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

Consumer perceptions of nutrient content claims in Australia: A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Nutrition and health claims influence consumer purchasing. Claims include content claims, which refer to the amount of a nutrient contained in a product, and health claims, which refer to health benefits of foods or nutrients in a product. Products that display a health claim must meet the Nutrient Profiling Scoring Criterion (NPSC). The present study aimed to explore consumer perceptions of content claims used on food and beverage labelling and advertisements.

METHODS

Semi-structured focus groups were conducted with Australian consumers. Analysis involved an inductive, reflexive approach to thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Six focus groups involving 26 participants were conducted. Four main interconnected themes were generated: (1) complex factors influence food choice; (2) content claim scepticism; (3) the difference between content and health claims is unclear; and (4) the regulation of content claims is not common knowledge. Content claims were used, although generally viewed through a lens of scepticism and mistrust, and seen as a promotional tool for the food industry. Product complexity appeared to increase content claim use as a result of consumer uncertainty of the content of complex products, such as ultraprocessed foods. Most participants were aware that content and health claims were in some way regulated. Overall, they did not know further detail, including the relevant regulatory body.

CONCLUSIONS

For content claims to support the consumer they need to be accurate and their use limited to healthier foods. This can be achieved by requiring products with content claims to meet NPSC thresholds, as required for products making health claims.

Nutrition and Health Claims: Consumer Use and Evolving Regulation

Purpose of Review

The value of nutrition and health claims (N&HC) depends on how consumers use them and the regulatory framework that enables them. This paper aims to explore the impact of claims on consumer behaviour and identify evolving regulatory challenges, using the Australian experience as a reference point.

Recent Findings

N&HC can influence consumer food purchasing and consumption, but how consumers interpret and act on specific claims is less well understood, and regulatory frameworks are evolving. In the last 10 years, changes to the Australian regulatory framework have exposed greater opportunities for promoting foods, albeit with challenges regarding self-substantiation of claims.

Summary

N&HC can play a significant role in driving consumer choices towards a healthier food supply. The Australian experience demonstrates how N&HC can continue to evolve, reflecting developments in methodologies and a fundamental appreciation of the relationship between food and health.

"What are we doing to our babies' teeth?" Barriers to establishing oral health practices for Indigenous children in South Australia

BACKGROUND

During the 1970s, optimal oral health was experienced more frequently amongst Indigenous children in Australia than their non-Indigenous counterparts. As a result of public health interventions targeting oral disease, oral health has improved for most children; however, Indigenous children today experience oral disease at alarmingly high rates. A history of colonisation, assimilation, racism and cultural annihilation has had profound impacts on oral health for Indigenous peoples; compounded by environmental dispossession and a shift from traditional diets to one of processed and nutrient-poor foods, often high in sugar.

METHODS

This project aimed to identify factors related to the increased occurrence of caries in Indigenous children. Using purposive sampling from the larger project, this paper thematically analyses 327 motivational interviews to explore current barriers impeding parental efforts to establish oral health and nutrition practices for Indigenous children. Representation of socioeconomic positions of families were compared across themes, as based on maternal age, employment, residency and number of children in care.

RESULTS

Findings resulted in a conceptual model of barriers that exist across knowledge, social, structural and parental factors. Major thematic results include: social consumption of processed foods, busy households, misleading nutrition marketing, sugar cravings and lack of oral health and nutrition knowledge.

CONCLUSION

A discussion of the findings results in the following recommendations increased oral health promotion efforts in non-metropolitan areas; utilisation of community experiences in creating strategies that encourage oral health and nutrition knowledge; and the extension of oral health initiatives and future research to include all family members. Trial registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry ACTRN12611000111976; registered 01/02/2011.

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

Nutrition is recognized as one of the leading factors influencing the growing incidence of noncommunicable diseases. Despite society experiencing a global rise in obesity, specific populations remain at risk of nutrient deficiencies. The food industry can use health claims to inform consumers about the health benefits of foods through labeling and the broader promotion of specific food products. As health claims are carefully regulated in many countries, their use is limited due to considerable investments required to fulfill the regulatory requirement. Although health claims represent a driving force for innovation in the food industry, the risk of misleading of consumers need to be avoided. The health claim scientific substantiation process must be efficient and transparent in order to meet the needs of companies in the global market, but should be based on strong scientific evidence and plausible mechanisms of actions, to ensure highest level of consumer protection. The objective of this review is to compare the possibilities for using health claims on foods in the European Union, the USA, Canada, and Australia and New Zealand. In particular, we focused on differences in the classification of claims, on the scientific substantiation processes and requirements for health claims use on foods in the selected regions. Reduction of disease risk (RDR) claims are associated with relatively similar procedures and conditions for use, whereas several notable differences were identified for other types of claims. In all cases, RDR claims must be approved prior their introduction to the market, and only a few such claims have been authorized. Much greater differences were observed concerning other types of claims.