An Appetite for Modernizing the Regulatory Framework for Protein Content Claims in Canada

19 Pages·2017·1.08 MB·English

nutrients
Commentary
An Appetite for Modernizing the Regulatory
Framework for Protein Content Claims in Canada
ChristopherP.F.Marinangeli1,*,SamaraFoisy2,AnnaK.Shoveller3,CaraPorter2,
KathyMusa-Veloso4,JohnL.Sievenpiper5,6,7,8andDavidJ.A.Jenkins5,6,7,8
1 PulseCanada,1212-220PortageAvenue,Winnipeg,MBR3C0A5,Canada
2 LoblawCompaniesLimited,1President’sChoiceCircle,Brampton,ONL6Y5S5,Canada;
[email protected](S.F.);[email protected](C.P.)
3 DepartmentofAnimalBiosciences,UniversityofGuelph,50StoneRoadEast,Guelph,ONN1G2W1,
Canada;[email protected]
4 IntertekScientific&RegulatoryConsultancy,2233ArgentiaRoad-Suite201,Mississauga,ONL5N2X7,
Canada;[email protected]
5 DepartmentofNutritionalSciences,UniversityofToronto,Toronto,ONM5B1W8,Canada;
[email protected](J.L.S.);[email protected](D.J.A.J.)
6 ClinicalNutrition&RiskFactorModificationCenter,St.Michael’sHospital,Toronto,ONM5B1W8,Canada
7 DepartmentofMedicine,DivisionofEndocrinologyandMetabolism,St.Michael’sHospital,Toronto,
ONM5B1W8,Canada
8 LiKaShingKnowledgeInstitute,St.Michael’sHospital,Toronto,ONM5B1W8,Canada
* Correspondence:[email protected];Tel.:[phone]
Received:2May2017;Accepted:13July2017;Published:23August2017
Abstract:Theneedforprotein-richplant-basedfoodscontinuesasdietaryguidelinesemphasizetheir
contributiontohealthydietarypatternsthatpreventchronicdiseaseandpromoteenvironmental
sustainability. However,theCanadianFoodandDrugRegulationsprovidearegulatoryframework
thatcanpreventCanadianconsumersfromidentifyingprotein-richplant-basedfoods. InCanada,
proteinnutrientcontentclaimsarebasedontheproteinefficiencyratio(PER)andproteinrating
method,whichisbasedonaratgrowthbioassay. PERsarenotadditive,andtheproteinratingof
afoodisunderpinnedbyitsReasonableDailyIntake.TherestrictivenatureofCanada’srequirements
for supporting protein claims therefore presents challenges for Canadian consumers to adapt to
arapidlychangingfoodenvironment.Thiscommentarywillpresenttwooptionsformodernizingthe
regulatoryframeworkforproteincontentclaimsinCanada. Thefirstandpreferredoptionadvocates
thatproteinqualitynotbeconsideredinthedeterminationoftheeligibilityofafoodforprotein
contentclaims.Thesecondandlesspreferredoption,aninterimsolution,isaframeworkforadopting
the protein digestibility corrected amino acid score as the official method for supporting protein
contentandqualityclaimsandharmonizesCanada’sregulatoryframeworkwiththatoftheUSA.
Keywords: protein;proteinquality;proteinefficiencyratio;proteindigestibilitycorrectedaminoacid
score(PDCAAS);regulation
1. Introduction
Proteinqualityreferstotheabilityofadietaryproteintomeetthemetabolicdemandsofahuman
and largely depends on levels of indispensable amino acids and their digestibility within a food
matrix[1]. InCanada,toclaimthatafoodisasourceofprotein,thefoodmustmeetthresholdsfor
protein quality using the protein efficiency ratio (PER) and protein rating methodology. The PER
isgeneratedfromabioassaywherethegrowthrateofratsconsumingthetestproteiniscompared
tothegrowth rateofratsconsumingcaseinasadietarysourceof protein. Theproteinratingand
theeligibilityfora“source”ofproteinclaimisdeterminedbymultiplyingthequantityofprotein
Nutrients2017,9,921;doi:10.3390/nu9090921 www.mdpi.com/journal/nutrients
Nutrients2017,9,921 2of19
presentinaReasonableDailyIntake(RDI)ofthefoodbythePER.Unfortunately,thePERandprotein
ratingmethodologyhavesignificantlimitations: 1. Thegrowingratisnotconsideredtobeagood
modelfordeterminingtheaminoacidrequirementsofhumans,particularlyadults;2. Theinabilityto
combinePERvalues;and3. relianceonRDIsfordeterminingaproteinrating. Giventheselimitations,
thecurrentregulatoryframeworkforproteinclaimsinCanadaisabarriertoaligningwithglobal
initiativesaimedatincreasingtheprominenceofplantsourcesofproteininhealthydietarypatterns
thatalsohelptoaddressissuesaroundenvironmentalsustainabilityandfoodproduction.
As plant-based foods with significant levels of protein gain more prevalence in dietary
guidelines for their contribution to healthy dietary patterns that prevent chronic disease and
promote environmental sustainability, regulatory frameworks should enable consumers to easily
identify plant-based foods that are sources of protein. Dietary guidelines in the Netherlands
suggest that increased consumption of plant-based foods reduces the risk of chronic disease and
promotes environmental sustainability [2]. These sentiments are echoed by the 2012 Nordic
Nutrition Recommendations [3], and USA Scientific Report of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines
AdvisoryCommittee[4]. Similarly,theFrenchAgencyforFood,EnvironmentalandOccupational
Health&Safety recently recommended that the prominence of plant-based sources of protein,
particularly pulses, be increased in the next iteration of France’s food-based dietary guidelines of
theNationalHealthandNutritionProgramme[5]. Withagrowingworldpopulationandincreasing
environmentalandanimalwelfareconcerns,thesustainabilityofcurrentfoodproductionsystems
requiresthatfoodsystemsincreasetheappealofalternativeproteinsources[6–8]. Canada’songoing
use of the PER/protein rating method highlights a missed opportunity to educate Canadians on
alternativeplant-basedsourcesofprotein.
Canadaisnottheonlyregiontouseproteinqualitytounderpinproteinnutrientcontentclaims
forthelabellingandadvertisingoffoods. TheUSAforexample,usestheproteindigestibilitycorrected
aminoacidscore(PDCAAS)toevaluatetheproteinqualityoffoodstargetedtochildren(≥1yearof
age)throughtoadults. Toaccountforproteinquality,thePDCAASmethodadjuststhelevelofprotein
inafoodbyusingtheindispensableaminoacidcontentofthefood(mg/gprotein),indispensable
aminoacidrequirementsofareferencepopulation(mg/gprotein),andtheweightedaveragetruefecal
nitrogendigestibilityofthesourcesofproteininthetestfood[9]. Thetruefecalnitrogendigestibility
offoodsisdeterminedinvivousinghumansortheratmodel[9]. However,otherregions,suchas
Europe[10],AustraliaandNewZealand[11],China[12],andSouthKorea[13]useabsolutethresholds
to support protein content claims on foods that are based on the level of protein (g) per serving,
theproportionofenergyfromproteinperserving,and/orthelevelofproteinperunitofenergy.
