SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Journal of advances in vetbio science and techniques / 2026 / Issue: 3

Label-reported nutritional values and within-category variability in packaged processed meat products: a cross-sectional study from the Turkish market

Selçuk Alan(KAFKAS ÜNİVERSİTESİ, VETERİNER FAKÜLTESİ, GIDA GÜVENLİĞİ VE HALK SAĞLIĞI BÖLÜMÜ)0000-0002-4473-7835
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-10-19
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In conclusion, the nutritional values of packaged processed meat products vary both between categories and within the same category.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study examined the nutritional values reported on the labels of packaged processed meat products sold in the Turkish market, per 100 g of product, and also determined the differences and within-category variability of these values among product categories.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this cross-sectional descriptive study, label data were collected from physical supermarkets in different cities across Türkiye and nationally accessible online retail and manufacturer websites between January and May 2026.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In conclusion, the nutritional values of packaged processed meat products vary both between categories and within the same category.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2026 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Food composition · label data · market research

Abstract

This study examined the nutritional values reported on the labels of packaged processed meat products sold in the Turkish market, per 100 g of product, and also determined the differences and within-category variability of these values among product categories. In this cross-sectional descriptive study, label data were collected from physical supermarkets in different cities across Türkiye and nationally accessible online retail and manufacturer websites between January and May 2026. Energy, fat, saturated fat, carbohydrate, sugars, protein, and salt values were recorded for 201 products in the categories of sucuk, salami, sausage, ham, pastirma, smoked meat, kavurma, and doner. Categories were compared using the Kruskal-Wallis test, and Bonferroni correction was applied for pairwise comparisons. All nutritional variables differed significantly across product categories in the omnibus Kruskal–Wallis analyses (p ≤ 0.001). The highest median energy, fat, and saturated fat values were determined in sucuk, at 432 kcal/100 g, 40 g/100 g, and 21 g/100 g, respectively. The highest median protein and salt values were found in pastirma, at 31 g/100 g and 5.5 g/100 g, respectively. Within-category variability differed by nutrient; the widest variability in energy, fat, and saturated fat was observed in doner products, in carbohydrate in ham products, in sugars in doner products, in protein in smoked meat products, and in salt in pastirma products. In conclusion, the nutritional values of packaged processed meat products vary both between categories and within the same category. Therefore, nutritional information should be evaluated not only on a category basis but also on a product basis.

🔖

Cite This Article

Alan, S. (2026). Label-reported nutritional values and within-category variability in packaged processed meat products: a cross-sectional study from the Turkish market. Journal of advances in vetbio science and techniques, Issue: 3. https://doi.org/10.31797/vetbio.2014103

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (21)

