scholarly journals Changes in nutrition content and health claims post-implementation of regulation in Australia

2020 ◽  
Vol 23 (12) ◽  
pp. 2221-2227
Author(s):  
Lyndal Wellard-Cole ◽  
Rebecca Li ◽  
Christine Tse ◽  
Wendy L Watson ◽  
Clare Hughes
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Health Claims ◽  
Alcoholic Beverages ◽  
Unhealthy Food ◽  
Nutrient Profiling ◽  
Food Packages ◽  
Food Standards ◽  
Cereal Bars ◽  
Sydney Australia

AbstractObjective:To determine whether there were changes in the prevalence or healthiness of products carrying claims post-implementation of Standard 1.2.7: Nutrition, Health and Related Claims in the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code.Design:Observational survey of claims on food packages in three categories: non-alcoholic beverages, breakfast cereals and cereal bars. Nutrient profiling was applied to products to determine their eligibility to carry health claims under Standard 1.2.7. The Standard came into effect in 2013. The proportion of products carrying claims and the proportion of those not meeting the nutrient profiling criteria were calculated. A comparative analysis was conducted to determine changes between 2011 and 2016.Setting:Three large metropolitan stores from the three major supermarket chains in Sydney, Australia were surveyed in 2011 and 2016.Participants:All claims on all available products in 2016 (n 1737). Nutrition composition and ingredients were collected from the packaging.Results:Overall in 2016, 76 % of products carried claims and there were 7367 claims identified in the three food categories. Of products in 2016 with health claims, 34 % did not meet nutrient profiling criteria. These may breach Standard 1.2.7. Comparison of 2011–2016 showed a significant increase in the number of products carrying claims (66 v. 76 %, P < 0·001).Conclusions:The proportion of products carrying claims that do not meet nutrient profiling and consumers’ tendency to infer health benefits from nutrition content claims warrants the regulation of all claims using the nutrient profiling. This will ensure consumers are not misled by claims on unhealthy food products.

scholarly journals Regulating health claims on food labels using nutrient profiling: what will the proposed standard mean in the Australian supermarket?

2013 ◽  
Vol 16 (12) ◽  
pp. 2154-2161 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clare Hughes ◽  
Lyndal Wellard ◽  
Jing Lin ◽  
Ka Lun Suen ◽  
Kathy Chapman
Keyword(s):  
Health Claims ◽  
Alcoholic Beverages ◽  
Food Labels ◽  
Health Claim ◽  
Nutrient Profiling ◽  
Food Packages ◽  
Proposed Regulation ◽  
Cereal Bars ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Sydney Australia

AbstractObjectiveProposed Australian regulation of claims on food labels includes requirements for products carrying a health claim to meet nutrient profiling criteria. This would not apply to nutrition content claims. The present study investigated the number and healthiness of products carrying claims and the impact of the proposed regulation.DesignObservational survey of claims on food packages across three categories: non-alcoholic beverages, breakfast cereals and cereal bars. Nutrient profiling was applied to products carrying claims to determine their eligibility to carry health claims under the proposed regulation.SettingThree large metropolitan stores from the three major supermarket chains in Sydney, Australia were surveyed in August 2011.SubjectsAll claims on 1028 products were recorded. Nutrition composition and ingredients were collected from the packaging, enabling nutrient profiling. The proportion of products in each category carrying claims and the proportion of these that did not meet the nutrient profiling criteria were calculated.ResultsTwo-thirds of products in the three categories (ranging from 18 to 78 %) carried at least one claim. Of those carrying health claims, 31 % did not meet the nutrient profiling criteria. These would be ineligible to carry these claims under the proposed regulation. Additionally, 29 % of products carrying nutrition content claims did not meet the nutrient profiling criteria.ConclusionsThe number of products carrying nutrition content claims that did not meet the nutrient profiling criteria suggests that comprehensive regulation is warranted. Promotion of unhealthy foods using claims is potentially misleading for consumers and hinders their ability to select healthier foods. Implementation of the proposed regulation represents an improvement to current practice.

scholarly journals Branding, Ingredients and Nutrition Information: Consumer Liking of a Healthier Snack

