A novel processed food classification system applied to Australian food composition databases

O'Halloran, Siobhan A; Lacy, Kathleen E.; Grimes, Carley; Woods, Julie; Campbell, Karen; Nowson, Caryl

doi:10.1111/jhn.12445

Cited by 22 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 27 publications

(51 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Over half of the SOBF present were classified as nutrient-poor UPF. This is consistent with other studies that have found a large proportion of such highly processed foods present in the Australian food supply [ 74 , 75 ]. In fact, most new products launched in Australia in 2015 were UPF [ 76 ].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Alignment of Supermarket Own Brand Foods’ Front-of-Pack Nutrition Labelling with Measures of Nutritional Quality: An Australian Perspective

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two voluntary front-of-pack nutrition labels (FOPNL) are present in Australia: the government-led Health Star Ratings (HSR) and food industry-led Daily Intake Guide (DIG). Australia’s two largest supermarkets are key supporters of HSR, pledging uptake on all supermarket own brand foods (SOBF). This study aimed to examine prevalence of FOPNL on SOBF, and alignment with patterns of nutritional quality. Photographic audits of all SOBF present in three large supermarkets were conducted in Perth, Western Australia, in 2017. Foods were classified as nutritious or nutrient-poor based on the Australian Guide to Healthy Eating (AGTHE), NOVA level of food processing, and HSR score. Most (81.5%) SOBF featured FOPNL, with only 55.1% displaying HSR. HSR was present on 69.2% of Coles, 54.0% of Woolworths, and none of IGA SOBF. Half (51.3%) of SOBF were classified as nutritious using the AGTHE, but using NOVA, 56.9% were ultra-processed foods. Nutrient-poor and ultra-processed SOBF were more likely than nutritious foods to include HSR, yet many of these foods achieved HSR scores of 2.5 stars or above, implying they were a healthy choice. Supermarkets have a powerful position in the Australian food system, and they could do more to support healthy food selection through responsible FOPNL.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Alignment of Supermarket Own Brand Foods’ Front-of-Pack Nutrition Labelling with Measures of Nutritional Quality: An Australian Perspective

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Difficulties with classification are not unique to our study; other authors have recognized that the broad NOVA definitions require some interpretation by researchers [29], which means that foods are not always uniformly categorized among different studies [30]. In Australia, thousands of foods within the Australian national food composition database AUSNUT have been categorized according to the NOVA classification [31], thus enabling consistent classification between researchers in that country. However, it is not always possible to determine the brand of food analysed in that database, or to know how similar, or different, Australian food stuffs are in comparison to those from New Zealand.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relative Validity and Reproducibility of a Food Frequency Questionnaire to Assess Energy Intake from Minimally Processed and Ultra-Processed Foods in Young Children

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

NOVA is a food classification system that categorises food items into one of four categories according to the extent and purpose of their processing: minimally processed food (MPF), processed culinary ingredient (PCI), processed food (PF), or ultra-processed food (UPF). The aim of this study was to determine the relative validity and reproducibility of a food frequency questionnaire (EAT5 FFQ) for measuring daily energy intake (EI kJ) and percentage of daily energy intake (EI%) from each NOVA group in New Zealand children. One hundred parents of five year old children completed the 123 item EAT5 FFQ on two occasions four weeks apart. A 3 day weighed diet record (WDR) was completed on non-consecutive randomly assigned days between FFQ appointments. The FFQ overestimated EI (both as kJ and %) from MPF and UPF, and underestimated intakes from PCI and PF, compared with the WDR. Bland–Altman plots indicated reasonably consistent agreement between FFQ and WDR for MPF and UPF but not PCI or PF. Correlation coefficients between the FFQ and WDR were acceptable for EI (%) for MPF (r = 0.31) and UPF (r = 0.30). The FFQ differentiated between the highest and lowest quartiles for EI (%) from MPF and UPF foods (p-values for the trends were 0.006 and 0.009 respectively), and for EI (kJ) from UPF foods (p-value for trend 0.003). Bland–Altman plots indicated consistent agreement between repeat administrations of FFQ for MPF and UPF only, while intra-class correlations suggested good reproducibility for EI (kJ and %) for all four NOVA categories (range 0.51–0.76). The EAT5 FFQ has acceptable relative validity for ranking EI (%) from MPF and UPF. It has good reproducibility for measuring EI from all four NOVA categories, in young children.

show abstract

“…Ultra-processed food purchasing and consumption patterns have been described in several countries [4], with studies in Brazil [17, 32-35], Chile [16, 36], Colombia [37], Indonesia [38], Kenya [39], multiple European countries [9, 40], France [41], Norway [42, 43], Sweden [44], Australia [45, 46], New Zealand [47], USA [19, 20, 48, 49], Canada [18, 50, 51], and the UK [15, 40, 52]. …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ultra-processed Food Intake and Obesity: What Really Matters for Health—Processing or Nutrient Content?

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose of Review The aim of this narrative review was to summarize and critique recent evidence evaluating the association between ultra-processed food intake and obesity. Recent Findings Four of five studies found that higher purchases or consumption of ultra-processed food was associated with overweight/obesity. Additional studies reported relationships between ultra-processed food intake and higher fasting glucose, metabolic syndrome, increases in total and LDL cholesterol, and risk of hypertension. It remains unclear whether associations can be attributed to processing itself or the nutrient content of ultra-processed foods. Only three of nine studies used a prospective design, and the potential for residual confounding was high. Summary Recent research provides fairly consistent support for the association of ultra-processed food intake with obesity and related cardiometabolic outcomes. There is a clear need for further studies, particularly those using longitudinal designs and with sufficient control for confounding, to potentially confirm these findings in different populations and to determine whether ultra-processed food consumption is associated with obesity independent of nutrient content.

show abstract

A novel processed food classification system applied to Australian food composition databases

Abstract: This Australian processed food classification system will allow researchers to easily quantify the contribution of processed foods within the Australian food supply to assist in assessing the nutritional quality of the dietary intake of population groups.

Cited by 22 publications

References 27 publications

Alignment of Supermarket Own Brand Foods’ Front-of-Pack Nutrition Labelling with Measures of Nutritional Quality: An Australian Perspective

Alignment of Supermarket Own Brand Foods’ Front-of-Pack Nutrition Labelling with Measures of Nutritional Quality: An Australian Perspective

Relative Validity and Reproducibility of a Food Frequency Questionnaire to Assess Energy Intake from Minimally Processed and Ultra-Processed Foods in Young Children

Ultra-processed Food Intake and Obesity: What Really Matters for Health—Processing or Nutrient Content?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About