented in Fig. 1 [25, 26]. The multiple traffic light (MTL) nutrition label, a type of nutrient-specific system, is used in several countries, including the United Kingdom (UK) [25]. The MTL label employs traffic light colors (red, amber, green) to indicate high, medium, and low levels of fat, saturated fat, sugars, and salt, as shown in Fig. 1A. The use of MTL label has been shown to help consumers to make healthier food choices [27, 28]. Several other summary indicator systems have been developed based on formulas that take into account the nutritional composition of the product. The Health Star Rating (HSR) system, used in Australia and New Zealand, rates products from 0.5 stars (least healthy) to 5 stars (most healthy), as shown in Fig. 1B. The Nutri-Score (NS), developed in France and used in some European countries, displays an estimate of healthiness with letters from A (most healthy) to E (least healthy) in different colors, as illustrated in Fig. 1C. A is green, B is light green, C is yellow, D is amber, and E is red. The label shows all five letters in different colors, but the letter indicating the value of the product is made larger. Evidence supports FoPNL as an effective public health intervention, demonstrating positive impacts on both consumer food choices and industry-driven product reformulation [29, 30].

Some summary indicator systems, such as HSR and NS, can rank packaged foods based on their nutritional composition. Dunford et al. [31] reported considerable variability in the healthiness of packaged foods and beverages across countries using the HSR, with products in middle‐income countries like China and India being less healthy than those in high-income countries like the US and the UK. While Korea has implemented policies to reduce trans fat, sodium, and sugar content in processed foods, no comparative analysis has been conducted to evaluate the nutritional quality of Korean snacks and beverages relative to similar products in other countries. This study aimed to compare the nutritional differences between sweet and salty snacks and beverages in Korea and the US. The comparison was based on the back-of-package nutrition labeling (BoPNL) data and the FoPNL systems, including MTL, HSR, and NS.

METHODS

Ethics statement

Ethics approval was not required as no human subjects were involved in this study.

1. Study design

This study was conducted as a cross-sectional study. It was described in accordance with the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement, available at https://www.strobe-statement.org/.

2. Selection of snacks and beverages

The study compared snacks and beverages between Korea and the US. Snacks included three categories: chips, cookies, and chocolate, and beverages included three categories: carbonated drinks, fruit juice/drinks, and energy drinks [32, 33]. Korean products were selected based on brand sales ranking from retail point-of-sale data for major processed foods, as disclosed by the Korea Agro-Fisheries and Food Trade Corporation [34]. When a store brand which refers to a distributor’s own brand was included in the top rankings, additional product was selected through Naver DataLab. This platform provides search volume data for keywords within specific categories over a given period. In this study, additional popular products were identified based on click trends in shopping categories, such as carbonated beverages, during 2023. The best-selling US products were selected based on the sales rankings released by Statista. When additional product selection by category was needed, the rankings of best-selling products from Amazon’s website in July 2023 were used. The selected products included chips (n = 15), cookies (n = 10), chocolate (n = 13), carbonated drinks (n = 10), fruit juice/drinks (n = 10; 5/5), and energy drinks (n = 10) in each country. Artificially sweetened products were excluded.

3. Nutritional analysis of the products by the BoPNL

The nutrition information of selected products were collected from brand websites or grocery stores in each country. The most recent nutritional values per 100 g (or 100 mL) for energy (kcal), total carbohydrates (g), sugar (g), protein (g), total fat (g), trans fat (g), saturated fat (g), cholesterol (mg), and sodium (mg) as well as serving size were obtained. Trans fat content can be labeled as ‘0’ if it is less than 0.2 g per serving in Korea and less than 0.5 g in the US. Due to the difficulty in estimating exact amounts, trans fat was excluded from the analysis. Additionally, the percentage of fruit and vegetable content in fruit juice/drinks was collected.

4. Assessment of the healthiness of the products by the FoPNL criteria

The healthiness of the products was assessed using the criteria of MTL, HSR, and NS. Products were classified by the number of red lights based on the MTL criteria. A healthiness score was calculated for each product following the method described by Sacks et al. [35]. One point was allocated for each green label, two points for each amber label, and three points for each red label. To calculate the total score, all four traffic-light labels were summed, resulting in a possible score range of 4 to 12 points for each product. A lower score indicated a healthier product, and products scoring 7 points or more were classified as ‘less healthy’.

The HSR was calculated using a calculator based on the guide [36]. Each product was classified according to the HSR food category, and scored by considering the positive factors, such as protein, ﬁber, and fruit/vegetable/nut/legume (FVNL) content, and negative factors, such as energy, saturated fat, sugar, and sodium. A lower score reﬂects a healthier product. Products were assigned from 0.5 to 5.0 stars, with half-star increments based on their scores. Products with a HSR below 3.5 stars were classified as ‘less healthy’.

The updated algorithm for calculating the NS has been described [37]. Positive points (0–10 points) were assigned for unfavorable variables such as energy, sugar, saturated fat, and sodium, while negative points (0–5 points) were assigned for favorable variables such as protein, fiber, and FVNL percentage. The final score ranged from –15, indicating highest nutritional quality, to 40, indicating lowest nutritional quality. The score was then converted to a corresponding color and letter grade. For general foods, scores ranging from –15 to –1 are categorized as dark green (A) for the best nutritional quality, 0 to 2 as light green (B), 3 to 10 as yellow (C), 11 to 18 as orange (D) and 19 to 40 as red (E) for the worst nutritional quality. For beverages, only water is allowed to be graded as A. The NS calculator for the updated algorithm was used to calculate product scores [38].

5. Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics 29 (IBM Co.). Continuous variables, such as nutrients and serving size, were presented as median, minimum, and maximum values. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare variables between the two countries. The frequency and percentage of products for the grades of MTL, HSR, and NS were calculated. A P-value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

For data visualization, heatmaps and swarm plots were created using python (version 3.9, Python Software Foundation, 2021). In the swarm plots, data points were distributed horizontally to avoid overlapping data and to facilitate intuitive comparisons of differences between the two countries.

