Next Article in Journal
Relationship Between Skin Temperature and Pressure Injuries: A Systematic Review
Previous Article in Journal
Analysis of the Time Series of Compressed Air Flow and Pressure and Determining Criteria for Diagnosing Causes of Pressure Drop in Pneumatic Systems
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Impact of Nut-Based Plant Beverages on Wheat Bread Quality: A Study of Almond, Hazelnut, and Walnut Beverages
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 15
Issue 17
10.3390/app15179538
applsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Nutritional Content of Ready-to-Eat Breakfast Cereals in the Greek Market: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Child- and Adult-Marketed Products

by
Electra Anna Gkoura
and
Vassilios Raikos
*
Department of Nutrition and Dietetics Sciences, School of Health Sciences, Hellenic Mediterranean University, 72300 Sitia, Greece
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2025, 15(17), 9538; https://doi.org/10.3390/app15179538
Submission received: 29 July 2025 / Revised: 22 August 2025 / Accepted: 28 August 2025 / Published: 29 August 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Cereal-Based Food Processing and Nutritional Quality: Latest Advances and Prospects)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Ready-to-eat cereals are a popular breakfast choice for children and adults, offering convenience and affordability. This study aimed to evaluate the nutritional content of ready-to-eat cereals available in the Greek market and compare data for the following categories: products targeted at adults (n = 208) vs. children (n = 74) and their subgroups: all bran vs. refined and gluten containing vs. gluten free. Protein, fat, saturated fat and fiber were all present in significantly greater quantities in the adult group when compared with the child group. The median content of sugar contained in children’s products (25.0/100 g) was significantly higher than the one present in adults’ ready-to-eat cereals (15.2/100 g). Sugar content of children and adult’s RTECs was assessed against the criteria set by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Regional Office for Europe of the World Health Organization (WHO). Sugar in children’s products (7.5 g per serving) did not comply with the criterion of <6 g per 30 g of serving. On the other hand, the sugar content in adult-oriented cereals (6.0 g per serving) was below the criterion of <10 g per 45 g of serving. All bran products demonstrated a better nutritional profile overall compared with the refined ones, but children’s options in the market are very limited, with only two products identified. Sugar reduction, particularly for children’s ready-to-eat cereals, should be a priority for policymakers and the food industry.

1. Introduction

In contemporary dietary patterns, breakfast is considered an important meal of the day. There is compelling evidence to suggest that the consumption of breakfast may have a beneficial effect on several health outcomes including weight management, diabetes and cardiovascular health [1,2]. Ready-to-eat cereals (RTECs) are considered popular choices for breakfast, particularly among children at school age [3]. Typically, RTECs are flaked, puffed or extruded grain formulations made from wheat, corn or oats that have undergone fortification with vitamins and minerals and require minimum preparation prior to consumption, i.e., the addition of milk [4,5]. RTECs include a large range of products which show prominent differences in the method of production and nutritional value and can be classified from minimally processed to ultra processed [6]. Examples of minimally processed RTECs include whole grains or bran flakes with added dried fruits or nuts, whereas processed or ultra-processed products are often manufactured from refined grains and include artificial ingredients such as sweeteners, colourants and preservatives. Their convenience and perceived nutritional value, which is associated primarily with the carbohydrate, fiber and micronutrient content, have led to widespread consumption, including by both children and adults [7]. The annual per capita consumption of breakfast cereals in Europe is approximately 2 kg, while significant variations are observed between countries. Within Europe, Italy and Ireland show the most distinctive difference, with mean consumption values of 0.5 kg and 8.0 kg respectively [8]. Average portion sizes also vary from country to country, and for each county average portion is also dependent on other factors such as the age of the consumer. For instance, in France, children consume an average portion of 23.1 g per day while the corresponding amount for adults is 28.3 g per day [9]. The annual per capita consumption in the breakfast cereals market for Greece was calculated as 2.7 kg in 2025, which is higher than the average consumption in Europe [10].
Several studies have demonstrated the nutritional benefits of breakfast cereals in children, adolescents and adults [11,12,13]. These benefits are associated with the maintenance of a healthy Body Mass Index (BMI) in adults and improved cognitive functioning in children, among other beneficial effects on human health [14,15,16,17]. However, RTECs are a vast subgroup of cereal-based foods and include products that vary significantly in nutrient composition and nutritional value. These differences can be attributed to the type of cereal(s) used, the processing method and the degree of fortification with additives, including free sugars. As a result, it is expected that positive health outcomes are associated with the consumption of breakfast cereals with specific nutritional attributes [18,19]. For instance, evidence exists to support an inverse association of obesity in the adult male and female population and the consumption of whole grain cereals, rather than refined-grain ones [20,21].
Significant concerns have been raised recently regarding the nutritional quality of RTECs, particularly for those targeted at children. Studies from New Zealand, UK, Canada, USA and Australia report that these products are often high in sugar and low in fiber, potentially contributing to unhealthy dietary patterns and excess caloric intake [22,23,24]. The National Diet and Nutrition Survey in the UK indicate that breakfast cereals are the primary source of free sugars for children aged 1.5–10 years old and the second main source for adolescents and adults [25]. An additional point of concern stems from evidence suggesting that highly advertised products targeting children and adolescents appear to be nutritionally imbalanced [26]. Furthermore, niche products such as gluten-free products, originally designed for individuals with celiac disease or gluten sensitivity, have gained popularity among the general population through marketing strategies, as they are often perceived as healthier despite controversial scientific evidence [27]. The large diversity of RTECs and the multifaceted approaches employed for marketing purposes, can be confusing for the consumer and often hinders their ability to make informed and healthy purchases.
To the best of our knowledge, there is no previous study systematically exploring the nutritional content of ready to eat cereals in the Greek market. Using a cross-sectional approach, this study aims to assess the nutritional quality of breakfast RTECs available in the Greek market by comparing the nutritional content of products targeted at children and adults. A secondary aim of this work was to identify differences in nutritional value between subgroups of each category. All bran and gluten-containing ready-to-eat cereals were compared against refined and gluten-free products respectively. The findings of this research may provide valuable information to policymakers for addressing public health concerns related to diet, such as implementing policies that regulate the marketing of ready-to-eat cereals to children. Finally, the results obtained can serve as a tool to guide consumers’ choices with scientifically grounded evidence regarding the nutritional profile of ready-to-eat breakfast options available in the Greek market.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Ready-to-Eat Cereal Data Collection