2015 ◽  
Vol 4 (5) ◽  
pp. 64 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary R. Yan ◽  
Dave Brown ◽  
Andrew Parsons ◽  
Gillian A. Whalley ◽  
Naziham Hamid ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Health Claims ◽  
Nutrition Information ◽  
Purchase Intent ◽  
Commercial Products ◽  
Visual Analogue Scales ◽  
Nutrient Profiling ◽  
Health Related ◽  
Brand Perception ◽  
Analogue Scales

Taste appeal, sustainable ingredients and valid health claims are challenges for successful marketing of healthier food products. This study was designed to compare the effects of branding, ingredients and nutrition information on consumer liking towards a prototype of the Nothing Else healthier snack bar with the top three brands of New Zealand snack bars, and another product with a good nutrient profiling score. Sixty-four consumers were recruited to evaluate the five snack bars. Participants initially blind-rated on visual analogue scales their liking scores in relation to colour, taste, flavour, texture and overall liking. Packaging for the products was then presented alongside each of the five products and participants rated their liking scores for a second time. Participants also ranked the five products from 1 to 5 for healthiness, taste, naturalness, and purchase intent if prices were the same. In both blind and informed tests, the Nothing Else bar was the least liked snack bar among all the tested samples. However, after the packaging for the products was presented, overall liking of the Nothing Else bar increased by 14% (<em>p </em>= 0.023), while overall liking for the four commercial products were unchanged. While the most popular commercial bar was ranked the highest for taste and purchase intent, the Nothing Else bar was ranked the highest for the healthiness and naturalness. Our findings confirmed that the branding and health related nutrition information could improve consumer liking and brand perception particularly if backed by marketing.

scholarly journals Nutrition and health claims on healthy and less-healthy packaged food products in New Zealand

2016 ◽  
Vol 116 (6) ◽  
pp. 1087-1094 ◽  
Author(s):  
Haya H. Al-Ani ◽  
Anandita Devi ◽  
Helen Eyles ◽  
Boyd Swinburn ◽  
Stefanie Vandevijvere
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Food Choices ◽  
Health Claims ◽  
Nutrition And Health ◽  
Nutrition Claims ◽  
Nutrient Profiling ◽  
Packaged Foods ◽  
Packaged Food ◽  
Nutrition And Health Claims

AbstractNutrition and health claims are displayed to influence consumers’ food choices. This study assessed the extent and nature of nutrition and health claims on the front-of-pack of ‘healthy’ and ‘less-healthy’ packaged foods in New Zealand. Foods from eight categories, for which consumption may affect the risk of obesity and diet-related chronic diseases, were selected from the 2014 Nutritrack database. The internationally standardised International Network for Food and Obesity/Non-Communicable Diseases Research, Monitoring and Action Support (INFORMAS) taxonomy was used to classify claims on packages. The Nutrient Profiling Scoring Criterion (NPSC) was used to classify products as ‘healthy’ or ‘less healthy’. In total, 7526 products were included, with 47 % (n 3557) classified as ‘healthy’. More than one-third of products displayed at least one nutrition claim and 15 % featured at least one health claim on the front-of-pack. Claims were found on one-third of ‘less-healthy’ products; 26 % of those products displayed nutrition claims and 7 % featured health claims. About 45 % of ‘healthy’ products displayed nutrition claims and 23 % featured health claims. Out of 7058 individual claims, the majority (69 %) were found on ‘healthy’ products. Cereals displayed the greatest proportion of nutrition and health claims (1503 claims on 564 products), of which one-third were displayed on ‘less-healthy’ cereals. Such claims could be misleading consumers’ perceptions of nutritional quality of foods. It needs to be explored how current regulations on nutrition and health claims in New Zealand could be further strengthened (e.g. using the NPSC for nutrition claims, including general health claims as per the INFORMAS taxonomy) to ensure consumers are protected and not misled.

