Investigating nutrient profiling and Health Star Ratings on core dairy products in Australia

Comparison of Nutri-Score and Health Star Rating Nutrient Profiling Models Using Large Branded Foods Composition Database and Sales Data

Front-of-package nutrition labelling (FOPNL) is known as an effective tool that can encourage healthier food choices and food reformulation. A very interesting type of FOPNL is grading schemes. Our objective was to compare two market-implemented grading schemes-European Nutri-Score (NS) and Australian Health Star Rating (HSR), using large Slovenian branded foods database. NS and HSR were used for profiling 17,226 pre-packed foods and drinks, available in Slovenian food supply dataset (2020). Alignment between models was evaluated with agreement (% of agreement and Cohen's Kappa) and correlation (Spearman rho). The 12-month nationwide sales-data were used for sale-weighing, to address market-share differences. Study results indicated that both models have good discriminatory ability between products based on their nutritional composition. NS and HSR ranked 22% and 33% of Slovenian food supply as healthy, respectively. Agreement between NS and HSR was strong (70%, κ = 0.62) with a very strong correlation (rho = 0.87). Observed profiling models were most aligned within food categories Beverages and Bread and bakery products, while less aligned for Dairy and imitates and Edible oils and emulsions. Notable disagreements were particularly observed in subcategories of Cheese and processed cheeses (8%, κ = 0.01, rho = 0.38) and Cooking oils (27%, κ = 0.11, rho = 0.40). Further analysis showed that the main differences in Cooking oils were due to olive oil and walnut oil, which are favoured by NS and grapeseed, flaxseed and sunflower oil that are favoured by HSR. For Cheeses and cheese products, we observed that HSR graded products across the whole scale, with majority (63%) being classified as healthy (≥3.5 *), while NS mostly graded lower scores. Sale-weighting analyses showed that offer in the food supply does not always reflect the sales. Sale-weighting increased overall agreement between profiles from 70% to 81%, with notable differences between food categories. In conclusion, NS and HSR were shown as highly compliant FOPNLs with few divergences in some subcategories. Even these models do not always grade products equally high, very similar ranking trends were observed. However, the observed differences highlight the challenges of FOPNL ranking schemes, which are tailored to address somewhat different public health priorities in different countries. International harmonization can support further development of grading type nutrient profiling models for the use in FOPNL, and make those acceptable for more stake-holders, which will be crucial for their successful regulatory implementation.

A Cross-Sectional Audit of Nutrition and Health Claims on Dairy Yoghurts in Supermarkets of the Illawarra Region of New South Wales, Australia

Health and nutrition claims are used by consumers to guide purchasing decisions. In consequence, monitoring and evaluation of such claims to ensure they are accurate and transparent is required. The aim of this study was to investigate the use of nutrition and health claims on dairy-yoghurt products within select Australian supermarkets and assess their compliance with the revised Food Standards Code (FSC). Nutrition, health, and related claims on yoghurt products were assessed in a cross-sectional audit of five supermarkets in the Illawarra region of New South Wales. Claim prevalence, type, and compliance were assessed and products were compared against current rating measures. A total of n = 340 dairy yoghurt products were identified. Most products (97.9%) carried at least one nutrition and/or health claim, with nutrition-content claims (93.9%) the most prevalent. Most products (n = 277) met the nutrient profiling scoring criterion; while 87.9% of products did not carry the health star rating. Almost all claims surveyed (97.4%) were compliant with the FSC. Health and nutrition claims are highly prevalent across yoghurt categories, with the majority of these compliant with regulations. The ambiguity surrounding the wording and context of claims challenges researchers to investigate consumers’ interpretations of health messaging within the food environment.

A comparison of the healthiness of packaged foods and beverages from 12 countries using the Health Star Rating nutrient profiling system, 2013-2018