Data was collected from the websites of 6 supermarkets in Greece: AB Vassilopoulos, Galaxias, Masoutis, Sklavenitis, Kritikos and My Market. These supermarkets represent the 6 major grocery retailers in Greece based on turnover and market share data [28]. The supermarkets included in the study accounted for 76.2% of the organized grocery retail market in 2021. The 6 major grocery retailers have a broad distribution coverage across the country, with 600 stores for AB Vassilopoulos, 450 stores for Anedik Kritikos, 445 stores for Sklavenitis, 389 stores for Masoutis, 281 stores for Metro (My Market) and 171 stores for Pente (Galaxias). Data was collected into a comprehensive database by accessing the online stores of the supermarkets between April and May 2025. The same products in different stores were identified as duplicates and were removed. Any missing data from the online stores was completed by visiting the supermarket and using a digital camera. Supermarket’s own-brand products were included (if available) and price reductions/sales were not considered. Cereal bars were excluded from the study.
For each product, the following data was recorded from the label: price (Euros/kg), serving size (g), total energy (kcal), protein (g), carbohydrate (g), sugar (g), salt (g), fat (g), saturated fat (g), and fibre (g) content. The carbohydrate content extracted from the food label included starch and natural and added sugar and excluded fiber content. Because the serving size of products targeted for adults varied, data was recorded both per 100 g and per serving for energy and macronutrient content. Where the amount of a nutrient was recorded as <1 g or <0.1 g or traces, the value was entered as 0 in the spreadsheet. For values that were not reported (i.e., fiber content and serving size were not available in all products), this was left blank in the data sheet. Qualitative data on additives from the ingredients list were also included in the database. A second researcher reviewed all the information entered and confirmed the data entries.
Ready-to-eat cereals were grouped to the following categories: a. Children and adult: children’s RTEC products were identified by using a validated approach [29] as follows: 1. listed as children’s cereals on the online store and/or 2. included cartoons or fictional characters on the packaging, or enclosed games, cards or an activity or promotion that was directed at children. b. All bran and refined: all bran ready-to-eat cereal products were identified if it was explicitly stated on the package and the ingredient’s list that the cereal(s) enlisted belongs to this category. Mixtures of all bran and refined cereals were categorized as refined. c. Gluten-containing and gluten-free: gluten containing ready-to-eat cereal products were identified by wheat, barley and rye and/or mixtures of the latter. Mixtures of gluten-free and gluten-containing cereals were categorized as gluten-containing. Cohen’s kappa (κ) statistic was calculated to assess agreement of researchers regarding the classification of RTECs in groups (adult and children) [30]. Kappa statistic 0.85 indicated almost perfect agreement.
The sugar content of children and adult’s RTECs was assessed against the criteria set by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Regional Office for Europe of the WHO (WHO/EU) [31,32]. For adults’ cereals, the calculation was possible for 152/208 products due to missing information on serving size.
Nutri-Score was computed based on the algorithm of Santé Publique France [33]. Nutri-Score is a front-of-pack nutritional label with graduated colour coding on a five-colour scale that is assigned letters from A to E. Nutri-Score’s main purpose is to inform consumers about the nutritional value of foods and encourage them to choose healthier products. The overall score calculated and its associated colour code serve as a discriminator between food products based on their nutritional profile. “A” represents foods with better nutritional profile, while “E” represents foods with less desirable nutritional profile. “Negative points” (0–10) were allocated to the energy, sugar, saturated fat and sodium content, and “positive points” (0–5) to the fruit, vegetables, pulses and nuts, fibre, and protein content. The overall score (range −15 to +40) was calculated by subtracting points assigned for favourable nutritional components from points assigned for unfavourable nutritional components. Depending on the score, one of the five Nutri-Score categories was assigned (A–E). For adults’ cereals the calculation was possible for 200/208 products due to missing information.

2.2. Statistical Analysis

Categorical variables are summarized as the number of products and corresponding percentages. Data variables are presented as median (IQR) and mean (SE). The Shapiro–Wilk test and the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test were used to determine whether the data were normally distributed or not. The Mann–Whitney U test was used to detect differences between groups and sub-groups, due to most data not being normally distributed. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. A result was considered statistically significant (*) if the p-value was less than 0.05, very significant (**) if the p-value was less than 0.01 and highly statistically significant (***) for an observed p-value of less than 0.001.

