Search

Objective: The 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.Design: Food-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.Setting: Australia.ParticipantsSelf-substantiated food-health relationships.Results: There 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 Another six relationships were withdrawn, and three relationships were awaiting government assessment.Conclusions: To ensure that SLR underpinning food-health relationships are rigorous and reduce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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Objectives: The Tick programme of the National Heart Foundation (NHF) is the longest standing voluntary front of pack signpost nutrition logo in New Zealand. It provides a platform for collaboration with the food industry to encourage development of healthier products. This study evaluated the impact of the Tick programme on sodium in processed food.Methods and Study Design: Fifty-two Tick programme products from food categories known to contribute substantially to sodium intake were identified. Sales volumes (kg) from January 2011 to December 2013 were multiplied by changes in sodium content over that time, producing an estimate of programme impact. Five semi-structured interviews with industry representatives were conducted, to look at other influences for sodium reduction, and themes identified through methods of thematic analysis.Results: Over the period, the Tick programme influenced food companies to remove approximately 16 tonnes of salt through the reformulation and formulation of 52 Tick-approved breakfast cereals, edible oil spreads, cooking sauces and processed poultry products. Other factors influencing sodium reduction reported by company representatives included increased consumer and industry interest in healthier product nutrition profiles and other sodium reduction programmes targeting reformulation/formulation.Conclusions: The Tick remains a credible and well-recognized brand and may provide a competitive edge for participating food manufacturers in the current market. The Tick programme is effective in influencing industry to reduce sodium in processed foods in New Zealand. The combined impact of the Tick and other NHF programmes has the potential to reduce population sodium intake and improve health outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Nutritional impact of the Tick front-of-pack labelling programme was evaluated by investigating nutrient changes to the purchased food supply and the nutritional quality of Tick v. non-Tick products. Factors influencing manufacturers' decisions to develop and license Tick products were also explored.Design: Observational, cross-sectional and change over time data.Setting: New Zealand food supply, 2011-2013.Subjects: Forty-five newly licensed Tick products from five food categories were analysed: Edible Oil Spreads, Yoghurt & Dairy Desserts, Frozen Desserts, Ready Meals and Processed Poultry. Four manufacturers of these products were interviewed.Results: Eligible products (31 % of all Tick products in these categories) removed 4·1 million megajoules of energy, 156·0 tonnes of saturated fat, 15·4 tonnes of trans-fat and 4·0 tonnes of sodium from food products sold in New Zealand over three years. In each food category, these Tick products were, on average, 14-76 % lower in energy, saturated fat, trans-fat and sodium than non-Tick products, indicating healthier options. Participating manufacturers reported that international market trends and consumer demand for tasty, healthy foods primarily influenced Tick product development and sales. Tick was used as part of their marketing strategy as it was perceived as a credible, well-recognised logo for New Zealand consumers. Tick was cited as the primary initiative encouraging saturated fat reduction.Conclusions: The Tick Programme is continuing to encourage manufacturers to make meaningful improvements to the nutritional quality of the New Zealand food supply. Over time, these changes are likely to influence population nutrient intakes and reduce CVD risk factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Breakfast cereals substantially contribute to daily energy and nutrient intakes among children. In New Zealand, new regulations are being implemented to restrict nutrition and health claims to products that meet certain 'healthy' criteria. This study investigated the difference in nutritional quality, labelling and promotion between 'healthy' and 'less healthy' breakfast cereals, and between breakfast cereals intended for children compared with other breakfast cereals on the New Zealand market. The cross-sectional data collection involved taking pictures of the nutrition information panel (NIP) and front-of pack (FoP) for all breakfast cereals (n = 247) at two major supermarkets in Auckland in 2013. A nutrient profiling tool was used to classify products into 'healthy'/'less healthy'. In total 26% of cereals did not meet the 'healthy' criteria. 'Less healthy' cereals were significantly higher in energy density, sugar and sodium content and lower in protein and fibre content compared with 'healthy' cereals. Significantly more nutrition claims (75%) and health claims (89%) featured on 'healthy' compared with 'less healthy' cereals. On the 'less healthy' cereals, nutrition claims (65%) were more predominant than health claims (17%). Of the 52 products displaying promotional characters, 48% were for 'cereals for kids', and of those, 72% featured on 'less healthy' cereals. In conclusion, most breakfast cereals met the 'healthy' criteria; however, 'cereals for kids' were 'less healthy' and displayed more promotional characters than other cereal categories. Policy recommendations include: food composition targets set or endorsed by government, strengthening and enforcing current regulations on health and nutrition claims, considering the application of nutrient profiling for nutrition claims in addition to health claims, introducing an interpretative FoP labelling system and restricting the use of promotional characters on 'less healthy' breakfast cereals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]