Thepurposeofthiscommentaryistoprovidesuggestionstoexpeditethemodernizationofthe
CanadianFoodandDrugRegulationsthatgovernproteincontentclaimsinCanadaandtheabilityto
communicatethepresenceofproteininafoodmeaningfullytoCanadians. Followingbriefsummaries
ofthePER/proteinratingandPDCAASmethodologies,thechallengesthattheongoinguseofthe
PERandcorrespondingproteinratingsystempresentfortheCanadianfoodsystemwillbediscussed
andtwooptionsformodernizingtheregulatoryframeworkforproteincontentclaimsarepresented.
Thefirstandmostpreferredoption(Option1)istoallowproteincontentclaimsinfoodlabelingand
advertisinginCanadatobebasedontheabsoluteproteincontentandnotbasedonproteinquality.
ThisoptionisthemostagileandpresentsminimalbarriersfortheCanadianfoodsystemtoadaptand
alignwithevolvingdietaryguidelinesandrecommendations. Option1alsoharmonizeswithcurrent
regulatoryframeworksinotherkeydevelopedjurisdictionsglobally,includingEurope,Australiaand
NewZealand,China,andSouthKorea. Thesecondandless-preferredoption(Option2)isforCanada
toadoptamodifiedversionofthePDCAAS-basedframeworkastheofficialmethodforsupporting
proteinclaims. Whilethisapproachismorerestrictivethanthefirstoption,adoptionofPDCAAS
wouldharmonizeCanada’sregulatoryframeworkforproteincontentclaimswiththatoftheUSA.
ModificationsfortheproposedCanadianPDCAASframeworkincludestheuseofinvitromethods
todeterminetruefecalnitrogendigestibilityandadoptionofa3-tierclaimhierarchy. Thesuggested
Nutrients 2017, 9, 921 3 of 22
PDCAAS framework includes the use of in vitro methods to determine true fecal nitrogen
Nutrients2017,9,921 3of19
digestibility and adoption of a 3-tier claim hierarchy. The suggested options discussed in this
commentary will reduce some of the barriers for identifying plant-based protein sources.
optionsdiscussedinthiscommentarywillreducesomeofthebarriersforidentifyingplant-based
2p.r Sotueminmsoauryr coefs .Current Regulatory Frameworks for Protein Content Claims in Canada and the
USA
2.SummaryofCurrentRegulatoryFrameworksforProteinContentClaimsinCanadaandtheUSA
2.1. Summary of the PER and Protein Rating Methodologies for Supporting Protein Content Claims in
2.1. SummaryofthePERandProteinRatingMethodologiesforSupportingProteinContentClaimsinCanada
Canada
Originallydevelopedintheearly20thcentury, thePERwasthefirstmethodadoptedforthe
Originally developed in the early 20th century, the PER was the first method adopted for the
routineassessmentoftheproteinqualityoffoods. GiventhatthePERiswovenintoCanada’sFoodand
routine assessment of the protein quality of foods. Given that the PER is woven into Canada’s Food
DrugRegulations,HealthCanadahasmadeMethodFO-1available,whichoutlinesthestudyprotocol
and Drug Regulations, Health Canada has made Method FO-1 available, which outlines the study
formeasuringtheadjustedPERforafoodanditscorrespondingproteinrating[14]. Thismethod
protocol for measuring the adjusted PER for a food and its corresponding protein rating [14]. This
is summarized in Figure 1 [15]. Briefly, a test diet and a casein control diet, both containing 10%
method is summarized in Figure 1 [15]. Briefly, a test diet and a casein control diet, both containing
protein(N×6.25),arefedtoweanlingratsforaperiodof4weeks. ThePERvaluesarecalculatedby
10% protein (N × 6.25), are fed to weanling rats for a period of 4 weeks. The PER values are calculated
dividingtheweightgainoftheratsbytheamountofproteinconsumedoverthisperiod. Tocorrectfor
by dividing the weight gain of the rats by the amount of protein consumed over this period. To correct
intra-laboratoryvariation,thegeneratedPERvaluesarecorrectedtoanassumedPERvalueof2.5for
for intra-laboratory variation, the generated PER values are corrected to an assumed PER value of 2.5
acaseincontrol[14]. Forthepurposesofthisdiscussion,theterm“PER”referstotheadjustedPER
for a casein control [14]. For the purposes of this discussion, the term “PER” refers to the adjusted
value. OncethePERforafoodisestablished,itsproteinratingistheproductofthePERmultiplied
PER value. Once the PER for a food is established, its protein rating is the product of the PER
by the level of protein in an RDI of the food in question. A Food with a protein rating of ≥20 is
multiplied by the level of protein in an RDI of the food in question. A Food with a protein rating of
considereda“goodsource,”whileafoodwithaproteinratingof ≥40isconsideredan“excellent
≥20 is considered a “good source,” while a food with a protein rating of ≥40 is considered an “excellent
source”ofprotein[16]. RDIsforvariousfoodsarelistedinScheduleKoftheCanadianFoodandDrug
source” of protein [16]. RDIs for various foods are listed in Schedule K of the Canadian Food and Drug
Regulations[17]. WhenanRDIforafooddoesnotexist,thereferenceamountcanbeused[18].
Regulations [17]. When an RDI for a food does not exist, the reference amount can be used [18].

Figure 1. Canadian regulatory framework for protein content claims where the adjusted PER is used
Figure1.CanadianregulatoryframeworkforproteincontentclaimswheretheadjustedPERisused
to generate a protein rating for a given food [16]. The PER of 2.5 represents the standardized protein
togenerateaproteinratingforagivenfood[16].ThePERof2.5representsthestandardizedprotein
rating for casein. It is used to account for intra-laboratory variation and normalize PER values that
ratingforcasein.Itisusedtoaccountforintra-laboratoryvariationandnormalizePERvaluesthatare
are generated by the in vivo rat bioassay [14]. PER, protein efficiency ratio. Figure 1 was adapted from
generatedbytheinvivoratbioassay[14]. PER,proteinefficiencyratio. Figure1wasadaptedfrom
Marinangeli and House [15].
MarinangeliandHouse[15].
2.2. Summary of the PDCAAS Methodology for Supporting Protein Content Claims in the USA
2.2. SummaryofthePDCAASMethodologyforSupportingProteinContentClaimsintheUSA
Rather than PER, PDCAAS is used in the USA as a measure of protein quality and formulates
RatherthanPER,PDCAASisusedintheUSAasameasureofproteinqualityandformulates
the basis for protein content claims for foods marketed to those ≥1 year of age [19]. Compared to PER,
thebasisforproteincontentclaimsforfoodsmarketedtothose ≥1yearofage[19]. Comparedto
Nutrients2017,9,921 4of19
Nutrients 2017, 9, 921 4 of 22
PER,PDCAASisrecognizedasamoreaccuratecharacterizationoftheproteinqualityoffoodsfor
PDCAAS is recognized as a more accurate characterization of the protein quality of foods for human
human consumption [20,21]. As summarized in Figure 2 [15], PDCAAS is determined using the
consumption [20,21]. As summarized in Figure 2 [15], PDCAAS is determined using the total fecal
totalfecalnitrogendigestibilityvalueandindispensableaminoacidconcentrations(mg/gprotein)of
nitrogen digestibility value and indispensable amino acid concentrations (mg/g protein) of protein
proteinsourceswithinagivenfood[9,22]. Ifhumandataareunavailable,totalfecaldigestibilityofa
sources within a given food [9,22]. If human data are unavailable, total fecal digestibility of a protein
proteinsourceisdeterminedusingtheratbalancemethod[9]. Whenproteindigestibilityisconsidered,
source is determined using the rat balance method [9]. When protein digestibility is considered, the
the ratio of indispensable amino acid concentrations in the food to the indispensable amino acids
ratio of indispensable amino acid concentrations in the food to the indispensable amino acids
requirementsofthereferencepopulationiscalculated. TheFoodandDrugAdministration(FDA)
requirements of the reference population is calculated. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
hasoutlinedthatthescoringpatterncorrespondingtopreschoolchildren(2–5years)assummarized
has outlined that the scoring pattern corresponding to preschool children (2–5 years) as summarized
in the 1991 Report of the Joint Food and Agriculture Organization of the United nations/World
in the 1991 Report of the Joint Food and Agriculture Organization of the United nations/World Health
HealthOrganization(FAO/WHO)ExpertConsultationonProteinQuality[9]shouldbeutilized[19].
Organization (FAO/WHO) Expert Consultation on Protein Quality [9] should be utilized [19]. The
Thelowestratiofortheindispensableaminoacidsismultipliedbytruefecalnitrogendigestibility
lowest ratio for the indispensable amino acids is multiplied by true fecal nitrogen digestibility and is
andisconsideredthePDCAASforthefood. PDCAASvaluesthatare>1aretruncatedat1. Truefecal
considered the PDCAAS for the food. PDCAAS values that are >1 are truncated at 1. True fecal
nitrogendigestibilityvaluescanbeattainedfromavarietyofsourcesincludingdocumentationfrom
nitrogen digestibility values can be attained from a variety of sources including documentation from
theFAO[9],thepeer-reviewedliterature,orisindependentlyassessedbyfoodindustrystakeholders.
the FAO [9], the peer-reviewed literature, or is independently assessed by food industry stakeholders.

Figure 2. USA regulatory framework for protein content claims where PDCAAS and a 50 g DV for
Figure2. USAregulatoryframeworkforproteincontentclaimswherePDCAASanda50gDVfor
protein are used to determine if a food qualifies for a protein content claim [19]. This method applies
proteinareusedtodetermineifafoodqualifiesforaproteincontentclaim[19].Thismethodapplies
to foods marketed to children ≥4 years through to adults. Only IAAs that are low particularly in plant-
to foods marketed to children ≥4 years through to adults. Only IAAs that are low particularly
based foods are listed. DV, Daily Value; IAA, indispensable amino acid; Lys, lysine; Met + Cys,
in plant-based foods are listed. DV, Daily Value; IAA, indispensable amino acid; Lys, lysine;
methionine + cysteine; PDCAAS, protein digestibility corrected amino acid score; RACC, reference
Met+Cys,methionine+cysteine;PDCAAS,proteindigestibilitycorrectedaminoacidscore;RACC,
amount customarily consumed; Thr, threonine; Trp, tryptophan. Figure 2 was adapted from
referenceamountcustomarilyconsumed;Thr,threonine;Trp,tryptophan.Figure2wasadaptedfrom
Marinangeli and House [15].
MarinangeliandHouse[15].
For children (≥4 years of age) through to adults, protein content claims in the USA are based on
Forchildren(≥4yearsofage)throughtoadults,proteincontentclaimsintheUSAarebased
the corrected protein content within a food relative to the Daily Value (DV) for protein (50 g) (Figure
on the corrected protein content within a food relative to the Daily Value (DV) for protein (50 g)
2) [19]. If the corrected protein levels are ≥10% (5 g) and ≥20% (10 g) of the DV per reference amount
(Figure2)[19]. Ifthecorrectedproteinlevelsare≥10%(5g)and≥20%(10g)oftheDVperreference
customarily consumed (RACC), the food can be considered a “good” and “excellent” source of
amountcustomarilyconsumed(RACC),thefoodcanbeconsidereda“good”and“excellent”source
protein, respectively [19]. The protein DV for children 1 through 3 years of age is 13 g. It is also
ofprotein,respectively[19]. TheproteinDVforchildren1through3yearsofageis13g. Itisalso
important to note that foods intended for infants (12 months of age) are required to use the PER
importanttonotethatfoodsintendedforinfants(≤12monthsofage)arerequiredtousethePER
method for determining protein quality and eligibility for a protein claim [19]. While the exact reasons
methodfordeterminingproteinqualityandeligibilityforaproteinclaim[19]. Whiletheexactreasons
are unclear, at the time when food labeling regulations were adopted in the USA, ongoing use of the
areunclear,atthetimewhenfoodlabelingregulationswereadoptedintheUSA,ongoinguseofthe
PER for infant foods could stem from the lack of certainty with respect to the amino acid requirements
PERforinfantfoodscouldstemfromthelackofcertaintywithrespecttotheaminoacidrequirements
of the growing infant and the knowledge that, during infancy, a significant proportion of protein is
ofthegrowinginfantandtheknowledgethat,duringinfancy,asignificantproportionofproteinis
used for growth [9]. In contrast, from childhood through to adulthood, the majority of protein is used
for maintenance [9].
Nutrients2017,9,921 5of19
usedforgrowth[9]. Incontrast,fromchildhoodthroughtoadulthood,themajorityofproteinisused
formaintenance[9].
3. CurrentChallengesAssociatedwithusingthePERandProteinRatingSystemtoSupport
ProteinContentClaimsinCanada
3.1. Challenge1: MethodologicalAssumptionsofthePER
Althoughsimple,ithasbeenrecognizedthatthePERmethodisnotavalidbioassaytodecipher
nutritionalproteinqualityrecommendationsforhumans[9]. Thesefailureswerediscussedinthe
1991 FAO report, “Protein Quality Evaluation: Report of Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation,”
andispredominantlyduetothefactthattheaminoacidrequirementsofratsdifferfromthoseof
humans. Inparticular,thesulphuraminoacidrequirementsofthegrowingrataremuchhigherthan
thehuman[9]. Thus,whenafoodhaslimitedlevelsofsulphuraminoacids,asisthecaseforlegumes
(pulses, peanuts and soybeans), the PER assay will underestimate protein quality [9]. Use of the
growingratmodeldoesnotfullycreditthoseaminoacidsthatwouldbeusedformaintenance[9].
Additionally,animalcareprotocolsthatrequireprolongedfeeding(28days)offoodscan,attimes,
bepoorlyacceptedbyratsandresultinlowerfoodintakevs. thecontrolandanunderestimation
ofPERvalues. ThisisexemplifiedintheCanadianFoodInspectionAgency’s(CFIA’s)listofPER
values,wherelentilshaveaPERof0.3[18]. ThisabnormallylowPERislikelyafunctionofreduced
foodintakeoverthe28-dayfeedingperiod. Shortertermprotocolsareclearlypreferred,frombothan
animalcareandacostperspective,totheestablishedPERmethodology.
3.2. Challenge2: PERValuesAreNotAdditiveandUnestablishedforNewFoods
PERvaluesarenotadditive. Thus,foodsthatcontainmultipleingredientsthatcontributetothe
proteincontentofthefinalproductaretechnicallyrequiredtoundergoPERtestingviaaratbioassayto
carryaproteinqualityclaim. Ofthe47PERvalueslistedintheCFIA’sIndustryLabellingTool,PERsfor
processedfoodproductsexistforbread,macaroniandcheese,beefstew,beefsalami,bologna,sausage,
wieners,cheddarcheeseandchickenfrankfurters[18]. Therefore,ananimalbioassayisrequiredfor
allotherfoodstowhichaPERisunestablished,evenifeachoftheprotein-containingingredientsin
thefoodhaveaPERvalue.
LimitedavailabilityofPERvalueshasbeenrecognizedbyCFIA,asitisindicatedintheirIndustry
LabellingToolthatalternativemetricsofproteinquality,suchasPDCAAS,canbeusedassupportfora
proteinnutrientcontentclaimwhenrelatedtocasein[18]. Forexample,theCFIAoutlinesthatPER
valuescanbederivedfromPDCAASbyusingthefollowingformula[18].
PER =PDCAAS×2.5 (1)
PDCAAS
PER representsaPERvaluegeneratedfromtheproductofPDCAASmultipliedby2.5—the
PDCAAS
correctedPERvalueforcasein. Thisformulahasnotbeenvalidatedasanappropriatealgorithmfor
extrapolatingthePERforfood. AlthoughthePDCAAShasthephysiologicaladvantageofrelying
onaminoacidrequirementsderivedfromhumansratherthangrowingrats,becausethePER
PDCAAS
equationsimplyprovidesanalternativemethodforderivingaPER,thelimitationsandconcernsover
itsvaliditywithinregulatoryframeworkspersist.
3.3. Challenge3: ThePERIsCombinedwiththeRDIforGeneratingtheProteinRatingofaFood
AsdemonstratedinFigure1,thePERismultipliedbythelevelofproteinintheRDItodetermine
theproteinratingandverifyifafoodqualifiesforaproteincontentclaim. AccordingtotheCFIA’s
IndustryLabellingTool,theRDIformostfoodsisconsideredtobeoneaverageservingofthefood[23]
and stems from the observation that many foods are only eaten at one occasion in a single day.
However,inthecaseoffoodssuchasmilk,breadorbutter,whereseveralservingsmaybeconsumed
daily, an RDI has been estimated by considering the food habits of Canadians. In addition to the
Nutrients2017,9,921 6of19
RDI,HealthCanadahasestablishedreferenceamountsfornumerousfoodsthatserveasthebasis
forothernutrientcontentandhealthclaims. Ratherthanadailyintake, thereferenceamountisa
regulated quantity of food that is consumed during a single eating occasion [24]. Thus, while the
referenceamountisaservingoffoodthatisconsumedduringasingleeatingoccasion,theRDIofa
foodistheamountofthefoodthatisconsumedonagivenday. Tohighlightthedifferencesbetween
the reference amount and the RDI, it is useful to compare the reference amount and RDI for milk,
whichare250mL[24]and852mL[17],respectively. GiventhatthePERisbasedontheamountof
proteinintheRDI,theproteinratingformilkwouldbeinflatedandmakesanassumptionregarding
anindividual’sdietarypatternforaspecificfoodforthatgivenday.
For some foods, the RDI is less than the reference amount. A good example is high-density
breakfastcereal(≥43g/250mL),forwhichtheRDIis28g(withoutmilk)[17]or30g(withmilk)[16]
andthereferenceamountis55g[24]. Table1liststhecalculatedproteinratingfortwohypothetical,
butreasonablehighdensitybreakfastcereals. Oneisahighdensitysoy-basedbreakfastcereal,and
thesecondisahighdensitychickpea-basedbreakfastcereal. Forboth,itisassumedthateachcereal
contains5gofproteinperreferenceamount(55g),fromsoyandchickpeas,respectively. Asseenin
Table1,forboththesoy-basedandchickpea-basedcereals,thehighestachievableproteinratingis
5.9(usingtheRDIof28g),whichis71%belowtherequiredproteinratingthresholdof20toclaim,
atminimum,a“goodsource”ofproteininCanada. AspertheCanadianFoodandDrugRegulations,
the addition of 125 mL milk can be factored into the protein rating calculation, where the RDI for
the breakfast cereal is adjusted to 30 g [16]. However, even with the addition of milk, the highest
achievableproteinratingwouldbe17.1andstillremainsbelowthethresholdforaproteincontent
claim. Interestingly,ifthe55greferenceamountforahighdensitybreakfastcerealwaspermittedto
beusedintheproteinratingcalculationanditisassumedthatthat125mLremainsastheamount
ofmilkconsumedwiththebreakfastcereal,boththesoy-basedandchickpea-basedbreakfastcereals
wouldbeconsidereda“goodsource”ofprotein.
Table1.ExamplesofthetheoreticalapplicationofthePERandtheuseoftheRDIvs.RAtodetermine
theproteinratingofspecificfoodsinCanada.
Protein(g)per
Food Description RDIorRA PER[18] ProteinRating
RDIorRA
SBoreya-bkafassetdcereal (cid:4)(cid:4) Hc5egirgepharlod:te≥eni4ns3itfgyro/bm2r5es0aokmyfapLsetr55g (cid:4)(cid:4) RRDDII::2380gg((awloitnhem)*ilk)† 22..57 22..00 55..04
referenceamount‡ (cid:4) RA:55g(alone)‡ 5.0 2.0 10.0
CBrheiackkfpaesat-cbearseeadl (cid:4)(cid:4) Hc5egirgepharlod:te≥eni4ns3itfgyro/bm2r5es0aokmyfapLsetr55g (cid:4)(cid:4) RRDDII::2380gg((awloitnhem)*ilk)† 22..57 22..3322 56..83
referenceamount‡ (cid:4) RA:55g(alone)‡ 5.0 2.32 11.6
Milk (cid:4) 2%MF (cid:4) RDI:125mL(with 4.3¥ 2.5 10.8
breakfastcereal)†
(cid:4) Highdensitybreakfast
Sceorye-abla+seMdiblkreakfast (cid:4) c5reegfreepraerlon:tc≥eei4na3mfgroo/mu2n5s0to‡mypLer55g (cid:4)(cid:4) RRDAI::5350gg((wwiitthh112255mmLLmmiillkk))† -- -- 2106.8.2((150..40++1100..88))
(cid:4) 2%MF
(cid:4) Highdensitybreakfast
Cbrheiackkfpaesat-cbearseeadl+Milk (cid:4) p5ceegrrep5ar5lo:gt≥eri4en3fefgrro/emn2c5e0chamimcLkopuenats‡ (cid:4)(cid:4) RRDAI::5350gg((wwiitthh112255mmLLmmiillkk))† -- -- 2127.4.1((161..36++1100..88))
(cid:4) 2%MF
Abbreviations:MF,milkfat;PER,proteinefficiencyrating;RA,referenceamount;RDI,ReasonableDailyIntake.
*Canada: RDIforbreakfastcerealwithoutmilk=28g[17]. † Canada: RDIforbreakfastcerealwith125mL
milk=30g[16].‡Canada:RAforahighdensitybreakfastcereal(≥43g/250mL)=55g[24].¥CanadianNutrient
File[25].
Nutrients2017,9,921 7of19
TheapplicationofRDIstoquantifytheproteinratingofafoodisanillogicalapproachtoprotein
contentclaims. Similartomicronutrientcontentclaims, proteincontentclaimsshouldrefertothe
characteristicsofthefoodthatisconsumedatthespecificeatingoccasion,nottheamountofthefood
thatisassumedtobeconsumedoverthecourseoftheday.
Amorerationalapproachwouldbetohaveproteinclaimsbasedontheproteincontributionofa
foodrelativetothereferenceamount,which,again,isaregulatedquantityoffoodthatisconsumed
duringasingleeatingoccasion. NotonlywouldthiscomplementtheNutritionFactsTable,butalso
allowCanadianstouseproteincontentclaimsasatoolformakinghealthydietarychoices.
4. ProposedRegulatoryFrameworksforModernizingRegulationsforProteinContentClaims
inCanada
Communicationeffortsthatpromotefoodproductsthatcontainsignificantlevelsofplant-based
proteinsarelargelydisadvantagedbecauseoftheinabilitytomeetCanada’sregulatorystandards
forproteinquality. Scientistsandpolicymakersareencouraginganincreaseintheincorporationof
plant-basedfoodsintodietaryparadigmsasameanstopromotesustainablefoodsystems,reduce
theprevalenceofdiet-relateddiseasesandmanagecostslinkedtohealthcareandlossofproductivity.
This is likely due to the growing amount of evidence that suggests a whole food plant-based diet
thatincludesplant-basedproteinhelpstomanagetheriskofdietrelatedconditionssuchasobesity,
cardiovasculardisease,type2diabetes,highbloodpressureandhighcholesterol[26–34]. Inaddition,
the 2015–2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans also cite a healthy vegetarian eating pattern as
one of three dietary patterns to help promote health and prevent chronic disease in the USA [35].
Consumersrequireaccesstothisdetailashealthandweightlossareadrivinginterestinselecting
meatalternatives,with30%consumingtheseproductsbecausetheyarewatchingtheircholesterol,
29%becauseofsaturatedfat,and28%forweightloss[36]. Therefore,stakeholdersofthefoodsystem
shouldbegiventheappropriatetoolsandregulatoryframeworkstoalignwithhumanhealthand
environmentaltargets. Thefollowingsectionsofthiscommentaryattempttoprovidesolutionsthat
wouldassisttoprovideandcommunicatethebenefitsofawidervarietyofprotein-containingfoods
toCanadians.
4.1. Option1(PreferredOption): PermitProteinContentClaimsMadeinFoodLabelingandAdvertisingin
CanadatoBeBasedontheAbsoluteProteinContent
Canada’sfoodsystemprovidessubstantialdietaryvarietythatpermitstheadoptionofaspectrum
ofhealthydietarypatternsthatareomnivorousorcharacterizedbyvariousdegreesofvegetarianism.
Giventhatproteinfromplant-basedfoodsisoftenconsideredtobeoflowerquality,anassessment
ofdietaryqualityamongvegetarianpopulationsindevelopedregionsisareasonableapproachfor
determiningwhetherhigherconsumptionofplant-basedfoodsresultsinproteinand/oraminoacid
insufficiency. It is well known that adoption of a vegetarian-type diet, particularly a vegan diet,
canprovidesomenutritionalchallengesthatarelargelyderivedfromadecreaseintheconsumption
ofanimal-derivedfoodssuchassuchasvitaminB12,vitaminD,ironandzinc[37]. However,few
studies,ifany,provideevidencetosupportthat,withinwell-developedfoodsystems,vegetariandiets
lacksufficientproteinorindispensableaminoacids.
Inacross-sectionalstudyconductedinBelgium,omnivorousdietswerecomparedtovarying
degreesofvegetariandiets[38].Basedondatafromfood-frequencyquestionnaires,itwasdemonstrated
thatavegandietwashighestindietaryfiberandlowestinsodium. Whileproteinconsumptionwas
lowest in vegan diets (82 g/day) compared to omnivorous diets (112 g/day), total daily intake of
proteinwasadequate. Vegandietswerecomprisedofavarietyofproteinsources,includinglegumes
and nuts, that, when combined with cereal can provide adequate levels of indispensable amino
acidsandnon-essentialnitrogen. Moreover,comparedtoallotherdietarypatternsexamined,vegan
diets scored highest on the Healthy Eating Index [38]. Although intakes of specific amino acids
werenotevaluated,aminoacidinsufficiencywasalsonotidentifiedasaconcern[38]. Similarly,in
Nutrients2017,9,921 8of19
acomparisonofthree-daydietrecordsandnutritionalstatusbiomarkersbetweenFinnishvegans
and non-vegetarians, it was observed that protein intake was significantly lower among vegans
(74g/dayvs. 103g/day;13.7%ofenergyvs. 19.1%ofenergy),butwasnotidentifiedasaconcern[39].
Comparedtonon-vegetarians,veganshadhigherintakesoflegumes,tofuandsoybeverages[39].
Recently,aspartoftheEuropeanProspectiveInvestigationintoCancerandNutrition(EPIC)-Oxford
cohort, Schmidtetal.[40], comparedplasmaconcentrationsanddietaryintakesofaminoacidsin
malemeat-eaters,fish-eaters,vegetarians,andvegans. Whileplasmaconcentrationsweregenerally
lowest in vegans, the differences were not as substantial as one would have expected based on
dietary amino acid intakes [40]. The recent data from Clarys et al. [38], Elorinne et al. [39] and
Schmidt et al. [40] demonstrated that nutritional challenges associated with plant-based diets are
predictableinthedevelopedworldandproteinoraminoacidinsufficienciesarenotofconcernwithin
thegeneralpopulation.
Theapplicationofproteinqualityindeterminingtheeligibilityofafoodforaproteincontent
claiminsinuatesthat,onanygivenday,theproteinconsumedateveryeatingoccasionshouldprovide
aminimumlevelofindispensableaminoacids,orinthecaseofthePER,facilitateaminimumgrowth
rateamongweanlingrats. However,whiletheindispensableaminoacidcompositionofpulsesand
cerealsarecomplementarywhenconsumedtogether,thereisnoevidencetosupportthenotionthat
allindispensableaminoacidsneedtobeconsumedateverymeal. Thatis,proteinandaminoacid
requirementscanbemetthroughoutdifferingmealintakeswithinagivenday[41]. Thisissomewhat
reflectedinregulatoryframeworksinEurope,AustraliaandNewZealand,China,andSouthKorea,
where, rather than protein quality, absolute levels of protein per serving of a given food are used
to support protein content claims (Table 2). In Europe, “source of”’ and “high source” of protein
claims can be made on foods that provide at least 12% and 20% energy from protein per serving,
respectively[10]. InAustraliaandNewZealand,wherefoodstandardsestablishedbyFoodStandards
AustraliaNewZealandareusedbybothjurisdictions,ageneralproteinclaimcanbemadeforfoods
thatcontain≥5gprotein/serving,whilea“goodsource”ofproteinclaimcanbemadeforfoodsthat
contain≥10gprotein/serving[11]. TheregulatoryframeworksforChinaandSouthKoreaaresimilar
totheInternationalFoodStandardsputforthbyCodexAlimentariuswhereafoodisconsidereda
sourceofproteinifitprovides ≥10%oftheNutrientReferenceValue(NRV)forproteinper100g,
or≥5%oftheNRVper100mL,or≥5%oftheNRVper100kcal(Codex[42]&SouthKorea[13])or
420kJ(China[12]). ForCodexandSouthKorea,foodsthatare≥10%oftheNRVperservingarealso
consideredtobeasourceofprotein[13,42]. Forallthreeregions,a“highsource”ofproteinisreserved
forfoodsthatcontain2xthelevelofproteinthatqualifiesfora“source”claim[12,13,42]. Theprotein
NRVforCodex[43],SouthKorea[13],andChina[12],is50g,55g,and60g,respectively.
Table2. Summaryofalternativeregulatoryframeworksandinternationalfoodsstandards(Codex
Alimentarius)forproteincontentclaims.
AustraliaandNewZealand[11] Europe[10] CodexAlimentarius[42],China[12],andSouthKorea[13]
“Source”ofProtein*
≥10%theNRV*per100g(solids);or
GeneralProteinClaim “Source”ofProtein ≥5%theNRV*per100mL(liquids);or
≥5gprotein/serving. ≥12%ofenergy/serving. ≥5%theNRV*per100kcal(CodexandSouthKorea)or420
kJ(China);or
≥10%theNRV*perserving(CodexandSouthKorea)
“HighSource”ofProtein
“GoodSource”ofProtein “HighSource”ofProtein
Atleast2xthelevelofproteinthatqualifiesfora
≥10gprotein/serving. ≥20%energy/serving.
“source”claim.
Abbreviations: NRV,NutrientReferenceValue. *NRVforProtein: CodexAlimentarius: 50g/day[43];China:
60g/day[12];SouthKorea:55g/day[13].
Codex’s framework for protein content claims is an internationally recognized standard and
demonstrates consensus for the use of total protein levels as support for protein content claims.
Nutrients2017,9,921 9of19
Given Canada’s similarity to Europe, and Australia and New Zealand, where sophisticated food
systemsprovidethepopulationwithaplethoraofaffordablefoodsofbothanimal-andplant-origin,
itisnotlikelythatadoptionofasimilarsysteminCanadawouldleadtowidespreaddeficiencyof
indispensableaminoacids. Indevelopedregions, studieshaveyettoshowthatnotusingprotein
quantitytosupportproteincontentclaimsisnegativelyassociatedwiththemisrepresentationoffoods,
lowerqualityoffoods,ordietswithintheirrespectivemarketplaces,andmorebroadly,theprotein
statusoftheirrespectivepopulations. Similarly,toourknowledge,therearenodatatosuggestthat
thegeneralpopulationinCanadaisatriskfortotalnitrogenorindispensableaminoacidinsufficiency.
DietarysurveydatainCanadashowthatproteinintakeissufficientwith<3%ofproteinintakesamong
children,adolescentsandadultsbeingbelowtheacceptablemacronutrientdistributionrange[44–46].
Tomitigateconsumerconfusionandpermitstraightforwardcomparisonsbetweenfoods,5gand10g
ofproteinperreferenceamountwouldbereasonablethresholdsfor“goodsource”and“excellent
source”ofproteinclaimsinthelabelingandadvertisingoffoodsinCanada(Table3,Option1);which
aligns with Australia and New Zealand. Table 4 demonstrates the application of this suggestion,
wherethebreakfastcerealfromTable1containing5gofproteinfromchickpeaswouldnotqualify
foraproteincontentclaimusingthecurrentregulatorysystem. However,ifproposedOption1from
Table 3 were adopted in Canada, the same food would be considered a “good source” of protein.
WithregulatorymodernizationandtheconstantevolutionofCanada’sfoodlandscape,removalof
regulatoryhurdlesthatseeminglyimpedeconsumercommunicationaroundthenutritionalmeritsof
foodwouldhelpincreasedietaryinclusionofplantproteins,encouragepositivedietarychanges,and
supportgoalsregardingthesustainabilityoftheCanadianagri-foodindustry.
Nutrients 2017, 9, 921 Table3. Thresholdsforproteincontentclaimsforproposedapproachestoregulatorychangesfor 10 of 22
proteincontentclaimsinCanada.
Table 3. Thresholds for protein content claims for proposed approaches to regulatory changes for protein content claims in Canada.
ProposedOption1:RemovalofProteinQuality(Preferred) ProposedOption2:AdoptionofPDCAAS(LessPreferred)
Proposed Option 1: Removal of Protein Quality (Preferred) Proposed Option 2: Adoptionof PDCAAS (Less Preferred)
Protein ContAenmt o(gu)n pt er RePferRoretenefcieenr eCnocnetAenmto(guP)nrpoteterin ContenPt Crolateimin ContentClaCiomrrected CProortRreeiencft eRerdeeqnPupcrieeroertA meDimeVnno tR* u peneqrt uRpieerferemDreenVncet* pAemrount ProteinCProonteteinn CtConlateinmt Claim
5 g 5g “Good source” “oGf poroodteisno urce”ofprotein≥5% D≥V5 %DV 2.5g2.5 g “Source”“Soofuprcreo”t eoifn protein
10 g 10g “Excellent sourc“eE”x ocfe pllreontetisno urce”ofprote≥in10% ≥DV10 %DV 5g 5 g “Goodso“uGrocoed” soofuprcreo”t eoifn protein
≥20%DV 10g “Excellentsource”ofprotein
≥20% DV 10 g “Excellent source” of protein
Abbreviations:DV,dailyvalue;PDCAAS,proteindigestibilitycorrectedaminoacidscore.*Correctedforprotein
Abbreviations: DV, daily value; PDCAAS, protein digestibility corrected amino acid score. * Corrected for protein quality using PDCAAS. Proposed DV for protein in Canada is 50 g/day.
qualityusingPDCAAS.ProposedDVforproteininCanadais50g/day.
Table 4. An example that demonstrates the current and proposed approaches for qualifying for protein content claims in Canada when ≥2 distinct finished foods are traditionally combined prior to
consumption.
Example from Table 1: Chickpea-based Breakfast Cereal and Milk (2% MF)
 High density breakfast cereal (≥43 g/250 mL) = 55 g RA *
 5 g protein from chickpeas per 55 g RA
 125 mL milk (2% MF) = 4.3 g protein ¶
Current Approach Using the PER † Proposed Option 1: Removal of Protein Quality ɣ (Preferred) Proposed Option 2: Adoption of PDCAAS in Canada ɣ (Less Preferred)
The food has a protein rating of 20 or more, as determined by  5 g protein per RA = “Good Source” of protein.  Protein per reference amount is corrected using the PDCAAS method §
official method FO-1, Determination of Protein Rating, October  10 g protein per RA = “Excellent Source” of protein.  PDCAASChickpea = 0.52 [47]; PDCAASMilk = 1.0 [48].
15, 1981 ‡ 1. Sum of protein in food per RA  Proposed DV for protein in Canada: 50 g/day
(a) Per RDI; or 5 (cid:1859) (cid:1868)(cid:1870)(cid:1867)(cid:1872)(cid:1857)(cid:1861)(cid:1866)(cid:1858)(cid:1870)(cid:1867)(cid:1865) (cid:1855)ℎ(cid:1861)(cid:1855)(cid:1863)(cid:1868)(cid:1857)(cid:1853)+4.3 (cid:1859) (cid:1868)(cid:1870)(cid:1867)(cid:1872)(cid:1857)(cid:1861)(cid:1866) (cid:1858)(cid:1870)(cid:1867)(cid:1865) 125 (cid:1865)(cid:1864) (cid:1865)(cid:1861)(cid:1864)(cid:1863)  Assumed that 125 mL is the RA for milk when it is consumed with
(b) Per 30 g combined with 125 mL of milk, if the food is a =9.3 (cid:1859) (cid:1868)(cid:1870)(cid:1867)(cid:1872)(cid:1857)(cid:1861)(cid:1866) (cid:1868)(cid:1857)(cid:1870) (cid:1844)(cid:1827) cereal.
breakfast cereal.  Protein claim is based on the level of corrected protein per RA relative
 PERChickpea = 2.32, PERMilk = 2.0 [18] 2. Protein Claim to a protein daily value of 50 g:
1. Protein Rating Breakfast Cereal Qualifies for a “good source” of protein claim  ≥5% DV (or 2.5 g/reference amount): “Source” of protein
 ≥10% DV (or 5 g/reference amount): “Good Source” of protein
(cid:1842)(cid:1870)(cid:1867)(cid:1872)(cid:1857)(cid:1861)(cid:1866) (cid:1870)(cid:1853)(cid:1872)(cid:1861)(cid:1866)(cid:1859)(cid:3003)(cid:3045)(cid:3032)(cid:3028)(cid:3038)(cid:3033)(cid:3028)(cid:3046)(cid:3047) (cid:3004)(cid:3032)(cid:3045)(cid:3032)(cid:3028)(cid:3039)  ≥20% DV (or 10 g/reference amount): “Excellent Source” of protein
(cid:1868)(cid:1870)(cid:1867)(cid:1872)(cid:1857)(cid:1861)(cid:1866) ((cid:1859))
= (cid:1842)(cid:1831)(cid:1844)(cid:3004)(cid:3035)(cid:3036)(cid:3030)(cid:3038)(cid:3043)(cid:3032)(cid:3028) ×(cid:1844)(cid:1830)(cid:1835)(cid:3003)(cid:3045)(cid:3032)(cid:3028)(cid:3038)(cid:3033)(cid:3028)(cid:3046)(cid:3047) (cid:3004)(cid:3032)(cid:3045)(cid:3032)(cid:3028)(cid:3039) 1. Corrected Protein LevelCereal per RA
2.7 (cid:1859) (cid:1842)(cid:1870)(cid:1867)(cid:1872)(cid:1857)(cid:1861)(cid:1866) (cid:1842)(cid:1870)(cid:1867)(cid:1872)(cid:1857)(cid:1861)(cid:1866) ((cid:1859))
=2.32 ×30 (cid:1859) (cid:1828)(cid:1870)(cid:1857)(cid:1853)(cid:1863)(cid:1858)(cid:1853)(cid:1871)(cid:1872) (cid:1829)(cid:1857)(cid:1870)(cid:1857)(cid:1853)(cid:1864) (cid:1829)(cid:1867)(cid:1870)(cid:1870)(cid:1857)(cid:1855)(cid:1872)(cid:1857)(cid:1856) (cid:1842)(cid:1870)(cid:1867)(cid:1872)(cid:1857)(cid:1861)(cid:1866) (cid:1838)(cid:1857)(cid:1874)(cid:1857)(cid:1864)(cid:3003)(cid:3045)(cid:3032)(cid:3028)(cid:3038)(cid:3033)(cid:3028)(cid:3046)(cid:3047) (cid:3004)(cid:3032)(cid:3045)(cid:3032)(cid:3028)(cid:3039)=(cid:1842)(cid:1830)(cid:1829)(cid:1827)(cid:1827)(cid:1845)(cid:3004)(cid:3035)(cid:3036)(cid:3030)(cid:3038)(cid:3043)(cid:3032)(cid:3028)× (cid:1844)(cid:1827) ((cid:1859))
=6.3 (cid:1868)(cid:1857)(cid:1870) 30 (cid:1859) (cid:1828)(cid:1870)(cid:1857)(cid:1853)(cid:1863)(cid:1858)(cid:1853)(cid:1871)(cid:1872) (cid:1829)(cid:1857)(cid:1870)(cid:1857)(cid:1853)(cid:1864) 5 (cid:1859)
=0.52 × =2.6 (cid:1859) (cid:1868)(cid:1870)(cid:1867)(cid:1872)(cid:1861)(cid:1857)(cid:1866) (cid:1868)(cid:1857)(cid:1870) (cid:1844)(cid:1827)
55 (cid:1859) (cid:1844)(cid:1827)
2. Protein Rating Milk
(cid:1842)(cid:1870)(cid:1867)(cid:1872)(cid:1857)(cid:1861)(cid:1866) (cid:1870)(cid:1853)(cid:1872)(cid:1861)(cid:1866)(cid:1859)(cid:3014)(cid:3036)(cid:3039)(cid:3038)= (cid:1842)(cid:1831)(cid:1844)(cid:3014)(cid:3036)(cid:3039)(cid:3038) ×(cid:1842)(cid:1870)(cid:1844)(cid:1867)(cid:1830)(cid:1872)(cid:1857)(cid:1835)(cid:1861)(cid:3014)(cid:1866)(cid:3036)(cid:3039)((cid:3038)(cid:1859)) 2. Corrected Protein LevelMilk per RA
Nutrients2017,9,921 10of19
Table4.AnexamplethatdemonstratesthecurrentandproposedapproachesforqualifyingforproteincontentclaimsinCanadawhen≥2distinctfinishedfoodsare
traditionallycombinedpriortoconsumption.
ExamplefromTable1:Chickpea-basedBreakfastCerealandMilk(2%MF)
(cid:4) Highdensitybreakfastcereal(≥43g/250mL)=55gRA*
(cid:4) 5gproteinfromchickpeasper55gRA
(cid:4) 125mLmilk(2%MF)=4.3gprotein
CurrentApproachUsingthePER† ProposedOption1:RemovalofProteinQualityG(Preferred) ProposedOption2:AdoptionofPDCAASinCanadaG(LessPreferred)
Thefoodhasaproteinratingof20ormore,as
determinedbyofficialmethodFO-1,Determinationof (cid:4) 5gproteinperRA=“GoodSource”ofprotein. (cid:4) ProteinperreferenceamountiscorrectedusingthePDCAAS
ProteinRating,October15,1981‡ (cid:4) 10gproteinperRA=“ExcellentSource”ofprotein. method§
((ba))PPeerr3R0DgI;coormbinedwith125mLofmilk,ifthefoodis 1.SumofproteininfoodperRA (cid:4) PDCAASChickpea=0.52[47];PDCAASMilk=1.0[48].
abreakfastcereal. 5gproteinfromchickpea+4.3gprotein from125mlmilk= (cid:4) ProposedDVforproteininCanada:50g/day
9.3gproteinperRA (cid:4) Assumedthat125mListheRAformilkwhenitisconsumed
(cid:4) PERChickpea=2.32,PERMilk=2.0[18] 2.ProteinClaim withcereal.
1.ProteinRatingBreakfastCereal Qualifiesfora“goodsource”ofproteinclaim (cid:4) ProteinclaimisbasedonthelevelofcorrectedproteinperRA
ProteinratingBreakfastCereal relativetoaproteindailyvalueof50g:
==2P.E32RC×hickpea2.7×gRPrDopItrBeoirentaekifnas(tgC)ereal •• ≥≥51%0%DDVV(o(orr2.55gg//rreeffeerreenncceeaammoouunntt))::““GSoooudrcSe”ouorfcpe”rootefipnrotein
30gBreakfastCereal • ≥20%DV(or10g/referenceamount):“ExcellentSource”ofprotein
=6.3per30gBreakfastCereal
2.ProteinRatingMilk 1.CorrectedProteinLevelCerealperRA
ProteinratingMilk= PERMilk ×PrRoDteIinMi(lkg) CorrectedProteinLevelBreakfastCereal=PDCAASChickpea×PrRotAein(g()g)
=2.5x 41.235gmPlrMoteilikn =10.8per125mlMilk =0.52 ×555ggRA =2.6gprotienperRA
3.TotalProteinRating 2.CorrectedProteinLevelMilkperRA
4P.PrortoetieninraCtilnagimBreakfastCereal+Milk=6.3 +10.8 =17.1 CorrectedProteinLevelMilk=PDCAASMilk×PrRotAein(g()g)
Doesnotqualifyforaproteinclaim =1.0 × 4.3g =4.3gproteinperRA
125mlRA
3.TotalCorrectedProteinLevelCereal+Milk
TotalCorrectedProteinLevelBreakfastCereal+Milk=2.6+4.3
=6.9g
4.ProteinLevelRelativetotheProposedDVforProtein
%DVProtein= Proteinlevel(g)Corrected
DVprotein
= 6.9g ×100= 13.8%
50gprotein
5.ProteinClaim
Qualifiesfora“good”sourceofproteinclaim
Abbreviations:DV,dailyvalue;MF;milkfat;PDCAAS,proteindigestibilitycorrectedaminoacidscore;PER,proteinefficiencyratio;RA,referenceamount;RDI,reasonabledailyintake.
*GovernmentofCanada[24].¶CanadianNutrientFile[25].†RegulatoryframeworkforproteincontentclaimsinCanada[16].‡GovernmentofCanada,MethodFO-1[14].GProposed
regulatoryframeworkforproteincontentclaimsoutlinedinTable3.§FoodandAgricultureOrganizationoftheUnitedNations[9].