3. Results and Discussion

The number of ready-to-eat products per group and subgroups included in the study are presented in Table 1. In total, 282 products were identified, with 78 (27%) classified as children and 208 (73%) classified as adult. The majority of RTECs available in the Greek market are manufactured in Greece (59%), and the remaining 41% are produced elsewhere within the EU. RTECs targeted at adults are predominantly manufactured in Greece, while children’s options are mostly imported from other countries of the EU. The classification of the products based on the type of cereal is presented in Table 2. Refined products were more abundant in both categories, and particularly in products for children, only 3% of which were identified as all bran. Gluten-free products were more numerous (53%) in adult’s ready-to-eat cereals, whereas gluten-containing were remarkably higher (85%) in number for children’s products. Children’s ready-to-eat cereals were more expensive to purchase (9.8 ± 3.6 EUR/kg), but not at a significant level (p = 0.06), compared to the adult’s (9.0 ± 4.4 EUR/kg).
The energy and nutrient content (per 100 g) of the ready-to-eat cereals is presented in Table 3. No significant differences for energy content per 100 g were observed between adult and children’s products. The median energy values of adult and children’s products are similar to those reported in the literature (385 kcal/100 g) [7]. Salt content was also significantly different (p = 0.04) between the adult and child categories; significant differences were also detected in salt content between subgroups. Protein, fat, saturated fat and fiber were all present in significantly greater quantities in the adult cereal group when compared with the child-targeted products. Adult RTECs contain 7.9 g of dietary fiber per 100 g of product, and for children the corresponding amount is 6.0 g per 100 g. Based on a 25 g serving, adult and children RTECs provide 32% and 24% respectively of the daily fiber intake recommended by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) [34]. Carbohydrate and sugar content were significantly higher in children’s products, with the latter containing a median excess of 9.8/100 g compared with the adult-oriented products. Our findings are in line with data from other European countries such as the UK and Sweden [6,35]. Both studies reported significantly higher amounts of carbohydrates and sugars in children’s cereals compared with the adult-oriented ones, while in a UK study the same effect was reported for salt content. Ready-to-eat cereals in Sweden showed a more favorable nutritional profile compared to this study, with lower median total fat (2.3/100 g), saturated fat (0.6/100 g), sugars (23.5/100 g) and higher median protein (8.2/100 g) and fiber (6.8/100 g) content. On the other hand, a recent study from Portugal reported similar data of children’s ready-to-eat cereals with median energy 385 kcal/100 g, total fat 3.1/100 g, saturated fat 1.1/100 g, total sugars 28.3/100 g, protein 7.3/100 g, fiber 4.6/100 g and salt 0.6/100 g [7]. Our data is also consistent with a study examining the nutritional quality of breakfast cereals on the French, Belgian and Luxembourg markets [36]. The median sugar and fat content of children’s cereals was 24.8 g and 3.8 g per 100 g respectively, which is in line with the data obtained in this study. The fiber content reported was substantially lower though (4.8 g/100 g). All studies suggest that sugar content in breakfast cereals in Europe contain excessive amounts of sugar in their formulations. Considering the adverse outcomes of excessive sugar intake in the prevalence of excess weight and obesity, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that both children and adults should limit the consumption of free sugars to less than 10% of total energy consumption [37]. According to the 2023 Nutrient Profile Model developed by the Regional Office for Europe of the WHO, breakfast cereals should not contain more than 12.5 g of sugar per 100 g [32].
Significant differences were also detected between subgroups, which in some cases were consistent in both adults and children’s products. Protein content, for instance, was significantly higher in all bran products when compared with refined ones for both categories. Sugar content on the other hand was present in significantly higher quantities in refined products for both adult and children’s categories. All bran products targeted to adults were significantly higher in fiber when compared to refined ones, and for children’s products the same was observed for total fat and salt content. Fiber content was also higher in children’s all bran products; however, this effect was not significant. Saturated fat was significantly lower for all bran products only for the children’s category. It is worth noting that only two products were classified as all bran in the children’s category (Table 1). Gluten-containing ready-to-eat cereals show distinctive differences in macronutrient content between groups. Children’s products with gluten contain significantly higher content of protein, fat, saturated fat and fiber compared with the gluten-free counterparts. The nutritional profile of children’s ready-to-eat cereals in Portugal also shows distinctive differences when compared with gluten-free products [7]. Gluten-containing cereals targeted to children in Portugal contain higher amounts of sugar (28.9/100 g), fat (3.2/100 g) and fiber (4.7/100 g) compared with products that are grouped as gluten-free with lower amounts of sugar (21.7/100 g), fat (2.5/100 g) and fiber (4.1/100 g). Fiber content in gluten-containing products in the Greek supermarkets is noticeably higher (6.7/100 g) than products of the same subgroup in Portugal. On the other hand, adult-oriented cereals with gluten contain significantly more carbohydrate and sugar but less protein and fat compared with gluten-free products. Sugar levels were similar for child-oriented products regardless of the presence of gluten, and the same was observed for the adult ones with relation to fiber content. Overall, gluten-containing RTECs targeted at children seem to have a more favorable nutritional profile when compared with the gluten-free products of the same category. On the other hand, the main nutritional benefit of adults’ gluten-free products is limited to the lower sugar content (7.7/100 g).
