Comment on: ‘Ultra-processed foods have the worst nutrient profile, yet they are the most available packaged products in a sample of New Zealand supermarkets’ by Luiten et al

AbstractObjectiveTo examine the availability of packaged food products in New Zealand supermarkets by level of industrial processing, nutrient profiling score (NPSC), price (energy, unit and serving costs) and brand variety.DesignSecondary analysis of cross-sectional survey data on packaged supermarket food and non-alcoholic beverages. Products were classified according to level of industrial processing (minimally, culinary and ultra-processed) and their NPSC.SettingPackaged foods available in four major supermarkets in Auckland, New Zealand.SubjectsPackaged supermarket food products for the years 2011 and 2013.ResultsThe majority (84 % in 2011 and 83 % in 2013) of packaged foods were classified as ultra-processed. A significant positive association was found between the level of industrial processing and NPSC, i.e. ultra-processed foods had a worse nutrient profile (NPSC=11·63) than culinary processed foods (NPSC=7·95), which in turn had a worse nutrient profile than minimally processed foods (NPSC=3·27), P<0·001. No clear associations were observed between the three price measures and level of processing. The study observed many variations of virtually the same product. The ten largest food manufacturers produced 35 % of all packaged foods available.ConclusionsIn New Zealand supermarkets, ultra-processed foods comprise the largest proportion of packaged foods and are less healthy than less processed foods. The lack of significant price difference between ultra- and less processed foods suggests ultra-processed foods might provide time-poor consumers with more value for money. These findings highlight the need to improve the supermarket food supply by reducing numbers of ultra-processed foods and by reformulating products to improve their nutritional profile.

Download Full-text

Comment on Luiten et al.’s paper: ‘Ultra-processed foods have the worst nutrient profile, yet they are the most available packaged products in a sample of New Zealand supermarkets’

Public Health Nutrition ◽

10.1017/s1368980015003419 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 19 (3) ◽

pp. 570-570 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Dorothy Mackerras

Keyword(s):

New Zealand ◽

Processed Foods ◽

Nutrient Profile

Download Full-text

Ultra-processed foods have the worst nutrient profile, yet they are the most available packaged products in a sample of New Zealand supermarkets – CORRIGENDUM

Public Health Nutrition ◽

10.1017/s1368980015002840 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 19 (3) ◽

pp. 539-539 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Claire M Luiten ◽

Ingrid HM Steenhuis ◽

Helen Eyles ◽

Cliona Ni Mhurchu ◽

Wilma E Waterlander

Keyword(s):

New Zealand ◽

Processed Foods ◽

Nutrient Profile

Download Full-text

Nutrient profile of 23 596 packaged supermarket foods and non-alcoholic beverages in Australia and New Zealand

Public Health Nutrition ◽

10.1017/s1368980015000968 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 19 (3) ◽

pp. 401-408 ◽

Cited By ~ 29

Author(s):

Cliona Ni Mhurchu ◽

Ryan Brown ◽

Yannan Jiang ◽

Helen Eyles ◽

Elizabeth Dunford ◽

...

Keyword(s):

New Zealand ◽

Energy Density ◽

Meat Products ◽

Saturated Fat ◽

Food Products ◽

Nutritional Composition ◽

Health Claims ◽

Alcoholic Beverages ◽

Nutrient Profile ◽

Packaged Food

AbstractObjectiveTo compare the nutrient profile of packaged supermarket food products available in Australia and New Zealand. Eligibility to carry health claims and relationship between nutrient profile score and nutritional content were also evaluated.DesignNutritional composition data were collected in six major Australian and New Zealand supermarkets in 2012. Mean Food Standards Australia New Zealand Nutrient Profiling Scoring Criterion (NPSC) scores were calculated and the proportion of products eligible to display health claims was estimated. Regression analyses quantified associations between NPSC scores and energy density, saturated fat, sugar and sodium contents.ResultsNPSC scores were derived for 23 596 packaged food products (mean score 7·0, range −17 to 53). Scores were lower (better nutrient profile) for foods in Australia compared with New Zealand (mean 6·6 v. 7·8). Overall, 45 % of foods were eligible to carry health claims based on NPSC thresholds: 47 % in Australia and 41 % in New Zealand. However, less than one-third of dairy (32 %), meat and meat products (28 %) and bread and bakery products (27·5 %) were eligible to carry health claims. Conversely, >75 % of convenience food products were eligible to carry health claims (82·5 %). Each two-unit higher NPSC score was associated with higher energy density (78 kJ/100 g), saturated fat (0·95 g/100 g), total sugar (1·5 g/100 g) and sodium (66 mg/100 g; all P values<0·001).ConclusionsFewer than half of all packaged foods available in Australia and New Zealand in 2012 met nutritional criteria to carry health claims. The few healthy choices available in key staple food categories is a concern. Improvements in nutritional quality of foods through product reformulation have significant potential to improve population diets.

