File Download
There are no files associated with this item.
Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
- Publisher Website: 10.1017/S1368980015002748
- Scopus: eid_2-s2.0-84943767864
- WOS: WOS:000398380500009
- Find via
Supplementary
- Citations:
- Appears in Collections:
Article: A nutrient profiling assessment of packaged foods using two star-based front-of-pack labels
Title | A nutrient profiling assessment of packaged foods using two star-based front-of-pack labels |
---|---|
Authors | |
Keywords | Nutrient profiling Dietary guidelines Front-of-pack label Health star rating Institute of Medicine |
Issue Date | 2015 |
Citation | Public Health Nutrition, 2015 How to Cite? |
Abstract | Copyright © 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 Identifier | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/222695 |
ISSN | 2021 Impact Factor: 4.539 2020 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.166 |
ISI Accession Number ID |
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Carrad, Amy M. | - |
dc.contributor.author | Louie, Jimmy Chun Yu | - |
dc.contributor.author | Yeatman, Heather R. | - |
dc.contributor.author | Dunford, Elizabeth K. | - |
dc.contributor.author | Neal, Bruce C. | - |
dc.contributor.author | Flood, Victoria M. | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2016-01-19T03:37:01Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2016-01-19T03:37:01Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2015 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | Public Health Nutrition, 2015 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 1368-9800 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/222695 | - |
dc.description.abstract | Copyright © 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.language | eng | - |
dc.relation.ispartof | Public Health Nutrition | - |
dc.subject | Nutrient profiling | - |
dc.subject | Dietary guidelines | - |
dc.subject | Front-of-pack label | - |
dc.subject | Health star rating | - |
dc.subject | Institute of Medicine | - |
dc.title | A nutrient profiling assessment of packaged foods using two star-based front-of-pack labels | - |
dc.type | Article | - |
dc.description.nature | link_to_OA_fulltext | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1017/S1368980015002748 | - |
dc.identifier.scopus | eid_2-s2.0-84943767864 | - |
dc.identifier.eissn | 1475-2727 | - |
dc.identifier.isi | WOS:000398380500009 | - |
dc.identifier.issnl | 1368-9800 | - |