The sugar content of adults and children’s RTECs per median serving is presented in Figure 1. The median content of sugar contained in children’s products (7.5/30 g) is significantly higher than the one present in adult’s ready-to-eat cereals (6.0/45 g). As a result, the children’s products do not comply with the criterion of <6 g per 30 g of serving. On the other hand, the sugar content in adult-oriented cereals is below the criterion of <10 g per 45 g of serving. Data from other countries also indicates that sugar levels are high in children’s breakfast cereals per serving size. The median content reported in Australia, New Zealand, UK, USA and Canada is 8.4 g, 9.1 g, 7.7 g, 10.0 g and 9.0 g respectively per manufacturer-declared serving size [24]. Table 4 presents the frequencies of sweeteners identified in both adult- and children-oriented products. Qualitative data analysis from the food labels indicated that all products targeted at children (100%, n = 74/74) were formulated with sweeteners. Sucrose was present in all 74 children’s products and in some products other sweeteners were also added. On the other hand, 73.1% (n = 152/208) of adult-oriented products contained sweeteners as additives and 26.9% (n = 56/208) were sweetener-free. Similarly, sucrose was the most common sweetener identified in adult cereals followed by glucose syrup, barley malt extract and chocolate. Further analysis indicated that 63% of the adult cereals that contained added sweeteners complied with the sugar recommendation (<10 g of sugar per 45 g of serving), whereas only 6% of the children’s products met the recommendations. Non-surprisingly, all adult products that were sweetener-free were in compliance with the sugar content recommendations. A recent study aiming to characterize the sugar content of a large sample of breakfast cereal products from the Portuguese market reported that “sugar” was present among the top three ingredients for about 85% of the products [38]. It is worth noting that sugar content available on the nutrition label refers to total sugars, i.e., monosaccharides and disaccharides, regardless of the source [39]. This means that the corresponding amounts of naturally occurring sugars and added sugars are not known, yet the later account for most of the sugar content in breakfast cereals. In addition, several other additives related to sweet taste such as honey, maltodextrin and syrups were commonly identified in the ingredients lists. Previous work identified 152 different types of free sugars in packaged products, which highlights the challenge faced by consumers trying to limit their intake of free sugar [40,41].
Table 5 presents the % Daily Reference Intakes for energy and macronutrients of the RTECs per median serving size. The median serving size for adults (45 g) is significantly higher (p < 0.001) compared with the one calculated for children (30 g). Previous studies report similar serving sizes for adult (43 g) and children’s (31 g) cereals [29]. It is interesting to note that all products targeted at children had the same serving size, whereas the adult-oriented products varied significantly (min 30 g–max 65 g). The highest contribution to % Daily Reference Intakes comes from energy for adult-oriented cereals (8.1%) and from sugars (9.1%) for children-oriented ones. Total fat, saturated fat and salt is below 3% for children’s products, indicating the presence of moderate to low amounts for the specific macronutrients.
Figure 2 summarizes the Nutri-Score ratings of breakfast cereal categories. Based on the available information, the Nutri-Score could be calculated for 74 of 74 children’s breakfast cereals (ca. 100%), and for 200 of 208 adult’s breakfast cereals (ca. 96%), respectively. Nutri-Score analysis revealed that 37% of adult RTECs were rated as A followed by C (22.5%) and B (22%), whereas 35.1% of the children-oriented products rated as D and 31.1% rated as C. Only 6.8% of the children’s RTECs were rated as A. The majority (56.8%) of all bran and gluten free (48.6%) products were rated as A in the adult category. On the other hand, only 6.9% of the refined children’s ready-to-eat cereals were rated as A and none of the all bran ones. A total of 6.3% of children’s products with gluten were rated as A and 9.1% of gluten-free cereals received the highest rating (A). The share of products with a green Nutri-Score (A or B) summed up to 20% for products targeted at children and to 59% for products targeted at adults. The children’s products show substantially low scores when compared with a study assessing the Nutri-Score ratings of breakfast cereals in the German market [42]. The share of products with a green Nutri-Score (A or B) was also lower among children’s breakfast cereals than among non-children’s breakfast cereals in Germany (37% vs. 46% respectively). However, the rating for children’s products was higher compared with our findings (37% vs. 20%). France’s 2019–2024 National Nutrition and Health Programme (PNNS) recommends using the Nutri-Score indicator to identify foods with a desirable nutritional profile (A, B and C), and to avoid consumption of Nutri-Score D and E products, particularly among children [43]. In this study, 82% and 51% of adult and children’s products respectively are in line with the PNNS recommendation (A, B or C rating). In the study conducted in France, Belgium and Luxembourg the corresponding ratings for the adult and children’s products were 78% and 40% respectively [36]. Table 6 presents the % compliance for sugar content according to USDA and WHO/EU guidelines. A total of 66.4% (101 out of 152) of the RTECs targeted to adults comply with the USDA recommendation for sugar content per serving (<10 g sugar/45 g), while 76.2% (48 out 63) of the all bran and 70.0% (57 out of 74) of the gluten-containing products targeted at adults contain less than 10 g of sugar per median serving size. On the other hand, only 5.4% (4 out of 74) of the children’s products contain less than 6 g of sugar per serving (30 g), and 2.7% (2 out of 74) comply with the WHO/EU recommendations. Similar findings are reported for children-oriented products in the French, Belgian and Luxembourg markets, where 96.1% exceeded the permitted level of total sugars [36]. It is worth noting that for the largest subgroup of the children’s products (gluten containing ready-to-eat cereals), only 3.2% (2 out of 63) and 0.0% (0 out of 63) complied with the sugar content criterion of USDA and WHO/EU respectively.