RESULTS

1. Nutritional content of snacks and beverages popular in Korea and the US

Nutritional content and serving sizes of sweet and salty snacks, including chips, cookies, and chocolate, are shown in Table 1. The median energy content per 100 g and serving sizes of 38 Korean and US snacks were similar: 526.1 kcal and 500.0 kcal, and 31.0 g and 30.0 g, respectively. Among the categories analyzed in this study, US chips had the highest median sodium content at 678.6 mg/100 g, and US chocolate had the highest median sugar content at 51.1 g/100 g. On the contrary, Korean chocolate had the highest total fats and saturated fats at 32.4 g/100 g and 17.5 g/100 g, respectively. Korean chips had significantly higher sugar (P < 0.05) and saturated fat (P < 0.01), but lower sodium (P < 0.01) per 100 g, compared to US chips. The median serving size of Korean chips was larger than that of US chips (P < 0.01). Korean cookies contained significantly higher energy (P < 0.01) and saturated fat (P < 0.01) per 100 g, but lower carbohydrates (P < 0.05) and sugar (P < 0.05) per 100 g than US cookies. Korean chocolate had higher energy (P < 0.01), protein (P < 0.01), fat (P < 0.05), saturated fat (P < 0.01), and cholesterol (P < 0.05) per 100 g than US chocolate. When the three snack categories were combined, Korean snacks were significantly higher in protein (P < 0.001), fat (P < 0.05), saturated fat (P < 0.01), and cholesterol (P < 0.05) per 100 g than US snacks.

The nutritional content and serving sizes of beverages, including carbonated drinks, fruit juice/drinks, and energy drinks, are shown in Table 2. Korean carbonated drinks were significantly lower in saturated fat (P < 0.01), cholesterol (P < 0.01), and sodium (P < 0.01) per 100 mL, and serving sizes (P < 0.05) than US products. US fruit juice/drinks had significantly higher saturated fat and cholesterol than Korean products (P < 0.01 for both) even though the differences were small. US energy drinks contained significantly more caffeine than Korean energy drinks (P < 0.01). When the three categories were combined, US beverages had significantly higher saturated fat (P < 0.001) and cholesterol (P < 0.001) per 100 mL than Korean beverages, along with larger serving sizes (P < 0.05). However, Korean beverages contained significantly more total fat than US beverages (P < 0.05).

2. Healthiness of snacks and beverages assessed by MTL labels

The classification of snacks by the number of red traffic lights each product received using MTL labeling criteria is presented in Table 3. All products received at least one red light of the four nutrients: fat, saturated fat, sugar, and sodium. In both countries, 60% of chips had two red lights, and 70% of cookies had three red lights. Notably, all Korean chocolate had three red lights, whereas three out of 10 US chocolates had only one red light. Almost all sweet and salty snacks were classified as ‘less healthy’.

The distribution of traffic light colors for nutrients in snacks and beverages is shown in Fig. 2. In both countries, red lights were most frequently observed for sugar, fat, and saturated fat, while amber lights were most common for sodium in snacks. The percentage of red lights for sugar was similar in Korean and US snacks. However, the percentages of red lights for fat and saturated fat were higher in Korean snacks compared to US snacks, whereas the percentage for sodium was higher in US snacks. For beverages, only the sugar content was compared between the two countries, as levels of fat, saturated fat, and sodium were generally low. Amber lights were the most common for sugar in beverages, and the percentage of red lights was higher in US beverages compared to Korean beverages.

3. Healthiness of snacks and beverages assessed by HSR and NS

The distribution of HSR profile score and NS of snacks and beverages in Korea and the US is shown in Fig. 3. Korean chips and cookies had significantly higher HSR scores, indicating that they were less healthy than US chips and cookies. Most cookies and chocolate received 0.5 or 1 star. Only one US juice received 3 stars, while all other snacks and beverages received 2.5 stars or below. All products analyzed in this study were classified as ‘less healthy’, with HSR values below 3.5 out of 5.0 stars. There were no significant differences in the distribution of raw NS scores of snacks and beverages between Korea and the US.

When all three categories were combined, approximately 70% of Korean snacks and beverages had 0.5 stars, compared to 44.7% of US snacks (Fig. 4). For NS, more than 70% of snacks and beverages in both countries received an E grade, the least healthy rating, and especially, 94.7% of Korean snacks received an E grade. None of the analyzed products qualified for either an A or B grade.

DISCUSSION

We observed significant differences in the nutritional profile of popular snacks and beverages between Korea and the US. Overall, Korean sweet and salty snacks had significantly higher protein, fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol than US snacks. Conversely, US products had significantly larger serving sizes for carbonated drinks, and higher caffeine content in energy drinks than Korean counterparts.

It was unexpected that Korean snacks were significantly higher in fat and saturated fat compared to US snacks. The median fat and saturated fat content of US cookies were 20.3 g/100 g and 8.0 g/100 g, respectively, whereas Korean cookies contained 26.1 g/100 g and 15.1 g/100 g. In a previous study on Polish cookies [39], the mean fat content was 20.2 g and saturated fat was 9.1 g, similar to US products but lower than Korean products. The mean saturated fat content of Türkiye’s chips and chocolate was 8.6 and 17.6 g, similar to those of Korean products [40]. Following successful reduction initiatives in Korea, most processed foods now report zero trans fat content per serving. However, reformulation strategies targeting a single nutrient may lead to unintended increases in other nutrients [41], with particular concern regarding the potential replacement of trans fats with saturated fats [42]. Therefore, reformulated products should be monitored comprehensively, focusing on multiple nutrients rather than a single nutrient. Furthermore, it is also important to pay attention to the quality of fat in food products as some oils, such as cold pressed and extra virgin olive oils, have beneficial health effects over highly processed oils, such as refined sun flower and palm oil [43]. Monitoring the type and quality of fats used in food production is crucial for improving overall diet quality.

US chips and carbonated drinks had more sodium than Korean products. We found that US beverages contained much higher levels of sodium compared to the beverages of the same brand sold in Korea. Previous studies have also demonstrated that sodium contents in US products were higher than in other countries, even within the same brand [31, 44, 45]. These findings indicate that while US products have achieved notable decreases in sodium content [13], there remains potential for additional sodium reduction efforts.

The caffeine content in energy drinks was significantly lower in Korea than in the US. The MFDS in Korea has implemented regulatory policies to reduce excessive caffeine consumption, particularly among adolescents. Beverages containing more than 15 mg of caffeine per 100 mL must be labeled as high-caffeine beverages, with the total caffeine content clearly displayed. In addition, a pilot project was conducted to display warning messages about caffeine consumption on the shelves of high-caffeine beverages in convenience stores [46]. These policies may have contributed to the lower caffeine content found in Korean energy drinks compared to the US products.