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

2015 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 401-408 ◽  
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.

scholarly journals Investigating nutrient profiling and Health Star Ratings on core dairy products in Australia

2016 ◽  
Vol 19 (15) ◽  
pp. 2860-2865 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lyndal Wellard ◽  
Clare Hughes ◽  
Wendy L Watson
Keyword(s):  
Dairy Products ◽  
Similar Type ◽  
Dietary Guidelines ◽  
Health Claims ◽  
Nutrient Profiling ◽  
Soft Cheese ◽  
Hard Cheese ◽  
Good Agreement ◽  
Sydney Australia ◽  
Labelling Scheme

AbstractObjectiveTo determine whether the ratings from the Australian front-of-pack labelling scheme, Health Star Rating (HSR), and the ability to carry health claims using the Nutrient Profiling Scoring Criterion (NPSC) for core dairy products promote foods consistent with the Australian Dietary Guidelines.DesignThe Australian nutrient profiling model used for assessing eligibility for health claims was compared with the nutrient profiling model underpinning the HSR system to determine their agreement when assessing dairy products. Agreement between the extent to which products met nutrient profiling criteria and scored three stars or over using the HSR calculator was determined using Cohen’s kappa tests.SettingThe four largest supermarket chains in Sydney, Australia.SubjectsAll available products in the milk, hard cheese, soft cheese and yoghurt categories (n 1363) were surveyed in March–May 2014. Nutrition composition and ingredients lists were recorded for each product.ResultsThere was ‘good’ agreement between NPSC and HSR overall (κ=0·78; 95 % CI 0·75, 0·81; P<0·001), for hard cheeses (κ=0·72; 95 % CI 0·65, 0·79; P<0·001) and yoghurt (κ=0·79; 95 % CI 0·73, 0·86; P<0·001). There was ‘fair’ agreement for milk (κ=0·33; 95 % CI 0·20, 0·45; P<0·001) and ‘very good’ agreement for soft cheese (κ=0·84; 95 % CI 0·75, 0·92; P<0·001). Generally, products tended to have HSR consistent with other products of a similar type within their categories.ConclusionsFor dairy products, the HSR scheme largely aligned with the NPSC used for determining eligibility for health claims. Both systems appeared be consistent with the Australian Dietary Guidelines for dairy products, with lower-fat products rating higher.

scholarly journals Investigating fruit and vegetable claims on Australian food packages

2014 ◽  
Vol 18 (15) ◽  
pp. 2729-2735 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lyndal Wellard ◽  
Clare Hughes ◽  
Yee Wun Tsang ◽  
Wendy Watson ◽  
Kathy Chapman
Keyword(s):  
Vegetable Intake ◽  
Saturated Fat ◽  
Fresh Fruit ◽  
Fruit And Vegetables ◽  
Fruit And Vegetable Intake ◽  
Fruit And Vegetable ◽  
Nutrient Profiling ◽  
Food Packages ◽  
Food Standards ◽  
Composition Of Products

AbstractObjectivesFruit and vegetable claims on food packages are not regulated under Australian food standards. The present study aimed to: (i) investigate the number and healthiness of products carrying fruit and vegetable claims in Australia; and (ii) compare the nutrition composition of these products with fresh fruit and/or vegetables.DesignContent analysis of fruit and vegetable claims on food packages. The Australian food standards nutrient profiling model was used to determine the proportion of products not meeting nutrient profiling criteria. The nutrient composition of products carrying claims referencing the servings of fruit and vegetables in the product were compared with that of the dominant fruit and/or vegetables in each product.SettingThe five largest supermarket chains in Australia.SubjectsAll available products in the fruit snacks, soups and fruit and vegetable juices/fruit drinks categories (n 762) were surveyed. Nutrition composition, ingredients and claims were recorded for each product.ResultsOf the products surveyed, 48 % (n 366) carried at least one claim, of which 34 % (n 124) did not meet nutrient profiling. Products carrying claims referencing the number of servings of fruit and vegetables had more energy, sodium, saturated fat and sugar, and less fibre, than fresh fruit and/or vegetables (all P<0·001).ConclusionsMany products carried fruit and vegetable claims and were significantly higher in energy, saturated fat, sugars and sodium than fresh fruit and vegetables. Marketing these products as a way of meeting fruit and vegetable intake is inaccurate and potentially misleading. Fruit and vegetable claims should be regulated using nutrient profiling.

scholarly journals The Timing, Nature and Extent of Social Media Marketing by Unhealthy Food and Drinks Brands During the COVID-19 Pandemic in New Zealand

