How effective is food industry self-substantiation of food–health relationships underpinning health claims on food labels in Australia?

Abstract

ObjectiveThe Food Standards Code regulates health claims on Australian food labels. General-level health claims highlight food–health relationships, e.g. ‘contains calcium for strong bones’. Food companies making claims must notify Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) and certify that a systematic literature review (SLR) substantiating the food–health relationship has been conducted. There is no pre- or post-notification assessment of the SLR, potentially enabling the food industry to make claims based on poor-quality research. The present study assessed the rigour of self-substantiation.DesignFood–health relationships notified to FSANZ were monitored monthly between 2013 and 2017. These relationships were assessed by scoping published literature. Where evidence was equivocal/insufficient, the relevant government food regulatory agency was asked to investigate. If not investigated, or the response was unsatisfactory, the project team conducted an independent SLR which was provided to the government agency.SettingAustralia.ParticipantsSelf-substantiated food–health relationships.ResultsThere were sixty-seven relationships notified by thirty-eight food companies. Of these, thirty-three relationships (52 %) from twenty companies were deemed to have sufficient published evidence. Four were excluded as they originated in New Zealand. Three relationships were removed before investigations were initiated. The project initiated twenty-seven food–health relationship investigations. Another six relationships were withdrawn, and three relationships were awaiting government assessment.ConclusionsTo ensure that SLR underpinning food–health relationships are rigorous and reduce regulatory enforcement burden, pre-market approval of food–health relationships should be introduced. This will increase consumer and public health confidence in the regulatory process and prevent potentially misleading general-level health claims on food labels.

Growing the Business of Whole Grain in the Australian Market: A 6-Year Impact Assessment

“…Grain-based muesli bars (n = 165) 50% (n = 83) 39% (n = 33) 55% (n = 46) 31% (n = 26) Total (n = 1960) 29% (n = 572) 35% (n = 205) 53% (n = 308) 21% (n = 121) * Sourced from GLNC's 2017-2019 Grain Food Product. 1 Based on contribution to 48 g whole grain DTI. 2 Based on level of whole grain.…”

“…Food labelling is considered an important policy tool in promoting healthier food choices, and includes nutrition content and health claims that draw attention to certain health benefits or nutritional characteristics of a product [1]. In Australia, such voluntary claims are regulated by Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ), who outline conditions that must be met in order to make claims [2].…”

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

“…For the purposes of this study, products that met the NPSC (and could therefore carry health claims) Fig. 1 Stepwise regulation of claims under the Australian New Zealand Food Standards Code (3,4) . FSANZ, Food Standards Australia New Zealand were referred to as 'healthy' and those that did not were deemed 'unhealthy'.…”

Nutrition and Health Claims: Consumer Use and Evolving Regulation

“…Compliance with the Food Standards Code is the responsibility of the State and Territory authorities and the New Zealand government, so in a case where a complaint is made, these authorities evaluate the systematic review supporting a self-substantiated general level health claim. This process also places the onus for accurately substantiating the review on the food business, a potential limitation of the current process [ 25 ••, 26 ]. However, in New Zealand, claims which have been notified to FSANZ are formally reviewed by the New Zealand Ministry for Primary Industries.…”