Search

Objective: To 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.Design: Nutritional 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.Results: NPSC 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).Conclusions: Fewer 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There are few objective data on how nutrition labels are used in real-world shopping situations, or how they affect dietary choices and patterns.Design: The Starlight study was a four-week randomised, controlled trial of the effects of three different types of nutrition labels on consumer food purchases: Traffic Light Labels, Health Star Rating labels, or Nutrition Information Panels (control). Smartphone technology allowed participants to scan barcodes of packaged foods and receive randomly allocated labels on their phone screen, and to record their food purchases. The study app therefore provided objectively recorded data on label viewing behaviour and food purchases over a four-week period. A post-hoc analysis of trial data was undertaken to assess frequency of label use, label use by food group, and association between label use and the healthiness of packaged food products purchased.Results: Over the four-week intervention, study participants (n = 1255) viewed nutrition labels for and/or purchased 66,915 barcoded packaged products. Labels were viewed for 23% of all purchased products, with decreasing frequency over time. Shoppers were most likely to view labels for convenience foods, cereals, snack foods, bread and bakery products, and oils. They were least likely to view labels for sugar and honey products, eggs, fish, fruit and vegetables, and meat. Products for which participants viewed the label and subsequently purchased the product during the same shopping episode were significantly healthier than products where labels were viewed but the product was not subsequently purchased: mean difference in nutrient profile score -0.90 (95% CI -1.54 to -0.26).Conclusions: In a secondary analysis of a nutrition labelling intervention trial, there was a significant association between label use and the healthiness of products purchased. Nutrition label use may therefore lead to healthier food purchases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]