File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: A nutrient profiling assessment of packaged foods using two star-based front-of-pack labels

TitleA nutrient profiling assessment of packaged foods using two star-based front-of-pack labels
Authors
KeywordsNutrient profiling
Dietary guidelines
Front-of-pack label
Health star rating
Institute of Medicine
Issue Date2015
Citation
Public Health Nutrition, 2015 How to Cite?
AbstractCopyright © The Authors 2015 Objective: To compare two front-of-pack nutrition labelling systems for the assessment of packaged foods and drinks with Australian Dietary Guidelines. Design: A cross-sectional nutrient profiling assessment. Food and drink products (n 20 225) were categorised into scoring levels using criteria for the Institute of Medicine (IOM) three-star system and the five-star Australian Health Star Rating (HSR). The effectiveness of these systems to categorise foods in accordance with Australian Dietary Guidelines was explored. Setting: The study was conducted in Australia, using a comprehensive food database. Subjects: Packaged food and drink products (n 20 225) available in Australia. Results: Using the IOM three-star system, the majority (55 %) of products scored the minimum 0 points and 25·5 % scored the maximum 3 points. Using HSR criteria, the greatest proportion of products (15·2 %) scored three-and-a-half stars from a possible five and 12·5 % received the lowest rating of a half-star. Very few products (4·1 %) scored five stars. Products considered core foods and drinks in Australian Dietary Guidelines received higher scores than discretionary foods in all food categories for both labelling systems (all P<0·05; Mann–Whitney U test), with the exception of fish products using IOM three-star criteria (P=0·603). The largest discrepancies in median score between the two systems were for the food categories edible oils, convenience foods and dairy. Conclusions: Both the IOM three-star and Australian HSR front-of-pack labelling systems rated packaged foods and drinks broadly in line with Australian Dietary Guidelines by assigning core foods higher ratings and discretionary foods lower ratings.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/222695
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 2.433
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.995

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorCarrad, Amy M.-
dc.contributor.authorLouie, Jimmy Chun Yu-
dc.contributor.authorYeatman, Heather R.-
dc.contributor.authorDunford, Elizabeth K.-
dc.contributor.authorNeal, Bruce C.-
dc.contributor.authorFlood, Victoria M.-
dc.date.accessioned2016-01-19T03:37:01Z-
dc.date.available2016-01-19T03:37:01Z-
dc.date.issued2015-
dc.identifier.citationPublic Health Nutrition, 2015-
dc.identifier.issn1368-9800-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/222695-
dc.description.abstractCopyright © The Authors 2015 Objective: To compare two front-of-pack nutrition labelling systems for the assessment of packaged foods and drinks with Australian Dietary Guidelines. Design: A cross-sectional nutrient profiling assessment. Food and drink products (n 20 225) were categorised into scoring levels using criteria for the Institute of Medicine (IOM) three-star system and the five-star Australian Health Star Rating (HSR). The effectiveness of these systems to categorise foods in accordance with Australian Dietary Guidelines was explored. Setting: The study was conducted in Australia, using a comprehensive food database. Subjects: Packaged food and drink products (n 20 225) available in Australia. Results: Using the IOM three-star system, the majority (55 %) of products scored the minimum 0 points and 25·5 % scored the maximum 3 points. Using HSR criteria, the greatest proportion of products (15·2 %) scored three-and-a-half stars from a possible five and 12·5 % received the lowest rating of a half-star. Very few products (4·1 %) scored five stars. Products considered core foods and drinks in Australian Dietary Guidelines received higher scores than discretionary foods in all food categories for both labelling systems (all P<0·05; Mann–Whitney U test), with the exception of fish products using IOM three-star criteria (P=0·603). The largest discrepancies in median score between the two systems were for the food categories edible oils, convenience foods and dairy. Conclusions: Both the IOM three-star and Australian HSR front-of-pack labelling systems rated packaged foods and drinks broadly in line with Australian Dietary Guidelines by assigning core foods higher ratings and discretionary foods lower ratings.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.relation.ispartofPublic Health Nutrition-
dc.subjectNutrient profiling-
dc.subjectDietary guidelines-
dc.subjectFront-of-pack label-
dc.subjectHealth star rating-
dc.subjectInstitute of Medicine-
dc.titleA nutrient profiling assessment of packaged foods using two star-based front-of-pack labels-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.description.natureLink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1017/S1368980015002748-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-84943767864-
dc.identifier.eissn1475-2727-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats