Traffic lights and health claims: a comparative analysis of the nutrient profile of packaged foods available for sale in New Zealand supermarkets

AbstractObjectiveThe present study assessed the nutrition information displayed on ready-to-eat packaged foods and the nutritional quality of those food products in Thailand.DesignIn March 2015, the nutrition information panels and nutrition and health claims on ready-to-eat packaged foods were collected from the biggest store of each of the twelve major retailers, using protocols developed by the International Network for Food and Obesity/Non-communicable Diseases Research, Monitoring and Action Support (INFORMAS). The Thai Nutrient Profile Model was used to classify food products according to their nutritional quality as ‘healthier’ or ‘less healthy’.ResultsIn total, information from 7205 food products was collected across five broad food categories. Out of those products, 5707 (79·2 %), 2536 (35·2 %) and 1487 (20·6 %) carried a nutrition facts panel, a Guideline Daily Amount (GDA) label and health-related claims, respectively. Only 4691 (65·1 %) and 2484 (34·5 %) of the products that displayed the nutrition facts or a GDA label, respectively, followed the guidelines of the Thai Food and Drug Administration. In total, 4689 products (65·1 %) could be classified according to the Thai Nutrient Profile Model, of which 432 products (9·2 %) were classified as healthier. Moreover, among the 1487 products carrying health-related claims, 1219 (82·0 %) were classified as less healthy. Allowing less healthy food products to carry claims could mislead consumers and result in overconsumption of ready-to-eat food products.ConclusionsThe findings suggest effective policies should be implemented to increase the relative availability of healthier ready-to-eat packaged foods, as well as to improve the provision of nutrition information on labels in Thailand.

Download Full-text

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

British Journal Of Nutrition ◽

10.1017/s0007114516002981 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 116 (6) ◽

pp. 1087-1094 ◽

Cited By ~ 24

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.

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

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/s1368980015002177 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 19 (3) ◽

pp. 530-538 ◽

Cited By ~ 62

Author(s):

Claire M Luiten ◽

Ingrid HM Steenhuis ◽

Helen Eyles ◽

Cliona Ni Mhurchu ◽

Wilma E Waterlander

Keyword(s):

New Zealand ◽

Food Products ◽

Alcoholic Beverages ◽

Processed Foods ◽

Cross Sectional Survey ◽

Significant Positive Association ◽

Energy Unit ◽

Industrial Processing ◽

Nutrient Profile ◽

Packaged Foods

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

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

Public Health Nutrition ◽

10.1017/s1368980019004890 ◽

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.

Download Full-text