Download Full-text

The nutritional quality of New Zealand breakfast cereals: an update

Public Health Nutrition ◽

10.1017/s1368980017002397 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 20 (18) ◽

pp. 3234-3237 ◽

Cited By ~ 7

Author(s):

Lynne Chepulis ◽

Shaunie Hill ◽

Gael Mearns

Keyword(s):

New Zealand ◽

Nutritional Quality ◽

Self Regulation ◽

Product Category ◽

Nutritional Composition ◽

Published Data ◽

Nutritional Content ◽

Breakfast Cereals ◽

Nutrient Profile

AbstractObjectiveTo compare the nutritional quality of New Zealand breakfast cereals in 2013 and 2017.DesignNutrition Information Panel data were collected from all cereals available from two large supermarket chains in 2017 and compared with earlier published data collected in 2013.SettingUrban New Zealand supermarkets.SubjectsThe nutritional content of breakfast cereals (‘biscuits and bites’, ‘brans’, ‘bubbles, flakes and puffs’, ‘children’s cereals’, ‘muesli’ and ‘oats’) was analysed for total energy, protein, fat (total and saturated), carbohydrate, sugar, fibre and Na. The Nutrient Profile Scoring Criterion (NPSC) for each cereal was calculated to determine the proportion of ‘less healthy’ cereals (NPSC≥4) in each product category.ResultsThe energy and fat content of bubbles, flakes and puffs, muesli and oats were significantly higher in 2017 compared with 2013 (all P≤0·01). However, there was a small reduction in Na overall in 2017 (P<0·05). There was no change between 2013 and 2017 in the proportion of ‘healthy’ or ‘less healthy’ breakfast cereals available.ConclusionsThe nutrient profile of breakfast cereals has not improved since 2013, suggesting that industry self-regulation of the nutritional composition of cereals in New Zealand is not working and needs urgent reconsideration.

Download Full-text

Regulatory Aspects of High-Pressure Processed Foods in North America, Europe, Asia, New Zealand, and Australia

High Pressure Processing of Fruit and Vegetable Products ◽

10.1201/9781315121123-11 ◽

2017 ◽

pp. 155-168 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Tatiana Koutchma ◽

Keith Warriner

Keyword(s):

High Pressure ◽

New Zealand ◽

North America ◽

Processed Foods ◽

Regulatory Aspects

Download Full-text

The nature of food promotions over one year in circulars from leading Belgian supermarket chains

Archives of Public Health ◽

10.1186/s13690-021-00591-7 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 79 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Stefanie Vandevijvere ◽

Iris Van Dam

Keyword(s):

Healthy Food ◽

World Health ◽

Processed Meat ◽

Processed Foods ◽

Model Categories ◽

Nutrient Profile ◽

Food Purchases ◽

Sweetened Beverages ◽

One Year ◽

Health Organization

Abstract Background To examine the proportion of healthier and less healthy food promotions in circulars of major Belgian supermarket chains. Methods Food promotions were collected from all circulars over 1 year from the five largest Belgian supermarket chains. Foods promoted were classified according to the World Health Organization Europe nutrient profile model categories and the level and purpose of processing as per the NOVA classification. In addition, promotional characters (i.e. cartoons, licensed characters, celebrities) and premium offers within the promotions were analysed. Results In total, 15,271 food promotions were analyzed. The most frequently promoted foods in circulars were processed meat, poultry and fish (11.8%); fresh and frozen fruit, vegetables and legumes (9.5%); soft drinks and sweetened beverages (9.0%); fresh and frozen meat, poultry, fish and eggs (8.6%); cakes, sweet biscuits and pastries (8.1%); ready-made and convenience foods (8.0%); chocolate and sugar confectionery; energy bars and sweet toppings (7.7%) and cheeses (5.7%). About 52.2% of food promotions across all circulars were for ultra-processed foods, with considerable variation across chains (42.9–61.6%). Promotional characters and premium offers were found within 5.3 and 19.5% of promotions respectively. For all chains, circular covers were healthier compared to entire circulars, with a lower proportion of ultra-processed foods and a higher proportion of fresh fruit and vegetables promoted. Conclusions Food promotions in circulars were most frequently for ultra-processed foods, with considerable variation across chains. Circular covers were healthier than entire circulars. Policies to reduce less healthy food promotions could contribute to improving the healthiness of supermarket food purchases.

Download Full-text

Immunoassay Kit Used to Detect the Presence of Bovine Material in Processed Foods

Journal of AOAC International ◽

10.1093/jaoac/87.5.1143 ◽

2004 ◽

Vol 87 (5) ◽

pp. 1143-1147 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

John L Love ◽

Gwyneth V Carey-Smith

Keyword(s):

New Zealand ◽

Elevated Temperatures ◽

Processed Foods ◽

Meat And Bone Meal ◽

Bone Meal ◽

Specific Proteins ◽

Canned Foods ◽

Meat Species

Abstract The Tepnel™ Bio Kit for the detection of beef in cooked foods was assessed to determine its validity in demonstrating if food being imported into New Zealand contains beef material. The test suffered no interference from the presence of other common nonbovine species meats accepted as food within New Zealand and it detected beef in cooked samples of mixed meats when the proportion of beef in the mixture was >2 or >1%, depending on other meat species present. The documentation supplied with the kit indicates that the specific proteins it measures in cooked beef are stable to 130°C. This was confirmed in the literature when the kit was used to test meat and bone meal cooked to at least 133°C. However, our results showed these proteins to be much less stable when heated to elevated temperatures in moist food under pressure, and samples containing beef ceased to be positive by the immunoassay test after being autoclaved to 121°C. This suggests that the test may not be able to detect even relatively high levels of beef in low-acid canned foods, which are normally retorted under pressure to approximately 121°C.

Download Full-text