No abstract

BackgroundThere is growing recognition among public health circles of the need for regulatory action for overweight and obesity, but there has been limited research into whether the Australian public supports government intervention. This study aimed to determine the level of public support for food-related regulations for obesity, and to assess the determinants of support.MethodsA nationally representative sample of Australian adults (n = 2011) was recruited by market research company Online Research Unit to complete an online survey. The survey measured respondents’ perception of the obesity problem in Australia, and level of agreement on a 5-point Likert scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree) with proposed regulations in three domains; advertising, sponsorship of children’s sport, and taxation. Binary logistic regression models were run to examine the association between demographic variables and support for regulation.ResultsThe majority of respondents (92.5%) considered overweight and obesity to be a somewhat or very serious problem in Australia, and almost 90% felt there should be at least some government regulation to protect the public. Respondents agreed that the government should regulate food and beverage advertising (69.5%), with strongest support for restricting unhealthy food advertising to children (78.9%). There was lower support for prohibiting unhealthy food and beverage company sponsorship of children’s sport (63.4% agreement), and for taxing sugar-sweetened beverages (54.5%), although the majority were still in favour. Support for fiscal policies slightly increased if revenue was to be used for health purposes. Females and tertiary educated respondents showed stronger agreement with proposed regulations (p < 0.05).ConclusionsThe survey findings suggest the majority of the Australian population recognises obesity to be a serious health problem, and support government regulation of the food environment as a population-level preventative strategy.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12889-018-5455-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundIncreased marketing of energy-dense, nutrient-poor foods has been identified as a driver of the global obesity epidemic and a priority area for preventative efforts. Local and international research has focused on the unhealthiness of television advertising, with limited research into the growing outdoor advertising industry. This study aimed to examine the extent of food and beverage advertising on the Sydney metropolitan train network, and to assess the nutritional quality of advertised products against the Australian Guide to Healthy Eating.MethodsAll 178 train stations on the Sydney metropolitan train network were surveyed in summer and winter. A survey tool was developed to collect information for all advertisements on and immediately surrounding the train station. Information included product, brand, location and advertisement format. Advertisements were coded by nutrition category, product subcategory and size. Chi-square, ANOVA and ANCOVA tests were conducted to test for differences in the amount of food and beverage advertising by season and area socioeconomic status (SES).ResultsOf 6931 advertisements identified, 1915 (27.6%) were promoting a food or beverage. The majority of food and beverage advertisements were for unhealthy products; 84.3% were classified as discretionary, 8.0% core and 7.6% miscellaneous. Snack foods and sugar-sweetened beverages were the most frequently advertised products, regardless of season. Coca-Cola and PepsiCo were the largest advertisers on the network, contributing 10.9% and 6.5% of total advertisements respectively. There was no difference in the mean number of food and beverage advertisements by area SES, but the proportion of advertising that was for discretionary foods was highest in low SES areas (41.9%, p < 0.001).ConclusionsThe results indicate that, irrespective of season, food and beverage advertisements across the Sydney metropolitan train network are overwhelmingly for unhealthy (discretionary) products. The results of this study highlight the inadequacy of Australia’s voluntary self-regulatory system in protecting members of the public from exposure to unhealthy food advertising. Regulatory action by government, such as placing a cap on the amount of unhealthy food advertisements, or requiring a proportion of all advertising to be for the promotion of healthy foods, is required to address this issue.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12889-017-4433-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

Objective:There is an urgent need to identify and develop cross-sectoral policies which promote and support a healthy, safe and sustainable food system. To help shape the political agenda, a critical first step is a shared definition of such a system among policy makers across relevant sectors. The aim of the present study was to determine how Australian policy actors define, and contribute to, a healthy, safe and sustainable food system.Design:A Delphi survey, consisting of two rounds, was conducted. Participants were asked how they define, and contribute to, a healthy, safe and sustainable food system (Round 1) and indicate their level of agreement with summary statements (Round 2).Setting:This was an online Delphi survey conducted in Australia.Participants:Twenty-nine and fourteen multisectoral and multilevel policy makers completed Round 1 and Round 2, respectively.Results:The definition included food processing regulation, environmentally friendly food production and access to nutritious food. All agreed that it was important for them to improve access and supply of healthy food and ensure healthy planning principles are applied.Conclusions:There were cross-sectoral differences in definitions and contributions; however, critical consensus was achieved. The study contributes to the definition of key elements of a cross-sectoral food and nutrition policy to meet today’s environmental, health, social and economic challenges; however, further research using a more representative multisectoral sample is warranted.