  1. Ansorena, D., Cama, S., Alejandre, M., & Astiasarán, I. (2019). Health-related messages in the labeling of processed meat products: A market evaluation. Food & Nutrition Research, 63, 3358. https://doi.org/10.29219/fnr.v63.3358
  2. Aybek, Z., & Şahin, S. (2025). Gıda etiket okuryazarlığı ve tüketici bilinci. Osmaniye Korkut Ata Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, 8(5), 2635–2648. https://doi.org/10.47495/okufbed.1788726
  3. Baş, D., & Kayak, S. (2023). Üniversite öğrencilerinin besin etiket bilgisi okuma tutumu ve gıda okuryazarlığı düzeylerinin değerlendirilmesi. Üçüncü Sektör Sosyal Ekonomi Dergisi, 58(3), 2210–2230. https://doi.org/10.15659/3.sektor-sosyal-ekonomi.23.08.2135
  4. Çavuş-Alan, S., & Alan, S. (2025). Consumers and future veterinarians: Attitudes of veterinary students toward welfare-friendly meat products and labelling in Türkiye. Revista Científica de la Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias, 36(1), e361775. https://doi.org/10.52973/rcfcv-e361775
  5. Crutchfield, S., Kuchler, F., & Variyam, J. N. (2001). The economic benefits of nutrition labeling: A case study for fresh meat and poultry products. Journal of Consumer Policy, 24(2), 185–207. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012235828509
  6. Delgado-Pando, G., Ekonomou, S. I., Stratakos, A. C., & Pintado, T. (2021). Clean label alternatives in meat products. Foods, 10(7), 1615. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10071615
  7. Dikmen, D., & Pekcan, G. (2013). Türkiye’de besin etiketlerinin Etiketleme Yönetmeliği’ne uygunluğunun değerlendirilmesi. Beslenme ve Diyet Dergisi, 41(2), 132–139.
  8. Ding, X., Lv, W., Liu, Y., Lu, Y., Liu, Y., Li, H., Cai, B., Han, J., Yang, Y., Gao, C., & Wang, Z. (2024). Evaluation of the nutritional quality of Chinese processed meat products: Comparison of two nutrient profile models. Nutrients, 16(5), 578. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu16050578
  9. European Parliament, & Council of the European Union. (2011). Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the provision of food information to consumers. Official Journal of the European Union, L 304, 18–63. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2011/1169/oj
  10. Gölcük, M., & Sevim, S. (2026). Tüketime hazır paketli salata ve yemeklerde besin ögesi kalitesi: Etiket verileri ve Nutri-Score sistemi kriterleriyle bir alan çalışması. Journal of Advanced Studies in Health Science and Obesity, 2(2), 19–37. https://doi.org/10.51271/jashso.76
  11. Grunert, K. G., Bredahl, L., & Brunsø, K. (2004). Consumer perception of meat quality and implications for product development in the meat sector—A review. Meat Science, 66(2), 259–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0309-1740(03)00130-X
  12. Güneş, F. E., Aktaç, Ş., & Korkmaz, B. İ. O. (2014). Tüketicilerin gıda etiketlerine yönelik tutum ve davranışları. Akademik Gıda, 12(3), 30–37.
  13. Kılıç Altun, S., Aydemir, M. E., & Harem, İ. Ş. (2024). Determination of the effect of turmeric (Curcuma longa L.) on selected quality parameters of Bez sucuk, a traditional fermented sausage. Journal of Food Safety and Food Quality, 75(4), 112–119. https://doi.org/10.53194/0003-925X-75-112
  14. Köksoy Vayısoğlu, S., Öncü, E., Kara, A., & Ateş, M. (2022). Yetişkinlerde tuz tüketim özellikleri ve etiket okuma alışkanlığıyla ilişkisi. İnönü Üniversitesi Sağlık Hizmetleri Meslek Yüksekokulu Dergisi, 10(2), 627–640. https://doi.org/10.33715/inonusaglik.1045511
  15. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. (2019). Türk Gıda Kodeksi Et, Hazırlanmış Et Karışımları ve Et Ürünleri Tebliği (Tebliğ No: 2018/52). Resmî Gazete, 30670. https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2019/01/20190129-4.htm
  16. Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock. (2017). Türk Gıda Kodeksi Gıda Etiketleme ve Tüketicileri Bilgilendirme Yönetmeliği. Resmî Gazete, 29960 (Mükerrer). https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2017/01/20170126M1-6.htm
  17. Moreira, M. J., García-Díez, J., de Almeida, J. M. M. M., & Saraiva, C. (2021). Consumer knowledge about food labeling and fraud. Foods, 10(5), 1095. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10051095
  18. Öksüztepe, G., & Beyazgül, P. (2014). Elazığ’da satılan pişmiş et ve tavuk dönerlerin mikrobiyolojik kalitesi. Fırat Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Veteriner Dergisi, 28(2), 65–71.
  19. Rimal, A. (2005). Meat labels: Consumer attitude and meat consumption pattern. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 29(1), 47–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2005.00374.x
  20. Samant, S. S., & Seo, H.-S. (2016). Effects of label understanding level on consumers’ visual attention toward sustainability and process-related label claims found on chicken meat products. Food Quality and Preference, 50, 48–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.01.002
  21. Sparks, E., Farrand, C., Santos, J. A., McKenzie, B., Trieu, K., Reimers, J., Davidson, C., Johnson, C., & Webster, J. (2018). Sodium levels of processed meat in Australia: Supermarket survey data from 2010 to 2017. Nutrients, 10(11), 1686. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu10111686