Serving sizes for carbonated drinks were significantly larger in the US than in Korea, whereas serving sizes for chips were larger in Korea than in the US. Large serving sizes of foods and beverages, particularly energy-dense snacks, have been shown to increase energy intake, which may increase the risk of weight gain [47, 48]. Therefore, reducing the serving sizes of snacks and beverages could serve as an important policy to reduce obesity rates by regulating energy consumption.

In our study, more than 50% of 38 snacks in both countries received three of the four possible red lights according to MTL criteria, only 0.5 or one star by the HSR system, and more than 70% were graded E by the NS. Notably, more Korean snacks received lower grades by HSR and NS compared to US snacks. A comparative study on the healthiness of packaged foods and beverages across countries using the HSR system found that the products in middle‐income countries were less healthy compared to those in high-income countries [31]. They suggested that high-income countries like the US may have healthier packaged foods due to greater consumer demand for nutritious products, more health-focused policies and programs, and greater food industry initiatives to develop healthier products. Therefore, efforts should be made to improve the nutritional quality of packaged food products in Korea through policy initiatives, industry engagement, and consumer education programs.

Since 2009, Korea’s MFDS has implemented nutritional standards to identify ‘high-calorie, low-nutrient foods’ among children's favorite foods to prevent childhood obesity and promote healthy eating habits [49]. However, this policy has several limitations. First, since the standards are based on serving size, manufacturers can avoid the ‘high-calorie, low nutrient food’ designation simply by adjusting serving size. For example, one standard for snacks is ‘foods exceeding 17 g of sugar and less than 2 g of protein per serving’. Second, products can be exempt from the classification if they contain at least 2 g of protein per serving, even if they are high in calories, saturated fat, or sugar. This may explain why Korean snacks tend to have higher protein content compared to US snacks. When these standards were applied to the products in our study, only five US products and two Korean products among snacks were classified as ‘high-calorie, low-nutrient foods’. Compared to other FoPNL, this standard does not seem to classify nutrient quality as strictly. Nevertheless, nearly all carbonated beverages, energy drinks, and fruit drinks except one or two in each category were classified as ‘high-calorie, low-nutrient foods’ because they are low in protein and high in sugar. Third, there is no requirement for this information to be displayed on product packaging. Therefore, the policy defining ‘high-calorie, low-nutrient foods’ is unlikely to significantly influence children’s food choices or promote healthier eating habits. In addition, Korea introduced a voluntary MTL labeling system for children’s foods in 2011 [23]. However, participation by food manufacturers has been limited. Therefore, effective strategies are needed to encourage manufacturers’ participation in government policies aimed at both providing healthier food products and facilitating informed consumer choices.

Recently, the Biden-Harris Administration prioritized nutrition labeling in the National Strategy on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health, advocating for the implementation of a FoPNL [50]. In response, the Food and Drug Administration is currently proposing a FoPNL system for foods and beverages ‘high-in’ nutrients associated with chronic diseases [51]. This initiative is expected to help Americans more easily understand nutritional information on food products.

We compared the nutrient content and healthiness of snacks and beverages popular in Korea and the US and observed some statistically significant differences. Our results suggest that food manufacturers in Korea and the US may need to make positive changes regarding the quality and serving sizes of snacks and beverages to reduce the negative health effects of their consumption.

Limitations

Our study has some limitations. We only compared a limited number of products in each category, so it is difficult to ensure representativeness. However, we focused on best-selling products within each category, and the nutrient content of each category was comparable to the values published in other studies. Another limitation is that the nutrient content was extracted from product labels, which may not always accurately reflect the actual composition of the products. Further research studies with a larger number of snack and beverage items consumed in each country is needed to improve the scientific validity of our results.

Conclusion

Korean snacks overall had significantly higher levels of protein, total fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol compared to US snacks. Most snacks and beverages analyzed in this study were classified as ‘less healthy’ by MTL, HSR, and NS. Our findings suggest that both Korean and US food manufacturers should improve the nutritional quality and/or serving size of commonly consumed snacks and beverages. In addition, policymakers in both countries should work to improve the presentation of nutrient information on nutrition labels to assist consumers making healthier food choices.

NOTES

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

There are no financial or other issues that might lead to a conflict of interest.

FUNDING

This research was supported by a Research Training grant funded by the National Institute of Minority Health and Health Disparities (T37-MD001448).

DATA AVAILABILITY

Research data is available upon request to the corresponding author.

Fig. 1.

Examples of front-of-package nutrition labeling.

Adapted from Department of Health and Social Care [25] and Food Standrards Australia New Zealand [26].

Fig. 2.

Distribution of traffic light colors for nutrients in snacks and beverages.

KOR, South Korea; US, United States.

Fig. 3.

Distribution of HSR profile score and Nutri-Score for each category of snacks and beverages.

HSR, Health Star Rating; KOR, South Korea; US, United States.

^*P < 0.05, a significant difference between Korea and US by the Mann-Whitney U test.

Fig. 4.

Distribution of HSR and Nutri-Score grade for snacks and beverages.

KOR, South Korea; US, United States.

Table 1.

Nutritional content per 100 g and serving size of sweet and salty snacks in South Korea and US