We compared the healthiness of packaged foods and beverages between selected countries using the Health Star Rating (HSR) nutrient profiling system. Packaged food and beverage data collected 2013-2018 were obtained for Australia, Canada, Chile, China, India, Hong Kong, Mexico, New Zealand, Slovenia, South Africa, the UK, and USA. Each product was assigned to a food or beverage category and mean HSR was calculated overall by category and by country. Median energy density (kJ/100 g), saturated fat (g/100 g), total sugars (g/100 g) and sodium (mg/100 g) contents were calculated. Countries were ranked by mean HSR and median nutrient levels. Mean HSR for all products (n = 394,815) was 2.73 (SD 1.38) out of 5.0 (healthiest profile). The UK, USA, Australia and Canada ranked highest for overall nutrient profile (HSR 2.74-2.83) and India, Hong Kong, China and Chile ranked lowest (HSR 2.27-2.44). Countries with higher overall HSR generally ranked better with respect to nutrient levels. India ranked consistently in the least healthy third for all measures. There is considerable variability in the healthiness of packaged foods and beverages in different countries. The finding that packaged foods and beverages are less healthy in middle-income countries such as China and India suggests that nutrient profiling is an important tool to enable policymakers and industry actors to reformulate products available in the marketplace to reduce the risk of obesity and NCDs among populations.

The Healthfulness of the US Packaged Food and Beverage Supply: A Cross-Sectional Study

The US food supply is dominated by highly-processed packaged food and beverage products that are high in energy, saturated fat, sugar, and salt. We report results of a cross-sectional assessment of the 2018 US packaged food and beverage supply by nutritional composition and indicators of healthfulness and level of processing. Data were obtained through Label Insight’s Open Data database, which represents >80% of all food and beverage products sold in the US over the past three years. Healthfulness and the level of processing, measured by the Health Star Rating (HSR) system and the NOVA classification framework, respectively, were compared across product categories and leading manufacturers. Among 230,156 food and beverage products, the mean HSR was 2.7 (standard deviation (SD) 1.4) from a possible maximum rating of 5.0, and 71% of products were classified as ultra-processed. Healthfulness and level of processing varied substantially by category (range: HSR 1.1–3.9; 0–100% ultra-processed) and manufacturer (range: HSR 0.9–4.6; 26–100% ultra-processed). The US packaged food and beverage supply is large, heterogeneous, highly processed, and generally unhealthy. The wide variability in healthfulness and level of processing demonstrates that opportunities exist, through reformulation or replacement, for large-scale improvements to the healthfulness of the US packaged food and beverage supply.

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

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.

Health Star Ratings: What's on the labels of Australian beverages?

ISSUE ADDRESSED

The Health Star Rating (HSR) System provides a useful tool to communicate health and nutrition messages to consumers. Given the large contribution from sugar-containing beverages to sugar intake in the Australian diet and the adverse health outcomes associated with frequent consumption, it is important to investigate how the HSR System is displayed on beverages. Our research measured and compared the presence of the HSR System on the labels of sugar-containing and sugar-free beverages in Australia.

METHODS

We conducted a survey of the labels on 762 ready-to-drink (≤600 mL) nondairy/nonalcoholic beverages, sampled from 17 South Australian supermarkets in late 2016. We measured the presence of a star rating icon or an energy-only icon (which is an option of the HSR System for beverages).

RESULTS

The HSR System was observed on 35.3% of beverages, with only 6.8% displaying a star rating icon and 28.5% displaying an energy-only icon. When present (n = 52), star rating icons were almost universally 5 stars (94.2%), and of these, they were predominantly displayed on 100% juices (85.7%). Almost all beverages with a star rating contained high amounts of sugar; only three sugar-free beverages displayed a star rating.

CONCLUSION

We found that there are low uptake and limited use of the HSR System on beverages. SO WHAT?: The HSR System on beverages could better achieve its objectives if the energy-only icon were removed from the graphic options, the algorithm were adjusted so that 100% juices cannot display a 5-star rating, and the System were made mandatory.

Evaluation of Alignment between the Health Claims Nutrient Profiling Scoring Criterion (NPSC) and the Health Star Rating (HSR) Nutrient Profiling Models