4. Study Limitations

This study relies on data from six major Greek supermarkets, but excludes smaller retailers, online-only brands and specialty shops, potentially missing niche products. Although the latter are likely to represent a small proportion of the RTECs on the Greek market, this sample size limitation may limit the generalizability of the findings. This study, being observational and cross-sectional, relies on data collection over a certain period of time and excludes consumption data. A longitudinal intake study on breakfast cereals is recommended for investigating the long-term consumption patterns of these products and for developing effective nutrition guidelines. Finally, the analysis relied on manufacturer-reported nutrient content. Data extracted from the label was incomplete for some products. Nutri-Score ratings and compliance with USDA recommendations were biased by the lack of information for listed ingredients and serving size. No information on the method adopted by the companies to determine the amount of energy and nutrients is provided on the label. According to regulation 1169/2011/EU, the uncertainty of measurement in nutritional information has a tolerable limit of up to 20% [44]. This may lead to calculation errors in the nutritional information of the present study. Chemical analysis of RTECs can be conducted in future studies, to ensure the information provided by the manufacturers on the product label is accurate and can include additional nutritional information such as the soluble and insoluble fractions of dietary fiber.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, the nutritional content of children’s RTECs differed significantly compared with the ones targeted to adults. All bran products have a better nutritional profile overall compared with the refined ones, but children’s available options in the Greek market are very limited. Breakfast cereals targeted at children contain significantly greater amounts of carbohydrate and sugar, with most products exceeding the recommendations for free and added sugar. Data on sugar content of children’s cereals agreed with the corresponding Nutri-Score ratings, which indicated that only 20% of children’s RTECs have a score of A or B, while a substantial proportion (13.5%) is rated with the lowest score E. Sugar was identified in all children-oriented products. The findings of this study are consistent with the published literature from other countries and suggest that action needs to be taken to improve the nutritional value of children’s ready-to-eat breakfast cereals. Public health strategies and regulations should be implemented to improve the nutritional profile of RTECs, particularly of the ones targeted to children. The food industry should prioritize the reduction of added sugars in children’s ready-to-eat cereals to improve nutritional value and meet dietary recommendations.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, V.R.; methodology, V.R. and E.A.G.; validation, V.R.; formal analysis, E.A.G. and V.R.; investigation, E.A.G.; data curation, E.A.G.; writing—original draft preparation, V.R. and E.A.G.; writing—review and editing, V.R.; supervision, V.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Nikolaos Thalassinos for his guidance in data analysis.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
RTECReady-to-eat cereals
USDAUnited States Department of Agriculture
USAUnited States of America
UK United Kingdom
BMIBody Mass Index
Q1Quartile 1
Q2Quartile 2
SDStandard Deviation
SFASaturated Fatty Acid