Variable	Chips		Cookies


	KOR (n = 15)	US (n = 15)	KOR (n = 10)	US (n = 10)
Energy (kcal)	520.0 (466.7 to 765.0)	514.3 (392.9 to 571.4)	510.6 (480.8 to 587.0)	468.7 (421.1 to 561.4)^**
Carbohydrates (g)	62.8 (50.0 to 71.4)	60.0 (53.6 to 71.4)	60.2 (33.3 to 76.9)	67.6 (57.9 to 73.5)^*
Sugars (g)	5.0 (0.0 to 31.7)	1.8 (0.0 to 7.1)^*1)	31.7 (8.3 to 38.0)	36.8 (24.0 to 41.2)^*
Protein (g)	6.7 (3.3 to 13.3)	7.1 (1.8 to 13.0)	6.7 (1.9 to 8.5)	3.7 (2.6 to 7.1)
Total fat (g)	26.7 (18.3 to 38.0)	28.6 (8.9 to 35.7)	26.1 (13.3 to 39.1)	20.3 (15.8 to 31.6)
Saturated fat (g)	8.7 (4.8 to 14.0)	5.4 (0.0 to 20.0)^**	15.1 (6.7 to 21.9)	8.0 (1.0 to 12.3)^**
Cholesterol (mg)	0.0 (0.0 to 30.0)	0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)	13.1 (0.0 to 76.9)	0.0 (0.0 to 107.1)
Sodium (mg)	500.0 (50.0 to 700.0)	678.6 (321.4 to 1,171.4)^**	274.6 (152.2 to 625.0)	349.1 (176.5 to 400.0)
Serving size (g)	30.0 (30.0 to 60.0)	28.0 (19.0 to 35.0)^**	32.0 (22.0 to 52.5)	34.0 (25.0 to 57.0)
Variable	Chocolate		Snacks (total)
Variable	KOR (n = 13)	US (n = 13)	KOR (n = 38)	US (n = 38)
Energy (kcal)	550.0 (477.8 to 732.2)	500.0 (312.5 to 571.4)^**	526.1 (466.7 to 765.0)	500.0 (312.5 to 571.4)
Carbohydrates (g)	58.8 (48.3 to 71.4)	60.6 (50.0 to 83.3)	60.0 (33.3 to 76.9)	64.3 (50.0 to 83.3)
Sugars (g)	46.2 (21.2 to 71.4)	51.1 (29.8 to 69.0)	27.5 (0.0 to 71.4)	33.8 (0.0 to 69.0)
Protein (g)	8.8 (5.8 to 11.8)	6.1 (1.5 to 9.5)^**	6.9 (1.9 to 13.3)	6.1 (1.5 to 13.0)^**
Total fat (g)	32.4 (22.2 to 44.6)	23.9 (0.0 to 35.7)^*	28.1 (13.3 to 44.6)	24.6 (0.0 to 35.7)^*
Saturated fat (g)	17.5 (11.1 to 28.6)	10.8 (0.0 to 20.0)^**	13.5 (4.8 to 28.6)	7.9 (0.0 to 20.0)^***
Cholesterol (mg)	14.7 (8.1 to 35.3)	8.3 (0.0 to 19.2)^*	8.7 (0.0 to 76.9)	0.0 (0.0 to 107.1)^*
Sodium (mg)	116.3 (60.0 to 463.0)	142.9 (47.6 to 316.7)	348.5 (50.0 to 700.0)	350.7 (47.6 to 1,171.4)
Serving size (g)	34.0 (15.0 to 56.0)	33.0 (26.0 to 58.7)	31.0 (15.0 to 60.0)	30.0 (19.0 to 58.7)

Median (minimum to maximum).

KOR, South Korea; US, United States.

^1)*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001. Significant difference between Korea and US by the Mann-Whitney U test.

Table 2.

Nutritional content per 100 mL and serving size of beverages in South Korea and US

Variable	Carbonated drinks		Juice/fruit drinks


	KOR (n = 10)	US (n = 10)	KOR (n = 10)	US (n = 10)
Energy (kcal)	44.3 (32.0 to 54.1)	42.0 (36.6 to 47.2)	42.6 (22.6 to 55.3)	43.8 (33.3 to 58.3)
Carbohydrates (g)	11.2 (8.0 to 13.5)	11.3 (9.0 to 12.8)	11.3 (5.6 to 13.7)	11.3 (8.8 to 15.4)
Sugars (g)	11.2 (8.0 to 13.0)	11.3 (9.0 to 12.8)	9.5 (5.1 to 12.6)	10.2 (7.1 to 14.6)
Protein (g)	0.0 (0.0 to 0.4)	0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)	0.0 (0.0 to 1.0)	0.0 (0.0 to 0.8)
Total fat (g)	0.0 (0.0 to 0.2)	0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)	0.0 (0.0 to 0.4)	0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)
Saturated fat (g)	0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)	0.1 (0.0 to 0.1)^**1)	0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)	0.1 (0.0 to 0.1)^**
Cholesterol (mg)	0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)	0.1 (0.0 to 0.1)^**	0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)	0.1 (0.0 to 0.1)^**
Sodium (mg)	3.2 (0.0 to 9.6)	15.4 (8.3 to 20.0)^**	13.9 (0.0 to 70.0)	4.2 (0.0 to 20.8)
FVNL (%)	-	-	70.0 (3.0 to 100.0)	57.5 (5.0 to 100.0)
Serving size (mL)	250.0 (215.0 to 355.0)	357.5 (222.0 to 500.0)^**	200.0 (180.0 to 340.0)	240.0 (177.0 to 240.0)
Variable	Energy drinks		Beverages (total)
Variable	KOR (n = 10)	US (n = 10)	KOR (n = 30)	US (n = 30)
Energy (kcal)	47.2 (38.0 to 65.6)	45.1 (21.1 to 87.5)	45.5 (22.6 to 65.6)	44.7 (21.1 to 87.5)
Carbohydrates (g)	11.4 (9.0 to 16.3)	11.6 (5.1 to 22.5)	11.2 (5.6 to 16.3)	11.4 (5.1 to 22.5)
Sugars (g)	11.1 (8.7 to 15.9)	11.0 (4.6 to 22.5)	10.9 (5.1 to 15.9)	11.0 (4.6 to 22.5)
Protein (g)	0.3 (0.0 to 0.3)	0.0 (0.0 to 0.3)	0.0 (0.0 to 1.0)	0.0 (0.0 to 0.8)
Total fat (g)	0.0 (0.0 to 0.2)	0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)	0.0 (0.0 to 0.4)	0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)^*
Saturated fat (g)	0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)	0.0 (0.0 to 0.1)	0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)	0.1 (0.0 to 0.1)^***
Cholesterol (mg)	0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)	0.0 (0.0 to 0.1)	0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)	0.1 (0.0 to 0.1)^***
Sodium (mg)	25.7 (0.0 to 76.9)	32.4 (0.0 to 154.2)	11.2 (0.0 to 76.9)	15.0 (0.0 to 154.2)
Caffeine (mg)	28.2 (13.0 to 42.0)	31.9 (24.0 to 45.1)^**	-	-
Serving size (mL)	355.0 (250.0 to 355.0)	406.5 (237.0 to 473.0)	250.0 (180.0 to 355.0)	355.0 (177.0 to 500.0)^*

Median (minimum to maximum).

KOR, South Korea; US, United States; FVNL, fruit/vegetable/nut/legume.

^1)*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001. Significant difference between Korea and US by the Mann-Whitney U test.

Table 3.

Classification of snacks by the number of red traffic light labels using MTL label criteria

Variable	No. of red traffic lights					Less healthy¹⁾
Variable	0	1	2	3	4	Less healthy¹⁾
Chips
KOR (n = 15)	0 (0.0)	1 (6.7)	9 (60.0)	4 (26.7)	1 (6.7)	15 (100.0)
US (n = 15)	0 (0.0)	2 (13.3)	9 (60.0)	4 (26.7)	0 (0.0)	15 (100.0)
Cookies
KOR (n = 10)	0 (0.0)	1 (10.0)	2 (20.0)	7 (70.0)	0 (0.0)	10 (100.0)
US (n = 10)	0 (0.0)	2 (20.0)	1 (10.0)	7 (70.0)	0 (0.0)	10 (100.0)
Chocolate
KOR (n = 13)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	13 (100.0)	0 (0.0)	13 (100.0)
US (n = 13)	0 (0.0)	3 (23.1)	1 (7.7)	9 (69.2)	0 (0.0)	11 (84.6)
Total
KOR (n = 38)	0 (0.0)	2 (5.3)	11 (28.9)	24 (63.2)	1 (2.6)	38 (100.0)
US (n = 38)	0 (0.0)	7 (18.4)	11 (28.9)	20 (52.6)	0 (0.0)	36 (94.7)

n (%).

MTL, multiple traffic light; KOR, South Korea; US, United States

¹⁾Green light = 1, amber light = 2, red light = 3 for fat, saturated fat, sugar, and sodium. Total possible score ranges from 4 to 12. Foods were considered less healthy if the score was ≥ 7.

REFERENCES

1. Imamura F, Micha R, Khatibzadeh S, Fahimi S, Shi P, Powles J, et al.; Global Burden of Diseases Nutrition and Chronic Diseases Expert Group (NutriCoDE). Dietary quality among men and women in 187 countries in 1990 and 2010: a systematic assessment. Lancet Glob Health 2015; 3(3): e132-e142. Article PubMed PMC
2. Kelly M. The nutrition transition in developing Asia: dietary change, drivers and health impacts. In: Jackson P, Spiess W, Sultana F, editors. Eating, Drinking: Surviving. SpringerBriefs in Global Understanding. Springer; 2016. p. 83-90.
3. Kweon S, Park JY, Park M, Kim Y, Yeon SY, Yoon L, et al. Trends in food and nutrient intake over 20 years: findings from the 1998-2018 Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Epidemiol Health 2021; 43: e2021027. Article PubMed PMC
4. Jung S, Kim JY, Park S. Eating patterns in Korean adults, 1998-2018: increased energy contribution of ultra-processed foods in main meals and snacks. Eur J Nutr 2024; 63(1): 279-289. Article PubMed PDF
5. Arora M, Singhal S, Rasane P, Singh J, Kaur S, Kumar V, et al. Snacks and snacking: impact on health of the consumers and opportunities for its improvement. Curr Nutr Food Sci 2020; 16(7): 1028-1043. Article
6. Miller R, Benelam B, Stanner SA, Buttriss JL. Is snacking good or bad for health? Nutr Bull 2013; 38: 302-322.
7. Mattes RD. Snacking: a cause for concern. Physiol Behav 2018; 193(Pt B): 279-283. Article PubMed
8. Trieu K, Neal B, Hawkes C, Dunford E, Campbell N, Rodriguez-Fernandez R, et al. Salt reduction initiatives around the world - a systematic review of progress towards the global target. PLoS One 2015; 10(7): e0130247. Article PubMed PMC
9. Krieger J, Bleich SN, Scarmo S, Ng SW. Sugar-sweetened beverage reduction policies: progress and promise. Annu Rev Public Health 2021; 42: 439-461. Article PubMed
10. Jung JY, Park SY, Lee SK. Current status and development direction of the food nutrition safety policy - the first phase of sugar intake reduction plan -. Korean J Health Educ Promot 2016; 33(4): 35-46. Article
11. Yoon T, Lee S, Shin HJ, Lee SY, Hong J, No KM, et al. Study of trans fatty acids and saturated fatty acids in child-favored foods. J Korean Soc Food Sci Nutr 2011; 40(11): 1562-1568. Article
12. Jung J. Policy trends of sodium reduction. Food Sci Ind 2016; 49(2): 2-7. Article
13. Poti JM, Dunford EK, Popkin BM. Sodium reduction in US households’ packaged food and beverage purchases, 2000 to 2014. JAMA Intern Med 2017; 177(7): 986-994. Article PubMed PMC
14. World Health Organization (WHO). Global action plan for the prevention and control of noncommunicable diseases 2013-2020 [Internet]. WHO; 2013 [updated 2013 Nov 14; cited 2024 Nov 15]. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241506236
15. Anastasiou K, Miller M, Dickinson K. The relationship between food label use and dietary intake in adults: a systematic review. Appetite 2019; 138: 280-291. Article PubMed
16. Pérez-Escamilla R, Haldeman L. Food label use modifies association of income with dietary quality. J Nutr 2002; 132(4): 768-772. Article PubMed
17. Kim HS, Oh C, No JK. Can nutrition label recognition or usage affect nutrition intake according to age? Nutrition 2016; 32(1): 56-60. Article PubMed
18. Graham DJ, Laska MN. Nutrition label use partially mediates the relationship between attitude toward healthy eating and overall dietary quality among college students. J Acad Nutr Diet 2012; 112(3): 414-418. Article PubMed PMC
19. Yeon JY. Sugar intake and sugar reduction perception by practice of dietary action guides among the college students in Cheongju. J Home Econ Educ Res 2021; 33(3): 23-40. Article
20. Choi Y, Kim HJ, Park J, Lee SW, Rahmati M, Koyanagi A, et al. National prevalence and trends in food labeling awareness, comprehension, usage, and COVID-19 pandemic-related factors in South Korea, 2014-2022. Sci Rep 2024; 14(1): 2617.Article PubMed PMC PDF
21. Dumoitier A, Abbo V, Neuhofer ZT, McFadden BR. A review of nutrition labeling and food choice in the United States. Obes Sci Pract 2019; 5(6): 581-591. Article PMC PDF
22. Cowburn G, Stockley L. Consumer understanding and use of nutrition labelling: a systematic review. Public Health Nutr 2005; 8(1): 21-28. Article PubMed
23. Kanter R, Vanderlee L, Vandevijvere S. Front-of-package nutrition labelling policy: global progress and future directions. Public Health Nutr 2018; 21(8): 1399-1408. Article PMC
24. World Cancer Research Fund International (WCRFI). Building momentum: lessons on implementing a robust front-of-pack food label [Internet]. WCRFI; 2021 [updated 2021 Jul; cited 2024 Oct 30]. Available from: https://www.wcrf.org/research-policy/library/building-momentum-lessons-on-implementing-a-robust-front-of-pack-food-label/
25. Department of Health and Social Care. Building on the success of front-of-pack nutrition labelling in the UK: a public consultation [Internet]. Department of Health and Social Care; 2020 [updated 2020 Oct; cited 2024 Sep 19]. Available from: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5f219839e90e071a5a92433a/front-of-pack-labelling-consultation-document-english.pdf
26. Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ). Health Star Rating system [Internet]. FSANZ; 2023 [updated 2023 Dec 6; cited 2024 Sep 19]. Available from: https://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumer/labelling/Health-Star-Rating-System
27. Wakui N, Matsuoka R, Ichikawa K, Togawa C, Okami A, Kawakubo S, et al. Investigation of the 1-week effect of traffic light nutrition labeling on diet selection among Japanese university students: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Public Health 2024; 24(1): 381.Article PubMed PMC PDF
28. Scarborough P, Matthews A, Eyles H, Kaur A, Hodgkins C, Raats MM, et al. Reds are more important than greens: how UK supermarket shoppers use the different information on a traffic light nutrition label in a choice experiment. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2015; 12: 151.Article PubMed PMC
29. Roberto CA, Ng SW, Ganderats-Fuentes M, Hammond D, Barquera S, Jauregui A, et al. The influence of front-of-package nutrition labeling on consumer behavior and product reformulation. Annu Rev Nutr 2021; 41: 529-550. Article PubMed
30. Ganderats-Fuentes M, Morgan S. Front-of-package nutrition labeling and its impact on food industry practices: a systematic review of the evidence. Nutrients 2023; 15(11): 2630.Article PubMed PMC
31. Dunford EK, Ni Mhurchu C, Huang L, Vandevijvere S, Swinburn B, Pravst I, et al. A comparison of the healthiness of packaged foods and beverages from 12 countries using the Health Star Rating nutrient profiling system, 2013-2018. Obes Rev 2019; 20 Suppl 2: 107-115. Article PubMed PDF
32. Ministry of Agriculture; Food and Rural Affiars (MAFRA); Korea Agro-Fisheries & Food Trade Corporation. 2023 Status of processed food market segmentation: snack [Internet]. Food Information Statistics System; 2024 [updated 2024 Jun 13; cited 2024 Jun 22]. Available from: https://www.atfis.or.kr/home/board/FB0027.do?act=read&subSkinYn=N&bpoId=4822&bcaId=0&pageIndex=1
33. Ministry of Agriculture; Food and Rural Affiars (MAFRA); Korea Agro-Fisheries & Food Trade Corporation. 2023 Status of processed food market segmentation: beverages [Internet]. Food Information Statistics System; 2024 [updated 2024 May 20; cited 2024 Jun 22]. Available from: https://www.atfis.or.kr/home/board/FB0027.do?act=read&subSkinYn=N&bpoId=4823&bcaId=0&pageIndex=1
34. Food Information Statistics System (FIS). Retail POS [Internet]. FIS; 2024 [cited 2024 Aug 15]. Available from: https://www.atfis.or.kr/home/offsales.do
35. Sacks G, Tikellis K, Millar L, Swinburn B. Impact of ‘traffic-light’ nutrition information on online food purchases in Australia. Aust N Z J Public Health 2011; 35(2): 122-126. Article PubMed PDF
36. Australian Government. Calculator and artwork [Internet]. Health Star Rating System; 2023 [cited 2024 Aug 30]. Available from: http://www.healthstarrating.gov.au/internet/healthstarrating/publishing.nsf/Content/calculator
37. Merz B, Temme E, Alexiou H, Beulens JWJ, Buyken AE, Bohn T, et al. Nutri-Score 2023 update. Nat Food 2024; 5(2): 102-110. Article PubMed PDF
38. Santé Publique France. Nutri-Score [Internet]. Santé Publique France; 2024 [cited 2024 Sep 23]. Available from: https://www.santepubliquefrance.fr/en/nutri-score
39. Albuquerque TG, Santos J, Silva MA, Oliveira MBPP, Costa HS. An update on processed foods: relationship between salt, saturated and trans fatty acids contents. Food Chem 2018; 267: 75-82. Article PubMed
40. Bayram HM, Ozturkcan SA. The multiple ‘traffic light’ labels: are they a promising alternative for packaged foods and beverages sold in Turkey. Int J Health Promot Educ 2022; 1-16. Article
41. Gressier M, Sassi F, Frost G. Healthy foods and healthy diets. How government policies can steer food reformulation. Nutrients 2020; 12(7): 1992.Article PubMed PMC
42. L’Abbé M, Stender S, Skeaff C, Tavella M. Approaches to removing trans fats from the food supply in industrialized and developing countries. Eur J Clin Nutr 2009; 63(Suppl 2): S50-S67. Article PubMed PMC PDF
43. Chandra S, Kumar M, Dwivedi P, Shinde LP. Functional and nutritional health benefit of cold-pressed oils: a review. J Agric Ecol 2020; 9(9): 21-29. Article
44. Dunford E, Webster J, Woodward M, Czernichow S, Yuan WL, Jenner K, et al. The variability of reported salt levels in fast foods across six countries: opportunities for salt reduction. CMAJ 2012; 184(9): 1023-1028. Article PubMed PMC
45. Coyne KJ, Baldridge AS, Huffman MD, Jenner K, Xavier D, Dunford EK. Differences in the sodium content of bread products in the USA and UK: implications for policy. Public Health Nutr 2018; 21(3): 632-636. Article PubMed
46. Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (MFDS). Adolescents, beware of excessive consumption of high-caffeine beverages [Internet]. MFDS; 2023 [updated 2023 Apr 3; cited 2024 Sep 30]. Available from: https://www.mfds.go.kr/brd/m_99/view.do?seq=47137&srchFr=&srchTo=&srchWord=%EA%B3%A0%EC%B9%B4%ED%8E%98%EC%9D%B8&srchTp=0&itm_seq_1=0&itm_seq_2=0&multi_itm_seq=0&company_cd=&company_nm=&Data_stts_gubun=C9999&page=1
47. Livingstone MB, Pourshahidi LK. Portion size and obesity. Adv Nutr 2014; 5(6): 829-834. Article PubMed PMC
48. Rolls BJ, Roe LS, Kral TV, Meengs JS, Wall DE. Increasing the portion size of a packaged snack increases energy intake in men and women. Appetite 2004; 42(1): 63-69. Article PubMed
49. Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (MFDS). Children’s favorite food (high calorie, low nutrition, quality certification) notification e-service [Internet]. MFDS; 2024 [cited 2024 Dec 16]. Available from: https://www.foodsafetykorea.go.kr/hilow/index.do
50. The White House. Biden-Harris Administration national strategy on hunger, nutrition, and health [Internet]. The White House; 2022 [cited 2024 Dec 16]. Available from: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/White-House-National-Strategy-on-Hunger-Nutrition-and-Health-FINAL.pdf
51. Dunford EK, Miles DR, Hollingsworth BA, Heller S, Popkin BM, Ng SW, et al. Defining “high-in” saturated fat, sugar, and sodium to help inform front-of-pack labeling efforts for packaged foods and beverages in the United States. Nutrients 2024; 16(24): 4345.Article PMC

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

PubReader
ePub Link

Cite

CITE: export Copy Download Format; Close

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software

Include:

Citation for the content below
Citation and abstract for the content below

Nutritional content and healthiness in sweet and salty snacks and beverages popular in South Korea and the United States assessed by nutrition labels: a cross-sectional comparative study

Korean J Community Nutr. 2024;29(6):467-479. Published online December 31, 2024

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5720/kjcn.2024.00290

XML Download

Figure

We recommend

Nutritional content and healthiness in sweet and salty snacks and beverages popular in South Korea and the United States assessed by nutrition labels: a cross-sectional comparative study

Fig. 1. Examples of front-of-package nutrition labeling.Adapted from Department of Health and Social Care [25] and Food Standrards Australia New Zealand [26].

Fig. 2. Distribution of traffic light colors for nutrients in snacks and beverages.KOR, South Korea; US, United States.

Fig. 3. Distribution of HSR profile score and Nutri-Score for each category of snacks and beverages.HSR, Health Star Rating; KOR, South Korea; US, United States.*P < 0.05, a significant difference between Korea and US by the Mann-Whitney U test.

Fig. 4. Distribution of HSR and Nutri-Score grade for snacks and beverages.KOR, South Korea; US, United States.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 4.

Nutritional content and healthiness in sweet and salty snacks and beverages popular in South Korea and the United States assessed by nutrition labels: a cross-sectional comparative study

Variable	Chips		Cookies


	KOR (n = 15)	US (n = 15)	KOR (n = 10)	US (n = 10)
Energy (kcal)	520.0 (466.7 to 765.0)	514.3 (392.9 to 571.4)	510.6 (480.8 to 587.0)	468.7 (421.1 to 561.4)^**
Carbohydrates (g)	62.8 (50.0 to 71.4)	60.0 (53.6 to 71.4)	60.2 (33.3 to 76.9)	67.6 (57.9 to 73.5)^*
Sugars (g)	5.0 (0.0 to 31.7)	1.8 (0.0 to 7.1)^*1)	31.7 (8.3 to 38.0)	36.8 (24.0 to 41.2)^*
Protein (g)	6.7 (3.3 to 13.3)	7.1 (1.8 to 13.0)	6.7 (1.9 to 8.5)	3.7 (2.6 to 7.1)
Total fat (g)	26.7 (18.3 to 38.0)	28.6 (8.9 to 35.7)	26.1 (13.3 to 39.1)	20.3 (15.8 to 31.6)
Saturated fat (g)	8.7 (4.8 to 14.0)	5.4 (0.0 to 20.0)^**	15.1 (6.7 to 21.9)	8.0 (1.0 to 12.3)^**
Cholesterol (mg)	0.0 (0.0 to 30.0)	0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)	13.1 (0.0 to 76.9)	0.0 (0.0 to 107.1)
Sodium (mg)	500.0 (50.0 to 700.0)	678.6 (321.4 to 1,171.4)^**	274.6 (152.2 to 625.0)	349.1 (176.5 to 400.0)
Serving size (g)	30.0 (30.0 to 60.0)	28.0 (19.0 to 35.0)^**	32.0 (22.0 to 52.5)	34.0 (25.0 to 57.0)
Variable	Chocolate		Snacks (total)
Variable	KOR (n = 13)	US (n = 13)	KOR (n = 38)	US (n = 38)
Energy (kcal)	550.0 (477.8 to 732.2)	500.0 (312.5 to 571.4)^**	526.1 (466.7 to 765.0)	500.0 (312.5 to 571.4)
Carbohydrates (g)	58.8 (48.3 to 71.4)	60.6 (50.0 to 83.3)	60.0 (33.3 to 76.9)	64.3 (50.0 to 83.3)
Sugars (g)	46.2 (21.2 to 71.4)	51.1 (29.8 to 69.0)	27.5 (0.0 to 71.4)	33.8 (0.0 to 69.0)
Protein (g)	8.8 (5.8 to 11.8)	6.1 (1.5 to 9.5)^**	6.9 (1.9 to 13.3)	6.1 (1.5 to 13.0)^**
Total fat (g)	32.4 (22.2 to 44.6)	23.9 (0.0 to 35.7)^*	28.1 (13.3 to 44.6)	24.6 (0.0 to 35.7)^*
Saturated fat (g)	17.5 (11.1 to 28.6)	10.8 (0.0 to 20.0)^**	13.5 (4.8 to 28.6)	7.9 (0.0 to 20.0)^***
Cholesterol (mg)	14.7 (8.1 to 35.3)	8.3 (0.0 to 19.2)^*	8.7 (0.0 to 76.9)	0.0 (0.0 to 107.1)^*
Sodium (mg)	116.3 (60.0 to 463.0)	142.9 (47.6 to 316.7)	348.5 (50.0 to 700.0)	350.7 (47.6 to 1,171.4)
Serving size (g)	34.0 (15.0 to 56.0)	33.0 (26.0 to 58.7)	31.0 (15.0 to 60.0)	30.0 (19.0 to 58.7)