In Australia, manufacturers can use two government-endorsed approaches to advertise product healthiness: the Health Star Rating (HSR) front-of-pack nutrition labelling system, and health claims. Related, but different, algorithms determine the star rating of a product (the HSR algorithm) and eligibility to display claims (the Nutrient Profiling Scoring Criterion (NPSC) algorithm). The objective of this study was to examine the agreement between the HSR and NPSC algorithms. Food composition information for 41,297 packaged products was extracted from The George Institute’s FoodSwitch database. HSR and the NPSC scores were calculated, and the proportion of products in each HSR category that were eligible to display a health claim under the NPSC was examined. The highest agreement between the HSR scoring algorithm and the NPSC threshold to determine eligibility to display a health claim was at the HSR cut-off of 3.5 stars (k = 0.83). Overall, 97.3% (n = 40,167) of products with star ratings of 3.5 or higher were also eligible to display a health claim, and 94.3% (n = 38,939) of products with star ratings less than 3.5 were ineligible to display a health claim. The food group with greatest divergence was “edible oils”, with 45% products (n = 342) with HSR >3.5, but 64% (n = 495) eligible to display a claim. Categories with large absolute numbers of products with HSR <3.5, but eligible to display a claim, were “yoghurts and yoghurt drinks” (335 products, 25.4%) and “soft drinks” (299 products, 29.7%). Categories with a large number of products with HSR ≥3.5, but ineligible to display a claim, were “milk” (260 products, 21.2%) and “nuts and seeds” (173 products, 19.7%). We conclude that there is good agreement between the HSR and the NPSC systems overall, but divergence in some food groups is likely to result in confusion for consumers, particularly where foods with low HSRs are eligible to display a health claim. The alignment of the NPSC and HSR scoring algorithms should be improved.

What is known about consumer nutrition environments in Australia? A scoping review of the literature

OBJECTIVE

Food environments can influence food selection and hold the potential to reduce obesity, non-communicable diseases and their inequalities. 'Consumer nutrition environments' describe what consumers encounter within a food retail outlet, including products, price, promotion and placement. This study aimed to summarize the attributes that have been examined in existing peer-reviewed studies of Australian consumer nutrition environments, identify knowledge gaps and provide recommendations for future research.

METHODS

A systematic search of peer-reviewed literature was conducted. Sixty-six studies that assessed an aspect of within-store consumer nutrition environments were included.

RESULTS

Most studies were published from 2011 onwards and were conducted in capital cities and in supermarkets. Studies assessed the domains of product (40/66), price (26/66), promotion (16/66) and placement (6/66). The most common research themes identified were assessment of the impact of area socioeconomic status (13/66), remoteness (9/66) and food outlet type (7/66) on healthy food prices; change in price of healthy foods (6/66); variety of healthy foods (5/66); and prevalence of unhealthy child-orientated products (5/66).

CONCLUSIONS

This scoping review identified a large number of knowledge gaps. Recommended priorities for researchers are as follows: (1) develop consistent observational methodology, (2) consider consumer nutrition environments in rural and remote communities, (3) develop an understanding of food service outlets, (4) build on existing evidence in all four domains of product, price, placement and promotion and (5) determine effective policy and store-based interventions to increase healthy food selection.

Uptake of Australia's Health Star Rating System

In June 2014, Australia and New Zealand adopted a voluntary front-of-pack nutrition labelling scheme in the form of the Health Star Rating (HSR) system. Our aim was to assess its uptake in Australia while a formal five-year review of the system is underway. Numbers and proportions of products eligible to carry a HSR were recorded each year between 2014 and 2017 as part of an annual survey of four large Australian retail outlets. Mean HSR values were determined for products that were and were not labelled with a HSR logo, and summary data presented overall, by HSR score, by major food category, and for leading manufacturers. Results show that uptake is increasing: HSR appeared on 4348/15,767 (28%) of eligible products in 2017 and has now appeared on 7922 products since implementation. Of those products displaying a HSR logo, more than three-quarters (76.4%) displayed a HSR of ≥3.0. Products displaying a HSR logo had a higher mean HSR (3.4), compared to products not displaying a HSR logo (2.7). Uptake was highest on convenience foods (44%), cereals (36.7%), and fruit and vegetable products (35.9%). More than 100 manufacturers were using the system, but retailers Coles, Woolworths and Aldi were together responsible for 54% of uptake. For all except Coles, Woolworths and Campbell Arnott’s, the mean HSR of products displaying a logo on pack was higher than products made by that manufacturer not showing a HSR logo. We conclude that to ensure the consistent and widespread uptake required for consumers to make informed food purchases, HSR should be made mandatory at the conclusion of the five-year review.

Examining the Nutritional Quality of Canadian Packaged Foods and Beverages with and without Nutrition Claims

Nutrient content claims, health claims, and front-of-pack symbols (henceforth referred to as “nutrition claims” in the present study) are often found on food labels in Canada. However, it is currently unknown whether foods and beverages (F&Bs) carrying nutrition claims have a more favourable nutritional profile than those without such claims. This study examined differences in the global nutritional quality, as determined by the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Nutrient Profiling Scoring Criterion (FSANZ-NPSC), of Canadian F&B bearing nutrition claims as compared to those without, as well as in their nutritional composition. Data (n = 15,184) was obtained from the University of Toronto 2013 Food Label Information Program. Forty-two percent of F&Bs carrying nutrition claims (n = 2930/6990) were found to be ineligible to carry claims based on the FSANZ-NPSC, in comparison to 66% of F&Bs without (n = 5401/8194, p < 0.001). Sugars and sweets, and miscellaneous products were the food categories with larger proportions of foods carrying nutrition claims not meeting the FSANZ-NPSC eligibility criteria. F&Bs with nutrition claims had fewer calories, less saturated fat, sodium, and sugar, and higher content of protein and fibre than comparable products without nutrition claims (p < 0.05 in all cases). In conclusion, nearly half of F&Bs carrying nutrition claims in Canada did not meet the FSANZ-NPSC threshold, although Canadian products carrying nutrition claims have an overall “healthier” profile than their counterparts without such claims.

Assessment of the Canadian Children's Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative's Uniform Nutrition Criteria for Restricting Children's Food and Beverage Marketing in Canada

Imposing governmental restrictions on the marketing of unhealthy foods and beverages to children is a demanded policy action since in Canada, this remains self-regulated by the voluntary, industry-led Canadian Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative (CAI) whose participants pledge to only advertise products that satisfy its Uniform Nutrition Criteria to children. This study evaluated the stringency of this nutrient profiling (NP) model for restricting child-directed food and beverage marketing in Canada. Data was obtained from the University of Toronto Food Label Information Program (FLIP) 2013 database, providing nutritional information for 15,342 packaged products which were evaluated using the CAI Uniform Nutrition Criteria. Products with child-directed packaging and those from CAI participating companies were identified. Of the n = 15,231 products analyzed, 25.3% would be allowed and 57.2% would be restricted from being marketed to children according to the CAI Criteria. Additionally, 17.5% of products lacked criteria by which to evaluate them. Child-directed products represented 4.9% of all products; however, 74.4% of these would be restricted from being marketed to children under CAI standards. Products from CAI participating companies represented 14.0% of all products and 33.3% of child-directed products; 69.5% of which would be restricted from being marketed to children. These results indicate that if the CAI was mandatory and covered a broader range of advertising platforms, their Uniform Nutrition Criteria would be relatively stringent and could effectively restrict children’s marketing in Canada.

Defining 'Unhealthy': A Systematic Analysis of Alignment between the Australian Dietary Guidelines and the Health Star Rating System

The Australian Dietary Guidelines (ADGs) and Health Star Rating (HSR) front-of-pack labelling system are two national interventions to promote healthier diets. Our aim was to assess the degree of alignment between the two policies. Methods: Nutrition information was extracted for 65,660 packaged foods available in The George Institute’s Australian FoodSwitch database. Products were classified ‘core’ or ‘discretionary’ based on the ADGs, and a HSR generated irrespective of whether currently displayed on pack. Apparent outliers were identified as those products classified ‘core’ that received HSR ≤ 2.0; and those classified ‘discretionary’ that received HSR ≥ 3.5. Nutrient cut-offs were applied to determine whether apparent outliers were ‘high in’ salt, total sugar or saturated fat, and outlier status thereby attributed to a failure of the ADGs or HSR algorithm. Results: 47,116 products (23,460 core; 23,656 discretionary) were included. Median (Q1, Q3) HSRs were 4.0 (3.0 to 4.5) for core and 2.0 (1.0 to 3.0) for discretionary products. Overall alignment was good: 86.6% of products received a HSR aligned with their ADG classification. Among 6324 products identified as apparent outliers, 5246 (83.0%) were ultimately determined to be ADG failures, largely caused by challenges in defining foods as ‘core’ or ‘discretionary’. In total, 1078 (17.0%) were determined to be true failures of the HSR algorithm. Conclusion: The scope of genuine misalignment between the ADGs and HSR algorithm is very small. We provide evidence-informed recommendations for strengthening both policies to more effectively guide Australians towards healthier choices.

