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]