Search results

In Australia, manufacturers can use two government-endorsed approaches to advertise product healthiness: the Health Star Rating (HSR) front-of-pack nutrition labelling system, and health claims. Related, but different, algorithms determine the star rating of a product (the HSR algorithm) and eligibility to display claims (the Nutrient Profiling Scoring Criterion (NPSC) algorithm). The objective of this study was to examine the agreement between the HSR and NPSC algorithms. Food composition information for 41,297 packaged products was extracted from The George Institute&rsquo ; s FoodSwitch database. HSR and the NPSC scores were calculated, and the proportion of products in each HSR category that were eligible to display a health claim under the NPSC was examined. The highest agreement between the HSR scoring algorithm and the NPSC threshold to determine eligibility to display a health claim was at the HSR cut-off of 3.5 stars (k = 0.83). Overall, 97.3% (n = 40,167) of products with star ratings of 3.5 or higher were also eligible to display a health claim, and 94.3% (n = 38,939) of products with star ratings less than 3.5 were ineligible to display a health claim. The food group with greatest divergence was &ldquo ; edible oils&rdquo ; with 45% products (n = 342) with HSR > ; 3.5, but 64% (n = 495) eligible to display a claim. Categories with large absolute numbers of products with HSR < ; 3.5, but eligible to display a claim, were &ldquo ; yoghurts and yoghurt drinks&rdquo ; (335 products, 25.4%) and &ldquo ; soft drinks&rdquo ; (299 products, 29.7%). Categories with a large number of products with HSR &ge ; 3.5, but ineligible to display a claim, were &ldquo ; milk&rdquo ; (260 products, 21.2%) and &ldquo ; nuts and seeds&rdquo ; (173 products, 19.7%). We conclude that there is good agreement between the HSR and the NPSC systems overall, but divergence in some food groups is likely to result in confusion for consumers, particularly where foods with low HSRs are eligible to display a health claim. The alignment of the NPSC and HSR scoring algorithms should be improved.

In Australia, manufacturers can use two government-endorsed approaches to advertise product healthiness: the Health Star Rating (HSR) front-of-pack nutrition labelling system, and health claims. Related, but different, algorithms determine the star rating of a product (the HSR algorithm) and eligibility to display claims (the Nutrient Profiling Scoring Criterion (NPSC) algorithm). The objective of this study was to examine the agreement between the HSR and NPSC algorithms. Food composition information for 41,297 packaged products was extracted from The George Institute's FoodSwitch database. HSR and the NPSC scores were calculated, and the proportion of products in each HSR category that were eligible to display a health claim under the NPSC was examined. The highest agreement between the HSR scoring algorithm and the NPSC threshold to determine eligibility to display a health claim was at the HSR cut-off of 3.5 stars (k = 0.83). Overall, 97.3% (n = 40,167) of products with star ratings of 3.5 or higher were also eligible to display a health claim, and 94.3% (n = 38,939) of products with star ratings less than 3.5 were ineligible to display a health claim. The food group with greatest divergence was "edible oils", with 45% products (n = 342) with HSR >3.5, but 64% (n = 495) eligible to display a claim. Categories with large absolute numbers of products with HSR <3.5, but eligible to display a claim, were "yoghurts and yoghurt drinks" (335 products, 25.4%) and "soft drinks" (299 products, 29.7%). Categories with a large number of products with HSR ≥3.5, but ineligible to display a claim, were "milk" (260 products, 21.2%) and "nuts and seeds" (173 products, 19.7%). We conclude that there is good agreement between the HSR and the NPSC systems overall, but divergence in some food groups is likely to result in confusion for consumers, particularly where foods with low HSRs are eligible to display a health claim. The alignment of the NPSC and HSR scoring algorithms should be improved.