References

  1. Pereira, M.A.; Erickson, E.; McKee, P.; Schrankler, K.; Raatz, S.K.; Lytle, L.A.; Pellegrini, A.D. Breakfast frequency and quality may affect glycemia and appetite in adults and children. J. Nutr. 2010, 141, 163–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Rampersaud, G.C.; Pereira, M.A.; Girard, B.L.; Adams, J.; Metzl, J.D. Breakfast habits, nutritional status, body weight, and academic performance in children and adolescents. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 2005, 105, 743–760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Rito, A.I.; Dinis, A.; Rascôa, C.; Maia, A.; de Carvalho Martins, I.; Santos, M.; Lima, J.; Mendes, S.; Padrão, J.; Stein-Novais, C. Improving breakfast patterns of portuguese children—An evaluation of ready-to-eat cereals according to the European nutrient profile model. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 2019, 73, 465–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Song, W.O.; Chun, O.K.; Kerver, J.; Cho, S.; Chung, C.E.; Chung, S.J. Ready-to-Eat Breakfast Cereal Consumption Enhances Milk and Calcium Intake in the US Population. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 2006, 106, 1783–1789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Fulgoni, V.L.; Buckley, R.B. The contribution of fortified ready-to-eat cereal to vitamin and mineral intake in the U.S. population, NHANES2007–2010. Nutrients 2015, 7, 3949–3958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Mottas, A.; Lappi, V.M.; Sundström, J.; Neal, B.; Mhurchu, C.N.; Löf, M.; Rådholm, K. Measuring the Healthiness of Ready-to-Eat Child-Targeted Cereals: Evaluation of the FoodSwitch Platform in Sweden. JMIR mHealth uHealth 2021, 9, e17780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Santos, M.; Matias, F.; Rito, A.I.; Castanheira, I.; Torres, D.; Loureiro, I.; Assunção, R. Breakfast Cereals Intended for Children: Opportunities for Reformulation and Potential Impact on Nutrient Intake. Foods 2021, 10, 1772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. European Breakfast Cereal Association. CEEREAL Portion Sizes. 2009. Available online: https://www.referenceintakes.eu/files/downloads/3_CEEREAL%20Portion%20Size%20Rationale.pdf (accessed on 16 August 2025).
  9. Agence Française de Sécurité Sanitaire, Alimentation, Environment, Travail (ANSES). INCA2 (2006–2007). In Report of the Individual and the National Study on Food Consumption No. 199; French Food Safety Agency (AFSSA): Maisons-Alfort, France, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  10. Statista. 2025. Available online: https://www.statista.com/outlook/cmo/food/bread-cereal-products/breakfast-cereals/greece#volume (accessed on 16 August 2025).
  11. Williams, P.G. The benefits of breakfast cereal consumption: A systematic review of the evidence base. Adv. Nutr. 2014, 5, 636S–673S. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Kafatos, A.; Linardakis, M.; Bertsias, G.; Mammas, I.; Fletcher, R.; Bervanaki, F. Consumption of ready-to-eat cereals in relation to health and diet indicators among school adolescents in Crete, Greece. Ann. Nutr. Metab. 2005, 49, 165–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. van den Boom, A.; Serra-Majem, L.; Ribas, L.; Ngo, J.; Perez-Rodrigo, C.; Aranceta, J.; Fletcher, R. The contribution of ready-to-eat cereals to daily nutrient intake and breakfast quality in a Mediterranean setting. J. Am. Coll. Nutr. 2006, 25, 135–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Albertson, A.M.; Anderson, G.H.; Crockett, S.J.; Goebel, M.T. Ready-to-eat cereal consumption: Its relationship with BMI and nutrient intake of children aged 4 to 12 years. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 2003, 103, 1613–1619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Barton, B.A.; Eldridge, A.L.; Thompson, D.; Affenito, S.G.; Striegel-Moore, R.H.; Franko, D.L.; Albertson, A.M.; Crockett, S.J. The relationship of breakfast and cereal consumption to nutrient intake and body mass index: The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Growth and Health Study. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 2005, 105, 1383–1389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Song, W.O.; Chun, O.K.; Obayashi, S.; Cho, S.; Chung, C.E. Is consumption of breakfast associated with body mass index in US adults? J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 2005, 105, 1373–1382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Adolphus, K.; Lawton, C.L.; Dye, L. The effects of breakfast on behavior and academic performance in children and adolescents. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2013, 7, 425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Fayet-Moore, F.; McConnell, A.; Tuck, K.; Petocz, P. Breakfast and breakfast cereal choice and its impact on nutrient and sugar intakes and anthropometric measures among a nation ally representative sample of Australian children and adolescents. Nutrients 2017, 9, 1045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Deshmukh-Taskar, P.R.; Nicklas, T.A.; O’Neil, C.E.; Keast, D.R.; Radcliffe, J.D.; Cho, S. The relationship of breakfast skipping and type of breakfast consumption with nutrient intake and weight status in children and adolescents: The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1999–2006. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 2010, 110, 869–878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Koh-Banerjee, P.; Franz, M.; Sampson, L.; Liu, S.; Jacobs, D.R., Jr.; Spiegelman, D.; Willett, W.; Rimm, E. Changes in whole-grain, bran and cereal fiber consumption in relation to 8-y weight gain among men. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2004, 80, 1237–1245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Liu, S.; Willett, W.C.; Manson, J.E.; Hu, F.B.; Rosner, B.; Colditz, G. Relation between changes in intakes of dietary fibre and grain products and changes in weight and development of obesity among middle-aged women. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2003, 78, 920–927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Devi, A.; Eyles, H.; Rayner, M.; Ni Mhurchu, C.; Swinburn, B.; Lonsdale-Cooper, E.; Vandevijvere, S. Nutritional quality, labelling and promotion of breakfast cereals on the New Zealand market. Appetite 2014, 81, 253–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Tong, T.; Rangan, A.; Gemming, L. Evaluating the nutritional content of children’s breakfast cereals in Australia. Children 2018, 5, 84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Chepulis, L.; Everson, N.; Ndanuko, R.; Mearns, G. The nutritional content of children’s breakfast cereals: A cross-sectional analysis of New Zealand, Australia, the UK, Canada and the USA. Public Health Nutr. 2020, 23, 1589–1598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. PHE. National Diet and Nutrition Survey. Results from Years 7 and 8 (Combined) of the Rolling Programme (2014/ 2015 to 2015/2016). 2018. Available online: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5acdf009ed915d32a65db8cc/NDNS_results_years_7_and_8.pdf (accessed on 16 August 2025).
