Changes in nutrition content and health claims post-implementation of regulation in Australia

Abstract

Objective:To determine whether there were changes in the prevalence or healthiness of products carrying claims post-implementation of Standard 1.2.7: Nutrition, Health and Related Claims in the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code.Design:Observational survey of claims on food packages in three categories: non-alcoholic beverages, breakfast cereals and cereal bars. Nutrient profiling was applied to products to determine their eligibility to carry health claims under Standard 1.2.7. The Standard came into effect in 2013. The proportion of products carrying claims and the proportion of those not meeting the nutrient profiling criteria were calculated. A comparative analysis was conducted to determine changes between 2011 and 2016.Setting:Three large metropolitan stores from the three major supermarket chains in Sydney, Australia were surveyed in 2011 and 2016.Participants:All claims on all available products in 2016 (n 1737). Nutrition composition and ingredients were collected from the packaging.Results:Overall in 2016, 76 % of products carried claims and there were 7367 claims identified in the three food categories. Of products in 2016 with health claims, 34 % did not meet nutrient profiling criteria. These may breach Standard 1.2.7. Comparison of 2011–2016 showed a significant increase in the number of products carrying claims (66 v. 76 %, P < 0·001).Conclusions:The proportion of products carrying claims that do not meet nutrient profiling and consumers’ tendency to infer health benefits from nutrition content claims warrants the regulation of all claims using the nutrient profiling. This will ensure consumers are not misled by claims on unhealthy food products.

Perceptions, use and perceived value of nutrition and health claims among Australian consumers: a cross-sectional survey

“…Such claims have also been criticised as being a marketing tool developed by food manufacturers to increase product sales, which has resulted in a general consumer distrust (Talati et al ., 2016; Stuthridge et al ., 2022). A number of studies have described health claims as being deceptive and misleading, particularly if the claim promotes a certain nutrient in a positive manner while failing to consider the substantial quantities of risk nutrients, such as added sugars, saturated fat and sodium, in the same product (Wellard-Cole et al ., 2020; Talati et al ., 2016; Manoj Hastak and Mazis, 2011; Lawrence et al ., 2017). Evidence suggests that nutrition and health claims can have a “health halo” effect whereby products that display nutrition and health claims, or more ambiguous statements such as a food being “natural” (Skubisz, 2017), are perceived to be healthier although the overall nutrient profile of the food product is poor (Wang et al ., 2016; Ikonen et al ., 2020; Anastasiou et al ., 2019; Kerr et al ., 2015).…”

Nutrition and Health Claims: Consumer Use and Evolving Regulation

“…In this earlier study, Pulker et al gathered data from both websites and physical stores and found only 59% of products (ultra-processed foods including breakfast cereals, confectionary, and snacks) carried nutrition or health claims. A Sydney-based supermarkets study by Wellard-Cole et al [ 22 ], auditing claims on non-alcoholic beverages, cereal bars and breakfast cereals in 2011 and again in 2016, confirmed that change was happening (increasing from 67% of audited products in 2011, to 76% in 2016, p < 0.001). Of the 1737 products audited in 2016, 76% carried at least one claim, the majority (82%) being content claims [ 22 ].…”

“…A Sydney-based supermarkets study by Wellard-Cole et al [ 22 ], auditing claims on non-alcoholic beverages, cereal bars and breakfast cereals in 2011 and again in 2016, confirmed that change was happening (increasing from 67% of audited products in 2011, to 76% in 2016, p < 0.001). Of the 1737 products audited in 2016, 76% carried at least one claim, the majority (82%) being content claims [ 22 ]. Thus, there appeared to be a high prevalence of claims on foods in Australian supermarkets, with increasing use over time, suggesting a high acceptance of the system by manufacturers.…”

“…Thus, there appeared to be a high prevalence of claims on foods in Australian supermarkets, with increasing use over time, suggesting a high acceptance of the system by manufacturers. Nevertheless, concerns have continued to be expressed on the potential to mislead consumers [22], who may attribute broader health benefits to products on the basis of their content claims [23], especially with the high use of content claims reported in the literature [19][20][21][22].…”

Comparison of requirements for using health claims on foods in the European Union, the USA, Canada, and Australia/New Zealand

“…To ensure consumers are not given misleading information, many countries have regulated the use of health claims on foods (de Boer & Bast, 2015a). The use of such claims on food labeling is well documented in the European Union (EU) (Hieke et al, 2016;Kaur et al, 2016a;Kaur et al, 2016b;Lalor, Kennedy, Flynn, & Wall, 2010;Lopéz-Galán & De-Magistris, 2017;Pravst & Kušar, 2015;Storcksdieck genannt Bonsmann et al, 2010), Canada (Sacco, Sumanac, & Tarasuk, 2013;Schermel, Emrich, Arcand, Wong, & L'Abbe, 2013), the USA (Brecher, Bender, Wilkening, McCabe, & Anderson, 2000;Colby, Johnson, Scheett, & Hoverson, 2010), and Australia and New Zealand (Al-Ani, Devi, Eyles, Swinburn, & Vandevijvere, 2016;Devi et al, 2014;Hughes, Wellard, Lin, Suen, & Chapman, 2013;Ni Mhurchu et al, 2016;Walker, Woods, Rickard, & Wong, 2008;Wellard-Cole, Li, Tse, Watson, & Hughes, 2020;Williams et al, 2003Williams et al, , 2006. Health claims on food products offer a direct communication channel between food producers and consumers at the point of purchase to inform about the health-related benefits a product can offer.…”