In Australia, manufacturers can use two government-endorsed approaches to advertise product healthiness: the Health Star Rating (HSR) front-of-pack nutrition labelling system, and health claims. Related, but different, algorithms determine the star rating of a product (the HSR algorithm) and eligibility to display claims (the Nutrient Profiling Scoring Criterion (NPSC) algorithm). The objective of this study was to examine the agreement between the HSR and NPSC algorithms. Food composition information for 41,297 packaged products was extracted from The George Institute's FoodSwitch database. HSR and the NPSC scores were calculated, and the proportion of products in each HSR category that were eligible to display a health claim under the NPSC was examined. The highest agreement between the HSR scoring algorithm and the NPSC threshold to determine eligibility to display a health claim was at the HSR cut-off of 3.5 stars (k = 0.83). Overall, 97.3% (n = 40,167) of products with star ratings of 3.5 or higher were also eligible to display a health claim, and 94.3% (n = 38,939) of products with star ratings less than 3.5 were ineligible to display a health claim. The food group with greatest divergence was "edible oils", with 45% products (n = 342) with HSR >3.5, but 64% (n = 495) eligible to display a claim. Categories with large absolute numbers of products with HSR <3.5, but eligible to display a claim, were "yoghurts and yoghurt drinks" (335 products, 25.4%) and "soft drinks" (299 products, 29.7%). Categories with a large number of products with HSR ≥3.5, but ineligible to display a claim, were "milk" (260 products, 21.2%) and "nuts and seeds" (173 products, 19.7%). We conclude that there is good agreement between the HSR and the NPSC systems overall, but divergence in some food groups is likely to result in confusion for consumers, particularly where foods with low HSRs are eligible to display a health claim. The alignment of the NPSC and HSR scoring algorithms should be improved.

In Australia, manufacturers can use two government-endorsed approaches to advertise product healthiness: the Health Star Rating (HSR) front-of-pack nutrition labelling system, and health claims. Related, but different, algorithms determine the star rating of a product (the HSR algorithm) and eligibility to display claims (the Nutrient Profiling Scoring Criterion (NPSC) algorithm). The objective of this study was to examine the agreement between the HSR and NPSC algorithms. Food composition information for 41,297 packaged products was extracted from The George Institute's FoodSwitch database. HSR and the NPSC scores were calculated, and the proportion of products in each HSR category that were eligible to display a health claim under the NPSC was examined. The highest agreement between the HSR scoring algorithm and the NPSC threshold to determine eligibility to display a health claim was at the HSR cut-off of 3.5 stars (k = 0.83). Overall, 97.3% (n = 40,167) of products with star ratings of 3.5 or higher were also eligible to display a health claim, and 94.3% (n = 38,939) of products with star ratings less than 3.5 were ineligible to display a health claim. The food group with greatest divergence was "edible oils", with 45% products (n = 342) with HSR >3.5, but 64% (n = 495) eligible to display a claim. Categories with large absolute numbers of products with HSR <3.5, but eligible to display a claim, were "yoghurts and yoghurt drinks" (335 products, 25.4%) and "soft drinks" (299 products, 29.7%). Categories with a large number of products with HSR ≥3.5, but ineligible to display a claim, were "milk" (260 products, 21.2%) and "nuts and seeds" (173 products, 19.7%). We conclude that there is good agreement between the HSR and the NPSC systems overall, but divergence in some food groups is likely to result in confusion for consumers, particularly where foods with low HSRs are eligible to display a health claim. The alignment of the NPSC and HSR scoring algorithms should be improved.

South Africa (SA) is facing a rising prevalence of obesity and diet-related chronic diseases. The government is seeking to develop effective, evidence-based policy measures to address this. A well-designed, fit-for-purpose nutrient profiling model (NPM) can aid policy development. The aim of this study was to develop a fit-for-purpose NPM in SA. Steps included: (1) determining the purpose and target population; (2) selecting appropriate nutrients and other food components to include; (3) selecting a suitable NPM type, criteria and base; and (4) selecting appropriate numbers and thresholds. As part of the evaluation, the nutritional composition of packaged foods containing nutritional information (n = 6747) in the SA food supply chain was analyzed, a literature review was undertaken and various NPMs were evaluated. Our findings indicated that it is most appropriate to adapt an NPM and underpin regulation with a restrictive NPM that limits unhealthy food components. The Chile 2019 NPM was identified as suitable to adapt, and total sugar, saturated fat, sodium and non-sugar sweetener were identified as appropriate to restrict. This NPM has the potential to underpin restrictive policies, such as front-of-package labelling and child-directed marketing regulations in SA. These policies will support the fight against obesity and NCDs in the country.

Health-related claims on food products influence consumers and their food preferences. None of the European countries have restricted the use of health claims to foods of high nutritional quality despite the regulatory background provided by the European Union in 2006. We evaluated the nutritional quality of foods labelled with claims available in the Slovenian market using two nutrient profile models&mdash ; Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) and European World Health Organization Regional office for Europe model (WHOE)&mdash ; and compared the results to the nutritional quality of all available foods. Data for prepacked foods in the Slovenian food supply were collected in 2015 on a representative sample (n = 6619) and supplemented with 12-month product sales data for more accurate assessments of the food supply. A considerable proportion of foods labelled with any type of health-related claim was found to have poor nutritional quality. About 68% of the foods labelled with health-related claims passed FSANZ criterion (75% when considering sales data) and 33% passed the WHOE model (56% when considering sales data). Our results highlight the need for stricter regulations for the use of health-related claims and to build upon available nutrient profiling knowledge to improve nutrition quality of foods labeled with health-related claims.

The WHO has called for governments to improve children's food environment by implementing restrictions on the marketing of 'unhealthy' foods to children. Nutrient profiling (NP) models are used to define 'unhealthy' foods and support child-directed food marketing regulations. The aim of the present study was to assess the suitability of the South African NP model (SANPM), developed and validated for health claim regulations, for child-directed food marketing regulations. The SANPM was compared with four NP models specifically developed for such regulations. A representative list of 197 foods was compiled by including all foods advertised on South African free-to-air television channels in 2014 and foods commonly consumed by South African children. The nutritional information of the foods was sourced from food packaging, company websites and a food composition table. Each individual food was classified by each of the five NP models. The percentage of foods that would be allowed according to the different NP models ranged from 6 to 45 %; the models also varied considerably with regard to the type of foods allowed for marketing to children. The majority of the pairwise comparisons between the NP models yielded κ statistics >0·4, indicating a moderate agreement between the models. An almost perfect pairwise agreement (κ=0·948) existed between the SANPM and the UK Food Standards Agency model (United Kingdom Office of Communication nutrient profiling model), a model extensively tested and validated for such regulations. The SANPM is considered appropriate for child-directed food marketing regulations in South Africa

The WHO has called for governments to improve children's food environment by implementing restrictions on the marketing of 'unhealthy' foods to children. Nutrient profiling (NP) models are used to define 'unhealthy' foods and support child-directed food marketing regulations. The aim of the present study was to assess the suitability of the South African NP model (SANPM), developed and validated for health claim regulations, for child-directed food marketing regulations. The SANPM was compared with four NP models specifically developed for such regulations. A representative list of 197 foods was compiled by including all foods advertised on South African free-to-air television channels in 2014 and foods commonly consumed by South African children. The nutritional information of the foods was sourced from food packaging, company websites and a food composition table. Each individual food was classified by each of the five NP models. The percentage of foods that would be allowed according to the different NP models ranged from 6 to 45 %; the models also varied considerably with regard to the type of foods allowed for marketing to children. The majority of the pairwise comparisons between the NP models yielded κ statistics >0·4, indicating a moderate agreement between the models. An almost perfect pairwise agreement (κ=0·948) existed between the SANPM and the UK Food Standards Agency model (United Kingdom Office of Communication nutrient profiling model), a model extensively tested and validated for such regulations. The SANPM is considered appropriate for child-directed food marketing regulations in South Africa

Background In an effort to combat childhood obesity the WHO has called on governments to restrict the marketing of unhealthy foods to children. Regulators have turned to nutrient profiling (NP) to provide the evidence for their decisions. This has resulted in the development of NP models, of which the validity of only a few have been established. The aim of this study was to assess the construct validity of various NP models for the purpose of restricting the marketing of unhealthy foods to children in South Africa by comparing the classification of foods by the models to the ranking of the same foods by registered dietitians. Methods Six current NP models were identified, then a representative food database of 120 foods was developed and each individual food was classified by each of the six models. Lastly dietitians were recruited to rank the healthfulness of the same 120 foods. Results Dietitians allowed 24% of the included foods for marketing to children, whereas the percentage of foods allowed by the included models ranged from 7 to 47%. Majority of pairwise comparisons between the NP models and dietitians yielded ҡ statistics >0.6, indicating substantial agreement. An almost perfect pairwise agreement was found between dietitians and the WHO Regional Office for Europe model. Conclusion The included NP models displayed good construct validity by agreeing with dietitians on what are 'less healthy' foods, thus the foods not allowed for marketing. The findings of this study contributes to the process of establishing validity of NP models

Abstract Background There is an ongoing debate regarding health-related on-pack information appearing on products with low nutritional quality. The purpose of the study was to contribute to this discussion by examining the relationship between health-related on-pack information and the overall nutritional value of highly processed ready-to-eat breakfast cereals (RTECs). Methods Maximum variation sampling was used to select 128 highly processed RTECs in Germany in 2010. In 2012, two additional samples were collected in Norway ( n =38) and Germany ( n =73) to allow for comparisons of products from countries with different regulations concerning nutrient profiles. All products were evaluated against five nutrient profiling models from government-related agencies. Mann–Whitney U Tests and Chi-square statistics was used to compare the nutrient profiles of different product categories. Logistic regression analysis was conducted to identify on-pack information on German products predicting a satisfactory nutritional profile. Results The majority of RTECs displayed health-related information on the packaging, but only 4–36% of German products met the criteria of the different nutrient profiles. The rate was lower for cereals marketed to children, Norwegian cereals performed better (36-64%). Health-related on-pack information was not consistently related to the nutrient profiles. The following on-pack criteria predicted a satisfactory nutrient profile on RTECs of the German 2010 sample: i) cereals not marketed to children, ii) clean labelling (free-from claims) and possibly organic labelling and whole grain claims. Conclusions Our results suggest that the implementation of a mandatory nutrient profiling scheme for products with health-related on-pack information could contribute to a consistent relationship between health-related information on RTECs and the overall nutritional value of the product. Improvements should also consider the provision of a simple nutritional labelling scheme on the front of the packaging, standardized serving sizes, accurate product names, and clearly defined whole grain claims.

We compared the healthiness of packaged foods and beverages between selected countries using the Health Star Rating (HSR) nutrient profiling system. Packaged food and beverage data collected 2013–2018 were obtained for Australia, Canada, Chile, China, India, Hong Kong, Mexico, New Zealand, Slovenia, South Africa, the UK, and USA. Each product was assigned to a food or beverage category and mean HSR was calculated overall by category and by country. Median energy density (kJ/100 g), saturated fat (g/100 g), total sugars (g/100 g) and sodium (mg/100 g) contents were calculated. Countries were ranked by mean HSR and median nutrient levels. Mean HSR for all products (n = 394,815) was 2.73 (SD 1.38) out of 5.0 (healthiest profile). The UK, USA, Australia and Canada ranked highest for overall nutrient profile (HSR 2.74–2.83) and India, Hong Kong, China and Chile ranked lowest (HSR 2.27–2.44). Countries with higher overall HSR generally ranked better with respect to nutrient levels. India ranked consistently in the least healthy third for all measures. There is considerable variability in the healthiness of packaged foods and beverages in different countries. The finding that packaged foods and beverages are less healthy in middle-income countries such as China and India suggests that nutrient profiling is an important tool to enable policymakers and industry actors to reformulate products available in the marketplace to reduce the risk of obesity and NCDs among populations.