  26. Potvin Kent, M.; Rudnicki, E.; Usher, C. Less healthy breakfast cereals are promoted more frequently in large supermarket chains in Canada. BMC Public Health 2017, 17, 877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. El Khoury, D.; Balfour-Ducharme, S.; Joye, I.J. A Review on the Gluten-Free Diet: Technological and Nutritional Challenges. Nutrients 2018, 10, 1410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. KPMG. The Future of Retail: A Deep Dive into Grocery Retail in Greece. 2023. Available online: https://assets.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/gr/pdf/2023/04/gr-the-future%20of-retail-a%20deep-dive-into-grocery%20-retail-in%20-greece.pdf (accessed on 16 August 2025).
  29. Schwartz, M.B.; Vartanian, L.R.; Wharton, C.M.; Brownell, K.D. Examining the nutritional quality of breakfast cereals marketed to children. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 2008, 108, 702–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Viera, A.J.; Garrett, J.M. Understanding interobserver agreement: The kappa statistic. Fam. Med. 2005, 37, 360–363. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  31. US Department of Agriculture. Child and Adult Care Food Program: Choose Breakfast Cereals That Are Lower in Added Sugars in the CACFP. Available online: https://www.fns.usda.gov/tn/cacfp/breakfast-cereals-lower-sugar (accessed on 16 August 2025).
  32. World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe: WHO Regional Office for Europe Nutrient Profile Model: Second Edition. Available online: www.who.int/europe/publications/i/item/WHO-EURO-2023-6894-46660-68492 (accessed on 16 August 2025).
  33. van der Bend, D.L.M.; van Eijsden, M.; van Roost, M.H.I.; de Graaf, K.; Roodenburg, A.J.C. The Nutri-Score algorithm: Evaluation of its validation process. Front. Nutr. 2022, 9, 974003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. EFSA. Dietary Reference Values for Nutrients Summary Report; ESFA: Parma, Italy, 2017; 92p, ISSN 2397-8325.
  35. Barlow, B.; Butler, T.J. Child- and adult-orientated breakfast cereals: A cross-sectional analysis of nutrient profile. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 2018, 77, E197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Robert, M.; Martin, F.; Xhonneux, A.; Mosser, F.; Favre, E.; Richonnet, C. Nutritional Quality of Breakfast Cereals on the French, Belgian and Luxembourg Markets: Which Cereals for Children? Nutrients 2024, 16, 2701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. WHO. Guideline: Sugars Intake for Adults and Children; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2015; ISSN 978-92-4069422-4.
  38. Prada, M.; Saraiva, M.; Viegas, C.; Cavalheiro, B.P.; Garrido, M.V. Examining the Relationship between Sugar Content, Packaging Features, and Food Claims of Breakfast Cereals. Nutrients 2021, 13, 1841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Mela, D.J.; Woolner, E.M. Perspective: Total, Added, or Free? What Kind of Sugars Should We Be Talking About? Adv. Nutr. 2018, 9, 63–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Bernstein, J.T.; Schermel, A.; Mills, C.M.; L’Abbé, M.R. Total and Free Sugar Content of Canadian Prepackaged Foods and Beverages. Nutrients 2016, 8, 582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Prada, M.; Saraiva, M.; Garrido, M.V.; Rodrigues, D.L.; Lopes, D. Knowledge about Sugar Sources and Sugar Intake Guidelines in Portuguese Consumers. Nutrients 2020, 12, 3888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Gréa, C.; Dittmann, A.; Wolff, D.; Haidar, H.; Roser, S.; Merz, B.; Genannt Bonsmann, S.S. Using the Nutri-Score to visualise food reformulation in Germany: The case of breakfast cereals. BMC Public Health 2025, 25, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Ministère des Solidarités et de la Santé. Programme National Nutrition Santé 2019–2023; Ministère des Solidarités et de la Santé: Paris, France, 2019; 94p.
  44. European Commission. Guidance Document for Competent Authorities for the Control of Compliance with EU Legislation on Regulation (EU) no 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on the Provision of Food Information to Consumers Eur; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2012; Volume 1, pp. 1–15.
Applsci 15 09538 g001
Figure 1. Box plots of median sugar content of adults and children’s breakfast cereal per serving size. Asterisks (***) denote significant difference (p < 0.001) between products.
Figure 1. Box plots of median sugar content of adults and children’s breakfast cereal per serving size. Asterisks (***) denote significant difference (p < 0.001) between products.
Applsci 15 09538 g001
Applsci 15 09538 g002
Figure 2. Nutri-Score ratings for adult and children’s cereal products.
Figure 2. Nutri-Score ratings for adult and children’s cereal products.
Applsci 15 09538 g002
Table 1. Descriptions of the food group categories analysed: numbers and percentages for total products. Data in brackets denotes numbers of total products per group.
Table 1. Descriptions of the food group categories analysed: numbers and percentages for total products. Data in brackets denotes numbers of total products per group.
Breakfast Cereal GroupTotal Number
(N)		Manufactured
in Greece		Refined All BranGluten C Gluten F
Adult74% (208/282)65% (136/208)54% (112/208) 46% (96/208)46% (97/208) 3% (111/208)
Children26% (74/282)39% (29/74)97% (72/74) 3% (2/74)85% (63/74) 15% (11/74)
Gluten C: Gluten containing, Gluten F: Gluten Free.
Table 2. Cereal-based classification of children- and adult-oriented products.
Table 2. Cereal-based classification of children- and adult-oriented products.
Children’sAdult
Multi-cereal62%, n = 46Multi-cereal51%, n = 106
Wheat
Rice
Corn
Oat
Barley
Rye		n = 44
n = 29
n = 25
n = 16
n = 4
n = 1		Wheat
Rice
Oat
Corn
Barley
Buckwheat
Rye
Lentil
Chia seeds
Soy
Sunflower seeds
Hemp seed
Sorghum
Linseed		n = 73
n = 73
n = 69
n = 30
n = 7
n = 4
n = 4
n = 3
n = 2
n = 2
n = 2
n = 1
n = 1
n = 1
Single-cereal38%, n = 28Single-cereal49%, n = 102
Wheat
Corn
Rye
Rice		n = 16
n = 7
n = 2
n = 3		Oat
Corn
Wheat
Buckwheat
Chia seeds
Rye
Dinkel
Linseed
Sorghum
Psyllium
Rice		n = 52
n = 18
n = 15
n = 4
n = 3
n = 2
n = 2
n = 1
n = 1
n = 1
n = 1
Table 3. Energy (kcal/100 g), macronutrient and salt content (g/100 g) of adult and children’s cereal products for the food categories analysed. Data are presented as medians (Q1; Q3). Asterisks (*) denote significant difference (p < 0.05), (**) very significant difference (p < 0.01) and (***) highly significant difference (p < 0.001) between products of different category (adult–children). Bold denotes significant difference (p < 0.05) between products of different sub-categories (Refined-all bran and Gluten C-Gluten F) of the same category.
Table 3. Energy (kcal/100 g), macronutrient and salt content (g/100 g) of adult and children’s cereal products for the food categories analysed. Data are presented as medians (Q1; Q3). Asterisks (*) denote significant difference (p < 0.05), (**) very significant difference (p < 0.01) and (***) highly significant difference (p < 0.001) between products of different category (adult–children). Bold denotes significant difference (p < 0.05) between products of different sub-categories (Refined-all bran and Gluten C-Gluten F) of the same category.
Cereal
Categories		KcalProteinFatSFACarbohydratesSugarsFibersSalt
Adult total385 (366; 450) ns9.0 (8.0; 12.0) ***7.0 (2.6; 17.0) ***1.8 (0.6; 3.8) *63.3 (58.4; 72.0) ***15.2 (2.2; 22.4) ***7.9 (6.0; 10.0) ***0.3 (0.0; 0.9) *
Refined393 (372; 438) ns8.4 (7.5; 9.3) ***5.3 (1.8; 17.0) ns1.9 (0.5; 3.7) ns70.4 (62.7; 79.0) ***19.1 (8.2; 24.0) ***6.3 (3.6; 8.6) ns0.6 (0.1; 1.0) ns
All bran373 (362; 455) ns11.4 (9.0; 13.2) ns8.0 (6.0; 17.6) ***1.5 (1.1; 3.9) ns59.1 (57.0; 63.7) *4.4 (1.1; 17.0) ns9.5 (7.5; 11.5) ns0.0 (0.0; 0.6) ns
Gluten C391 (361; 434) ns9.0 (8.1; 10.3) ***5.3 (2.5; 14.1) ns1.8 (0.6; 4.0) ns67.0 (62.0; 74.2) ***18.4 (9.3; 24.2) ***7.9 (6.0; 10.6) ***0.7 (0.4; 1.0) ***
Gluten F383 (368; 457) ns9.4 (8.0; 13.0) ***8.0 (5.8; 18.5) ***1.6 (0.9; 3.7) *60.0 (57.0; 68.0) ***7.7 (1.2; 21.0) ***7.8 (6.0; 10.0) ***0.1 (0.0; 0.4) **
Children total388 (382; 401) ns7.0 (5.8; 8.2) ***3.7 (2.6; 7.2) ***1.1 (0.6; 2.1) *76.0 (71.2; 81.3) ***25.0 (22.4; 32.0) ***6.0 (3.7; 7.5) ***0.5 (0.3; 0.7) *
Refined388 (382; 404) ns7.0 (5.8; 8.0) ***3.7 (2.6; 7.5) ns1.1 (0.6; 2.1) ns76.0 (71.1; 81.4) ***25.0 (22.9; 32.0) ***6.0 (3.7; 7.4) ns0.5 (0.3; 0.7) ns
All bran385 (379; 390) ns9.0 (8.9; 9.2) ns4.0 (3.7; 4.2) ***0.8 (0.7; 0.8) ns74.0 (72.9; 75.0) *22.2 (22.1; 22.2) ns8.4 (8.0; 8.9) ns0.7 (0.7; 0.7) ns
Gluten C388 (381; 415) ns7.3 (5.8; 8.7) ***3.7 (2.7; 10.6) ns1.1 (0.6; 2.2) ns74.4 (70.2; 79.8) ***25.0 (22.7; 32.0) ***6.7 (3.9; 7.6) ***0.5 (0.3; 0.6) ***
Gluten F387 (386; 393) ns6.1 (6.1; 6.4) ***3.5 (2.4; 4.1) ***0.9 (0.7; 1.4) *81.5 (80.5; 83.0) ***26.0 (21.2; 33.9) ***3.8 (3.0; 4.0) ***0.7 (0.7; 0.8) **
Gluten C: Gluten containing, Gluten F: Gluten Free, SFA: Saturated Fatty acid, ns: non-significant.
Table 4. List of common additives (sweeteners) in adult and children’s cereal products.
Table 4. List of common additives (sweeteners) in adult and children’s cereal products.
AdditivesChildrenAdult
Sucrose74 (100%)129 (62%)
Glucose Syrup43 (58%)63 (30%)
Fructose5 (7%)1 (1%)
Barley Malt Extract9 (12%)61 (29%)
Honey9 (12%)40 (19%)
Molasses3 (4%)32 (15%)
Dextrose8 (11%)3 (2%)
Caramelized Sugar Syrup4 (5%)12 (6%)
Glucose–Fructose Syrup5 (7%)1 (1%)
Polydextrose2 (3%)3 (1%)
Cocoa Powder37 (50%)1 (1%)
Chocolate4 (5%)55 (26%)
Table 5. % Daily Reference Intake ± (SE) of mean energy (kcal) and macronutrients (g) of breakfast cereals per serving size. Serving size is presented as median (Q1; Q3). Asterisks (***) denote high significant difference (p < 0.001) between products.
Table 5. % Daily Reference Intake ± (SE) of mean energy (kcal) and macronutrients (g) of breakfast cereals per serving size. Serving size is presented as median (Q1; Q3). Asterisks (***) denote high significant difference (p < 0.001) between products.
Cereal CategoriesServing SizeEnergy
(2.000 kcal)		Fat
(70 g)		SFA
(20 g)		Carbohydrates
(260 g)		Sugars
(90 g)		Protein
(50 g)		Salt
(6 g)
Adult45.0 (30; 45) ***8.1 ± 0.25.1 ± 0.44.8 ± 0.47.5 ± 0.35.3 ± 0.45.9 ± 0.32.4 ± 0.2
Children30.0 (30; 30) ***6.1 ± 0.12.5 ± 0.22.7 ± 0.38.7 ± 0.19.1 ± 0.34.2 ± 0.12.5 ± 0.2
SE: Standard error, SFA: Saturated Fatty Acids.
Table 6. % compliance with USDA and WHO/EU recommendations for sugar content. Data are presented as % and counts (n). USDA: For 26–30 g serving (median serving size for children’s cereals), the recommendation for total sugars is ≤6 g. For 45–49 g serving (median serving size for adult’s cereals), the recommendation for total sugars is ≤10 g. WHO:EU: The recommendation for breakfast cereal (children) is <12.5 g per 100 g.
Table 6. % compliance with USDA and WHO/EU recommendations for sugar content. Data are presented as % and counts (n). USDA: For 26–30 g serving (median serving size for children’s cereals), the recommendation for total sugars is ≤6 g. For 45–49 g serving (median serving size for adult’s cereals), the recommendation for total sugars is ≤10 g. WHO:EU: The recommendation for breakfast cereal (children) is <12.5 g per 100 g.
% Compliance with USDA Recommendations for
Sugar Content Per Serving		% Compliance with WHO Recommendations for
Sugar Content Per 100 g
Adult total66.4% (101/152)46.2% (96/208)
Refined59.6% (53/89)32.1% (36/112)
All bran76.2% (48/63)62.5% (60/96)
Gluten C70.0% (57/74)59.5% (66/111)
Gluten F56.4% (44/78)30.9% (30/97)
Children total5.4% (4/74)2.7% (2/74)
Refined5.6% (4/72)2.8% (2/72)
All bran0.0% (0/2)0.0% (0/2)
Gluten C3.2% (2/63)0.0% (0/63)
Gluten F18.2% (2/11)18.2% (2/11)
USDA: United States Department of Agriculture, Gluten C: Gluten-containing, Gluten F: Gluten-Free, WHO/EU: World Health Organization/Europe.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Gkoura, E.A.; Raikos, V. The Nutritional Content of Ready-to-Eat Breakfast Cereals in the Greek Market: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Child- and Adult-Marketed Products. Appl. Sci. 2025, 15, 9538. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15179538

AMA Style

Gkoura EA, Raikos V. The Nutritional Content of Ready-to-Eat Breakfast Cereals in the Greek Market: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Child- and Adult-Marketed Products. Applied Sciences. 2025; 15(17):9538. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15179538

Chicago/Turabian Style

Gkoura, Electra Anna, and Vassilios Raikos. 2025. "The Nutritional Content of Ready-to-Eat Breakfast Cereals in the Greek Market: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Child- and Adult-Marketed Products" Applied Sciences 15, no. 17: 9538. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15179538

APA Style

Gkoura, E. A., & Raikos, V. (2025). The Nutritional Content of Ready-to-Eat Breakfast Cereals in the Greek Market: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Child- and Adult-Marketed Products. Applied Sciences, 15(17), 9538. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15179538

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop