RÉSUMÉ
Background and aims: Front-of-Pack (FoP) nutrition labelling has been established as a policy, empowering consumers to choose healthy food options for preventing diet-related non-communicable diseases. This study aimed to evaluate the association between the nutrient profile underlying the Chilean warning label score and all-cause mortality and to conduct a calibration with the Nutri-Score in a large cohort of Spanish university graduates. Materials and methods: This prospective cohort study analysed 20,666 participants (8,068 men and 12,598 women) with a mean (standard deviation) age of 38 years (±12.4) from the SUN cohort. Dietary food intake was assessed by a validated semi-quantitative food-frequency questionnaire at baseline and after 10 years of follow-up. The warning label score was calculated by considering the threshold of nutrients (sugar, saturated fat, and sodium) and energy density per 100 g/ml of product, as established by Chilean Legislation. Participants were classified according to quartiles of consumption of daily label score: Q1 (≤5.0), Q2 (>5.0-7.1), Q3 (>7.1-9.8), and Q4 (>9.8). Time-dependent, multivariable-adjusted Cox models were applied. To compare the performance of the warning label score and Nutri-Score to predict mortality, we used the Akaike information criterion (AIC) and Bayesian information criterion (BIC) methods. Results: During a median of 12.2 years of follow-up, 467 deaths were identified. A higher score in the warning label values (lower nutritional quality) was associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality [HR (95% CI) Q4 vs. Q1: 1.51 (1.07-2.13); p-trend = 0.010] and cancer mortality [HR (95% CI) Q4 vs. Q1: 1.91 (1.18-3.10); p-trend = 0.006]. However, no statistically significant association was found for cardiovascular mortality. Furthermore, the warning label score and Nutri-Score exhibited comparable AIC and BIC values, showing similar power of prediction for mortality. Conclusion: A diet with a higher warning label score (>9.8 per day) was a good predictor of all cases and cancer mortality in a large Spanish cohort of university graduates. Also, the warning label score was capable to predict mortality as well as the Nutri-Score. Our findings support the validity of the warning label score as a FoP nutrition labelling policy since it can highlight less healthy food products.
RÉSUMÉ
BACKGROUND: Metabolic syndrome (MetS) is an important and priority public health problem globally. Long working hours have been proposed as a modifiable risk factor for MetS, despite sparse epidemiological evidence. Thus, the aim of this study was to prospectively evaluate the associations between working hours and incidence of MetS and each of its components. METHODS: We assessed 6845 participants of a Spanish dynamic prospective cohort of university graduates (the SUN project), initially free of any specific criteria of MetS, and followed-up for a median of 8.3 years. Weekly working hours were collected at baseline and grouped into four categories: >0-24, 25-39, 40-49 and ≥50 h. MetS was defined according to the updated harmonizing criteria. We estimated multivariable adjusted Relative Risks (RR) of MetS and their 95% Confidence Intervals (95% CI), using Poisson regression models. RESULTS: The cumulative incidence of MetS was 6.0%. Working hours were not independently related to MetS (25-39 h/week = RR: 1.42, 95% CI 0.90-2.25; 40-49 h/week = RR: 1.45, 95% CI 0.91-2.30; ≥50 h/week = RR: 1.49, 95% CI 0.91-2.42, P for trend = 0.235) nor to any of its individual definition criteria. CONCLUSION: Our findings do not suggest that long working hours increase the risk of MetS development or each of its components. Further longitudinal studies in general population should be conducted to confirm these results.