Variable	Carbonated drinks		Juice/fruit drinks


	KOR (n = 10)	US (n = 10)	KOR (n = 10)	US (n = 10)
Energy (kcal)	44.3 (32.0 to 54.1)	42.0 (36.6 to 47.2)	42.6 (22.6 to 55.3)	43.8 (33.3 to 58.3)
Carbohydrates (g)	11.2 (8.0 to 13.5)	11.3 (9.0 to 12.8)	11.3 (5.6 to 13.7)	11.3 (8.8 to 15.4)
Sugars (g)	11.2 (8.0 to 13.0)	11.3 (9.0 to 12.8)	9.5 (5.1 to 12.6)	10.2 (7.1 to 14.6)
Protein (g)	0.0 (0.0 to 0.4)	0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)	0.0 (0.0 to 1.0)	0.0 (0.0 to 0.8)
Total fat (g)	0.0 (0.0 to 0.2)	0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)	0.0 (0.0 to 0.4)	0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)
Saturated fat (g)	0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)	0.1 (0.0 to 0.1)^**1)	0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)	0.1 (0.0 to 0.1)^**
Cholesterol (mg)	0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)	0.1 (0.0 to 0.1)^**	0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)	0.1 (0.0 to 0.1)^**
Sodium (mg)	3.2 (0.0 to 9.6)	15.4 (8.3 to 20.0)^**	13.9 (0.0 to 70.0)	4.2 (0.0 to 20.8)
FVNL (%)	-	-	70.0 (3.0 to 100.0)	57.5 (5.0 to 100.0)
Serving size (mL)	250.0 (215.0 to 355.0)	357.5 (222.0 to 500.0)^**	200.0 (180.0 to 340.0)	240.0 (177.0 to 240.0)
Variable	Energy drinks		Beverages (total)
Variable	KOR (n = 10)	US (n = 10)	KOR (n = 30)	US (n = 30)
Energy (kcal)	47.2 (38.0 to 65.6)	45.1 (21.1 to 87.5)	45.5 (22.6 to 65.6)	44.7 (21.1 to 87.5)
Carbohydrates (g)	11.4 (9.0 to 16.3)	11.6 (5.1 to 22.5)	11.2 (5.6 to 16.3)	11.4 (5.1 to 22.5)
Sugars (g)	11.1 (8.7 to 15.9)	11.0 (4.6 to 22.5)	10.9 (5.1 to 15.9)	11.0 (4.6 to 22.5)
Protein (g)	0.3 (0.0 to 0.3)	0.0 (0.0 to 0.3)	0.0 (0.0 to 1.0)	0.0 (0.0 to 0.8)
Total fat (g)	0.0 (0.0 to 0.2)	0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)	0.0 (0.0 to 0.4)	0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)^*
Saturated fat (g)	0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)	0.0 (0.0 to 0.1)	0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)	0.1 (0.0 to 0.1)^***
Cholesterol (mg)	0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)	0.0 (0.0 to 0.1)	0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)	0.1 (0.0 to 0.1)^***
Sodium (mg)	25.7 (0.0 to 76.9)	32.4 (0.0 to 154.2)	11.2 (0.0 to 76.9)	15.0 (0.0 to 154.2)
Caffeine (mg)	28.2 (13.0 to 42.0)	31.9 (24.0 to 45.1)^**	-	-
Serving size (mL)	355.0 (250.0 to 355.0)	406.5 (237.0 to 473.0)	250.0 (180.0 to 355.0)	355.0 (177.0 to 500.0)^*

Variable	No. of red traffic lights					Less healthy¹⁾
Variable	0	1	2	3	4	Less healthy¹⁾
Chips
KOR (n = 15)	0 (0.0)	1 (6.7)	9 (60.0)	4 (26.7)	1 (6.7)	15 (100.0)
US (n = 15)	0 (0.0)	2 (13.3)	9 (60.0)	4 (26.7)	0 (0.0)	15 (100.0)
Cookies
KOR (n = 10)	0 (0.0)	1 (10.0)	2 (20.0)	7 (70.0)	0 (0.0)	10 (100.0)
US (n = 10)	0 (0.0)	2 (20.0)	1 (10.0)	7 (70.0)	0 (0.0)	10 (100.0)
Chocolate
KOR (n = 13)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	13 (100.0)	0 (0.0)	13 (100.0)
US (n = 13)	0 (0.0)	3 (23.1)	1 (7.7)	9 (69.2)	0 (0.0)	11 (84.6)
Total
KOR (n = 38)	0 (0.0)	2 (5.3)	11 (28.9)	24 (63.2)	1 (2.6)	38 (100.0)
US (n = 38)	0 (0.0)	7 (18.4)	11 (28.9)	20 (52.6)	0 (0.0)	36 (94.7)

Table 1. Nutritional content per 100 g and serving size of sweet and salty snacks in South Korea and US

Median (minimum to maximum).

KOR, South Korea; US, United States.

1)*

P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001. Significant difference between Korea and US by the Mann-Whitney U test.

Table 2. Nutritional content per 100 mL and serving size of beverages in South Korea and US

Median (minimum to maximum).

KOR, South Korea; US, United States; FVNL, fruit/vegetable/nut/legume.

1)*

P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001. Significant difference between Korea and US by the Mann-Whitney U test.

Table 3. Classification of snacks by the number of red traffic light labels using MTL label criteria

n (%).

MTL, multiple traffic light; KOR, South Korea; US, United States

Green light = 1, amber light = 2, red light = 3 for fat, saturated fat, sugar, and sodium. Total possible score ranges from 4 to 12. Foods were considered less healthy if the score was ≥ 7.