Do Nutrient-Based Front-of-Pack Labelling Schemes Support or Undermine Food-Based Dietary Guideline Recommendations? Lessons from the Australian Health Star Rating System

Food-based Dietary Guidelines (FBDGs) promote healthy dietary patterns. Nutrient-based Front-of-Pack Labelling (NBFOPL) schemes rate the 'healthiness' of individual foods. This study aimed to investigate whether the Australian Health Star Rating (HSR) system aligns with the Australian Dietary Guidelines (ADGs). The Mintel Global New Products Database was searched for every new food product displaying a HSR entering the Australian marketplace from 27 June 2014 (HSR system endorsement) until 30 June 2017. Foods were categorised as either a five food group (FFG) food or 'discretionary' food in accordance with ADG recommendations. Ten percent (1269/12,108) of new food products displayed a HSR, of which 57% were FFG foods. The median number of 'health' stars displayed on discretionary foods (2.5; range: 0.5-5) was significantly lower (p < 0.05) than FFG foods (4.0; range: 0.5-5), although a high frequency of anomalies and overlap in the number of stars across the two food categories was observed, with 56.7% of discretionary foods displaying ≥2.5 stars. The HSR system is undermining the ADG recommendations through facilitating the marketing of discretionary foods. Adjusting the HSR's algorithm might correct certain technical flaws. However, supporting the ADGs requires reform of the HSR's design to demarcate the food source (FFG versus discretionary food) of a nutrient.

Incorporating Added Sugar Improves the Performance of the Health Star Rating Front-of-Pack Labelling System in Australia

Background: The Health Star Rating (HSR) is an interpretive front-of-pack labelling system that rates the overall nutritional profile of packaged foods. The algorithm underpinning the HSR includes total sugar content as one of the components. This has been criticised because intrinsic sugars naturally present in dairy, fruits, and vegetables are treated the same as sugars added during food processing. We assessed whether the HSR could better discriminate between core and discretionary foods by including added sugar in the underlying algorithm. Methods: Nutrition information was extracted for 34,135 packaged foods available in The George Institute’s Australian FoodSwitch database. Added sugar levels were imputed from food composition databases. Products were classified as ‘core’ or ‘discretionary’ based on the Australian Dietary Guidelines. The ability of each of the nutrients included in the HSR algorithm, as well as added sugar, to discriminate between core and discretionary foods was estimated using the area under the curve (AUC). Results: 15,965 core and 18,350 discretionary foods were included. Of these, 8230 (52%) core foods and 15,947 (87%) discretionary foods contained added sugar. Median (Q1, Q3) HSRs were 4.0 (3.0, 4.5) for core foods and 2.0 (1.0, 3.0) for discretionary foods. Median added sugar contents (g/100 g) were 3.3 (1.5, 5.5) for core foods and 14.6 (1.8, 37.2) for discretionary foods. Of all the nutrients used in the current HSR algorithm, total sugar had the greatest individual capacity to discriminate between core and discretionary foods; AUC 0.692 (0.686; 0.697). Added sugar alone achieved an AUC of 0.777 (0.772; 0.782). A model with all nutrients in the current HSR algorithm had an AUC of 0.817 (0.812; 0.821), which increased to 0.871 (0.867; 0.874) with inclusion of added sugar. Conclusion: The HSR nutrients discriminate well between core and discretionary packaged foods. However, discrimination was improved when added sugar was also included. These data argue for inclusion of added sugar in an updated HSR algorithm and declaration of added sugar as part of mandatory nutrient declarations.

Recent Advances in Phospholipids from Colostrum, Milk and Dairy By-Products

Milk is one of the most important foods for mammals, because it is the first form of feed providing energy, nutrients and immunological factors. In the last few years, milk lipids have attracted the attention of researchers due to the presence of several bioactive components in the lipid fraction. The lipid fraction of milk and dairy products contains several components of nutritional significance, such as ω-3 and ω-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids, CLA, short chain fatty acids, gangliosides and phospholipids. Prospective cohort evidence has shown that phospholipids play an important role in the human diet and reinforce the possible relationship between their consumption and prevention of several chronic diseases. Because of these potential benefits of phospholipids in the human diet, this review is focused on the recent advances in phospholipids from colostrum, milk and dairy by-products. Phospholipid composition, its main determination methods and the health activities of these compounds will be addressed.