Defining unhealthy food for regulating marketing to children—What are Australia's options?

Abstract

Aim To compare six nutrient profiling models for suitability in food marketing to children regulation. Methods Products (n = 220) advertised at transport hubs were classified as eligible/ineligible to be advertised to children using an Australian government developed guide (Council of Australian Governments), the Health Star Rating system before and after the modifications made in 2020, World Health Organization Western Pacific Region and Europe nutrient profile criterion and the NOVA food classification system. Agreement between models was determined using Cohen's Kappa. Results The Council of Australian Governments' guide was able to classify more products than the other models (n = 210) and was easy to use as it did not require nutrition information. It agreed most closely with NOVA (moderate agreement). The proportion of foods classified as eligible to be marketed (most strict) was lowest for NOVA (10%), similar for Council of Australian Governments and the World Health Organisation models (16%‐17%) and highest for Health Star Rating models (26%‐28%). Conclusions The Council of Australian Governments' guide provides simple, easy to use profiling criteria aligned with Australian dietary advice. Political will is now required to incorporate a profiling model within government‐endorsed food marketing regulation.

Monitoring complaints about food marketing to children under the Australian industry Codes 2015–20: a qualitative analysis

“…15 Both the RCMI and QSRI, have nutrition criteria although problems with these criteria have been highlighted and there have been calls to change them to a consistent, independent criteria. [34][35][36] Recent research has shown the Australian government-designed criteria for defining foods that should not be marketed to children is an easy to use, evidence-based tool that should be incorporated into new regulation. 36 Robust, clear and evidence-based mandatory restrictions are the most effective way to restrict marketing aimed at children and adequately protect them from exposure.…”

How prepared is the dietetic profession for today's wicked childhood nutrition problems?

“…Watson et al audited advertising of unhealthy foods across six public transport hubs in Sydney between 2018 and 2020. 22 Unsurprisingly, they found the majority of items advertised were discretionary foods/beverages. Using six existing nutrient profiles, they compared the eligibility criteria of each, with the Health Star Rating (original and updated versions) being the least stringent, categorising more discretionary items as eligible for marketing.…”

“…Their findings illustrate the influence of parental role modelling and consumption patterns on infant dietary exposure and the insidious availability of ultra‐processed foods marketed for the infant arena. Pearson et al and Watson et al tackle systemic issues regarding childcare food provision policy and food advertising in public transport hubs 21,22 . Lee et al, Smith et al and Kavian et al explore the habits of children and adolescents, and the impact of societal pressures on food choice 23‐25 …”

“…Watson et al audited advertising of unhealthy foods across six public transport hubs in Sydney between 2018 and 2020 22 . Unsurprisingly, they found the majority of items advertised were discretionary foods/beverages.…”

“…Pearson et al and Watson et al tackle systemic issues regarding childcare food provision policy and food advertising in public transport hubs. 21,22 Lee et al, Smith et al and Kavian et al explore the habits of children and adolescents, and the impact of societal pressures on food choice. [23][24][25] Onifade et al undertook longitudinal dietary recalls of 95 Australian Indigenous infants at 9, 12 and 24 months of age, and found breastfeeding being replaced with formula feeding, low levels of iron and omega-3 fatty acids, and increasing intakes of high-sodium and discretionary items.…”