ObjectiveTo objectively evaluate voluntary nutrition and health claims and marketing techniques present on packaging of high-market-share ultra-processed foods (UPF) in Australia for their potential impact on public health.DesignCross-sectional.SettingPackaging information from five high-market-share food manufacturers and one retailer were obtained from supermarket and manufacturers’ websites.SubjectsIngredients lists for 215 UPF were examined for presence of added sugar. Packaging information was categorised using a taxonomy of nutrition and health information which included nutrition and health claims and five common food marketing techniques. Compliance of statements and claims with the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code and with Health Star Ratings (HSR) were assessed for all products.ResultsAlmost all UPF (95 %) contained added sugars described in thirty-four different ways; 55 % of UPF displayed a HSR; 56 % had nutrition claims (18 % were compliant with regulations); 25 % had health claims (79 % were compliant); and 97 % employed common food marketing techniques. Packaging of 47 % of UPF was designed to appeal to children. UPF carried a mean of 1·5 health and nutrition claims (range 0–10) and 2·6 marketing techniques (range 0–5), and 45 % had HSR≤3·0/5·0.ConclusionsMost UPF packaging featured nutrition and health statements or claims despite the high prevalence of added sugars and moderate HSR. The degree of inappropriate or inaccurate statements and claims present is concerning, particularly on packaging designed to appeal to children. Public policies to assist parents to select healthy family foods should address the quality and accuracy of information provided on UPF packaging.

BackgroundThe Internet contains a plethora of nutrition information. Health organizations are increasingly using the Internet to deliver population-wide health information and interventions. Effective interventions identify their target population and their needs; however, little is known about use of the Internet as a source of nutrition information.ObjectiveThe aim was to assess the change in prevalence and demographic characteristics of Western Australian adults accessing the Internet as a source of nutrition information and identify specific information needs.MethodsData were pooled from the Western Australian Department of Health’s 3-yearly Nutrition Monitoring Survey Series telephone survey between 1995 and 2012 of 7044 participants aged 18 to 64 years. Outcome variables were the main sources of nutrition information used in the last year and yes/no responses to 4 suggestions to what would make it easier to eat a healthy diet. Sociodemographic variables were collected.ResultsThe proportion of respondents using the Internet for nutrition information increased from <1% in 1995-2001 to 9.1% in 2004 and 33.7% in 2012. Compared to 2004, logistic regression showed that the odds of using the Internet for this information increased significantly in 2009 (OR 2.84, 95% CI 2.07-3.88) and 2012 (OR 5.20, 95% CI 3.86-7.02, P<.001). Respondents using the Internet as a source were more likely to be female (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.05-1.60, P=.02), live in a metropolitan area (OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.03-1.54, P=.03), born in countries other than Australia/UK/Ireland (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.07-1.85, P=.02), more educated (university: OR 2.46, 95% CI 1.77-3.42, P<.001), and were less likely to be older (55-64 years: OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.25-0.57, P<.001). The majority of respondents agreed the following information would assist them to make healthier choices: more ways to prepare healthy foods (72.0%, 95% CI 70.7-73.3), quicker ways to prepare healthy foods (79.0%, 95% CI 77.8-80.1), how to choose healthy foods (68.8%, 95% CI 67.5-70.1), and knowing more about cooking (54.7%, 95% CI 53.3-56.1). Those using the Internet for nutrition information were more likely than nonusers to want to know quicker ways to prepare healthy foods (83.0% vs 78.1%, P=.005) and information on choosing healthy foods (76.3% vs 67.3%, P<.001).ConclusionsUse of the Internet as a main source of nutrition information has grown rapidly since 2004; one-third of Western Australian adults reported using the Internet for this purpose in 2012. Information on preparing healthy foods (ideas, quicker ways), choosing ingredients, and knowing more about cooking would make it easier to eat a healthy diet. For Internet users, emphasis should be on quicker ways and choosing ingredients. These finding have implications for policy makers and practitioners and suggest that traditional health promotion tactics should continue to be used to reach the broader population.

Supermarkets have been described as having unprecedented and disproportionate power in the food system. This scoping review synthesized the literature that describes the position and power of supermarkets in the Australian food system, and the implications for public health. A systematic search of peer-reviewed and grey literature identified 68 documents that described supermarket power. Implications for public health were also recorded. Data revealed that supermarkets hold a powerful position in the Australian food system, acting as the primary gatekeepers. Supermarkets have obtained instrumental, structural and discursive power from many sources that overlap and reinforce each other. Few positive public health impacts of supermarket power were identified, providing many opportunities for improvement in the domains of food governance, the food system and public health nutrition. There is very little public health research examining the impact of supermarket power in Australia. More research is needed, and examination of supermarket own brands is of particular importance owing to their pivotal role as a source of power and their potential to improve public health outcomes, such as obesity.

BackgroundSupermarkets have unprecedented political and economic power in the food system and an inherent responsibility to demonstrate good corporate citizenship via corporate social responsibility (CSR). The aim of this study was to investigate the world’s largest and most powerful supermarkets’ publically available CSR commitments to determine their potential impact on public health.MethodsThe world’s largest 100 retailers were identified using the Global Powers of Retailing report. Thirty-one supermarkets that published corporate reports referring to CSR or sustainability, in English, between 2013 and 2018, were included and thematically analysed.ResultsAlthough a large number of themes were identified (n = 79), and there were differences between each business, supermarket CSR commitments focused on five priorities: donating surplus food to charities for redistribution to feed the hungry; reducing and recovering food waste; sustainably sourcing specific ingredients including seafood, palm oil, soy and cocoa; governance of food safety; and growing the number of own brand foods available, that are made by suppliers to meet supermarkets’ requirements.ConclusionsCSR commitments made by 31 of the world’s largest supermarkets showed they appeared willing to take steps to improve sustainable sourcing of specific ingredients, but there was little action being taken to support health and nutrition. Although some supermarket CSR initiatives showed promise, the world’s largest supermarkets could do more to use their power to support public health. It is recommended they should: (1) transparently report food waste encompassing the whole of the food system in their waste reduction efforts; (2) support healthful and sustainable diets by reducing production and consumption of discretionary foods, meat, and other ingredients with high social and environmental impacts; (3) remove unhealthful confectionery, snacks, and sweetened beverages from prominent in-store locations; (4) ensure a variety of minimally processed nutritious foods are widely available; and (5) introduce initiatives to make healthful foods more affordable, support consumers to select healthful and sustainable foods, and report healthful food sales as a proportion of total food sales, using transparent criteria for key terms.

Sustainable, resilient food systems for healthy diets has been identified as the first of the six pillars for action during the UN Decade of Action on Nutrition (1). It is now THE defining issue for public health nutrition (2). A sustainable food system is one 'that ensures food security and nutrition for all in such a way that the economic, social and environmental bases to generate food security and nutrition of future generations are not compromised' (3) (p. 12). Resilience refers to the capacity of a food system to achieve this same objective 'in the face of various and even unforeseen disturbances' including environmental, economic or socio-political shocks (4) (p. 19). Sustainable food systems are essential if we are to nourish a projected global population of nearly 10 billion in 2050 within planetary boundaries (5). However, today's food systems are far from sustainable. Not only are dietary risk factors and malnutrition in all its forms the leading contributors to the global burden of disease (6) , but also food systems are not operating within some planetary boundaries and are contributing to widespread and potentially irreversible environmental breakdown degradation, including potentially irreversible disruption (7). Understanding the impact of population dietary intake has extended beyond health and the ability of food systems to provide sufficient quantity, quality and diversity of safe, affordable and nutritious foods, to interlinkages of diets and food systems with climate change, water and land pollution, deforestation and biodiversity loss and other forms of environmental degradation (7). The focus on healthy diets from sustainable food systems connects all parts of food supply chains (from food production to consumption) and the social, economic and environmental outputs of those systems (8). Unsustainable food systems producing unhealthy diets is the status quo, a lose-lose dynamic for both human health and the environment. Nevertheless, in principle there is hope. A system disruption might possibly flip new governance arrangements and policy actions for transforming food systems to win-win have been articulated. Certainly there is evidence to support the premise that 'a healthy diet is a sustainable diet' and vice versa (9). However, achieving these actions presents a major challenge. Food systems are multidimensional socio-ecological systems which involve many actors with diverse interests and worldviews, impacted by policies from sectors including agriculture, food, health, finance, trade and environment (10) .