Search

ObjectiveThe 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 Another six relationships were withdrawn, and three relationships were awaiting government assessment.ConclusionsTo ensure that SLR underpinning food–health relationships are rigorous and reduce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.

Objective: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.

ObjectiveTo 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; Pκ=0·72; 95 % CI 0·65, 0·79; Pκ=0·79; 95 % CI 0·73, 0·86; Pκ=0·33; 95 % CI 0·20, 0·45; Pκ=0·84; 95 % CI 0·75, 0·92; PConclusionsFor 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.

ObjectiveThe present study examined the energy (kilojoule) content of Australian fast-food menu items over seven years, before and after introduction of menu board labelling, to determine the impact of the introduction of the legislation.DesignAnalysis of the median energy contents per serving and per 100g of fast-food menu items. Change in energy content of menu items across the years surveyed and differences in energy content of standard and limited-time only menu items were analysed.SettingFive of Australia’s largest fast food chains: Hungry Jack’s, KFC, McDonald’s, Oporto and Red Rooster.SubjectsAll standard and limited-time only menu items available at each fast-food chain, collected annually for seven years, 2009–2015.ResultsAlthough some fast-food chains/menu item categories had significant increases in the energy contents of their menus at some time points during the 7-year period, overall there were no significant or systematic decreases in energy following the introduction of menu labelling (P=0·19 by +17 kJ/100 g, P=0·83 by +8 kJ/serving). Limited-time only items were significantly higher in median energy content per 100 g than standard menu items (+74 kJ/100 g, P=0·002).ConclusionsWhile reformulation across the entire Australian fast-food supply has the potential to positively influence population nutrient intake, the introduction of menu labelling legislation in New South Wales, Australia did not lead to reduced energy contents across the five fast-food chains. To encourage widespread reformulation by the fast-food industry and enhance the impact of labelling legislation, the government should work with industry to set targets for reformulation of nutrient content.

ObjectivesFruit 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 PConclusionsMany 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.