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Gerritsen ◽  
Fiona Sing ◽  
Karen Lin ◽  
Florentine Martino ◽  
Kathryn Backholer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Fast Food ◽  
Community Support ◽  
Alcoholic Beverages ◽  
Social Media Marketing ◽  
Unhealthy Food ◽  
First Case ◽  
Food And Drink ◽  
Advertising Standards

Background: Concerns have been raised that health and societal causes surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic were misappropriated by companies to promote their unhealthy products to vulnerable populations during a time of increased stress and hardship (i.e., COVID-washing). Social media is a common medium for unhealthy foods and beverage marketing due to lack of regulation and low levels of monitoring.Purpose: This study aimed to investigate the timing, nature and extent of COVID-washing on public social media accounts by New Zealand's major food and drink brands in the initial stage of the pandemic after the first case was detected in New Zealand and when stay-at-home lockdown restrictions (Level 4 and 3 Alert levels) were in place.Methods: A content analysis of social media posts from February to May 2020 by the twenty largest confectionery, snacks, non-alcoholic beverages, and quick-service restaurant (fast-food) brands was undertaken. COVID-19 related posts were identified and classified to investigate the timing, themes and engagement with social media marketing campaigns, flagging those that may breach New Zealand's Advertising Standards.Results: 14 of 20 unhealthy food and drink brands referenced COVID-19 in posts during the 4-month period, peaking during nationwide lockdown restrictions. Over a quarter of all posts by the 14 brands (n = 372, 27.2%) were COVID-19 themed. Fast-food brands were most likely to use COVID-19 themed posts (n = 251/550 posts, 46%). Fast-food brands also had the highest number of posts overall during the pandemic and the highest engagement. The most commonly-used theme, present in 36% of all social media posts referring to COVID-19, was to draw on feelings of community support during this challenging time. Suggesting brand-related isolation activities was also common (23%), and the message that “consumption helps with coping” (22%). Six posts were found to potentially breach one of New Zealand's advertising standards codes by promoting excessive consumption or targeting children.Conclusion: COVID-washing was used by unhealthy food and drinks brands to increase brand loyalty and encourage consumption. The current Advertising Standards system is ineffective and must be replaced with a government-led approach to effectively regulate social media advertising to protect all New Zealanders, particularly in times of crisis.

scholarly journals How effective is food industry self-substantiation of food–health relationships underpinning health claims on food labels in Australia?

2019 ◽  
Vol 22 (09) ◽  
pp. 1686-1695 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lyndal Wellard-Cole ◽  
Wendy L Watson ◽  
Clare Hughes ◽  
Kathy Chapman
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Food Industry ◽  
Poor Quality ◽  
Health Claims ◽  
General Level ◽  
Food Labels ◽  
Regulatory Enforcement ◽  
Published Evidence ◽  
Food Standards ◽  
The Government

AbstractObjectiveThe Food Standards Code regulates health claims on Australian food labels. General-level health claims highlight food–health relationships, e.g. ‘contains calcium for strong bones’. Food companies making claims must notify Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) and certify that a systematic literature review (SLR) substantiating the food–health relationship has been conducted. There is no pre- or post-notification assessment of the SLR, potentially enabling the food industry to make claims based on poor-quality research. The present study assessed the rigour of self-substantiation.DesignFood–health relationships notified to FSANZ were monitored monthly between 2013 and 2017. These relationships were assessed by scoping published literature. Where evidence was equivocal/insufficient, the relevant government food regulatory agency was asked to investigate. If not investigated, or the response was unsatisfactory, the project team conducted an independent SLR which was provided to the government agency.SettingAustralia.ParticipantsSelf-substantiated food–health relationships.ResultsThere were sixty-seven relationships notified by thirty-eight food companies. Of these, thirty-three relationships (52 %) from twenty companies were deemed to have sufficient published evidence. Four were excluded as they originated in New Zealand. Three relationships were removed before investigations were initiated. The project initiated twenty-seven food–health relationship investigations. Another six relationships were withdrawn, and three relationships were awaiting government assessment.ConclusionsTo ensure that SLR underpinning food–health relationships are rigorous and reduce regulatory enforcement burden, pre-market approval of food–health relationships should be introduced. This will increase consumer and public health confidence in the regulatory process and prevent potentially misleading general-level health claims on food labels.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document