Nutrient Profiling Scoring Criterion Research Articles

Criterion validation of nutrient profiling systems: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundNutrient profiling systems (NPSs) use algorithms to evaluate the nutritional quality of foods and beverages. Criterion validation, which assesses the relationship between consuming foods rated as healthier by the NPS and objective measures of health, is essential to ensure the accuracy of NPSs. ObjectiveWe examined and compared NPSs that have undergone criterion validity testing in relation to diet-related disease risk and risk markers. MethodsAcademic databases were searched for prospective cohort and cross-sectional studies published before November, 2022. NPSs were eligible if they incorporated multiple nutrients or food components using an algorithm to determine an overall summary indicator (e.g., a score or rank) for individual foods. Studies were included if they assessed the criterion validity of an eligible NPS. Validation evidence was first summarized in narrative form by NPS, with random effects meta-analysis where ≥2 prospective cohort studies assessed the same NPS and outcomes. ResultsOf 4519 publications identified, 29 describing 9 NPSs were included in the review. The Nutri-Score NPS was assessed as having substantial criterion validation evidence. Highest compared with lowest diet quality as defined by the Nutri-Score was associated with significantly lower risk of cardiovascular disease (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.59, 0.93; n = 6), cancer (HR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.59, 0.94; n = 5), all-cause mortality (HR: 0.74; 95% CI; 0.59, 0.91; n = 4) and change in body mass index (HR: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.50, 0.92; n = 3). The Food Standards Agency NPS, Health Star Rating, Nutrient Profiling Scoring Criterion, Food Compass, Overall Nutrition Quality Index, and the Nutrient-Rich Food Index were determined as having intermediate criterion validation evidence. Two other NPSs were determined as having limited criterion validation evidence. ConclusionsWe found limited criterion validation studies compared with the number of NPSs estimated to exist. Greater emphasis on conducting and reporting on criterion validation studies across varied contexts may improve the confidence in existing NPSs.

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

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

Comparison of nutrition profiling models for food marketing regulation.

Regulation on food marketing to children is a recommended response to childhood obesity rates. Policy requires country-relevant criteria to determine which foods are eligible to be advertised. This study aims to compare six nutrition profiling models for use in food marketing regulation in Australia. Advertisements on the outside of buses in five suburban Sydney transport hubs were photographed. Food and beverages advertised were analysed using the Health Star Rating; three models developed for food marketing regulation: the Australian Health Council guide and two World Health Organization models; the NOVA system; and the Nutrient Profiling Scoring Criterion used in Australian advertising industry codes. The proportion and types of products advertised on the buses that would be permitted by each of the six models were then analysed. A total of 603 advertisements were identified. Of those, over a quarter of the advertisements were for foods and beverages (n = 157, 26%) and 2.3% (n = 14) for alcohol. Among the food and non-alcoholic beverage advertisements, 84% were for unhealthy foods according to the Health Council guide. The Health Council guide would permit 31% unique foods to be advertised. The NOVA system would permit the least proportion of foods to be advertised (16%), while the Health Star Rating (40%), and Nutrient Profiling Scoring Criterion (38%) would permit the most. The Australian Health Council guide is the recommended model for food marketing regulation because it aligns with dietary guidelines by excluding discretionary foods from advertising. Australian governments can use the Health Council guide to develop policy in the National Obesity Strategy to protect children from marketing of unhealthy food.

Evaluating nutrition quality of packaged foods carrying claims and marketing techniques in Brazil using four nutrient profile models.

The present study aimed to evaluate the nutrient profile of packaged foods marketed in Brazil, giving insights into healthiness of the Brazilian supermarket packaged food environment, considering different food categories and levels of industrial food processing and presence of nutrition and health claims and marketing strategies. A cross-sectional survey was conducted on the labels of pre-packed foods marketed in a home-shopping website. A stratified random sample (n = 335) was obtained to be analysed by four nutrient profile models: Food Standards Australia New Zealand's Nutrient Profiling Scoring Criterion, UK Nutrient Profile from the Food Standards Agency, Nutrient profile model from Pan American Health Organization, and Nutrition Score from Unilever Food & Health Research (Unilever). Overall, the models shown agreement, besides some differences in the levels of approval. Ultra-processed foods were less healthy. Pass rates for products carrying nutrition and/or health claims have evidenced the presence of these claims may be indicative of slightly better nutritional quality. This did not apply for products with and without marketing techniques. These findings highlight the need for improvement of the supermarket packaged food environment in scenarios like Brazil by increasing efforts to reformulate products to make them healthier, together with appropriate food labelling regulation.

Nutritional Composition of Gluten-Free Labelled Foods in the Slovenian Food Supply.

The market of gluten-free (GF) foods has been expanding in recent years. GF foods are consumed not only by those with medical predispositions for avoiding gluten, but also by a specific segment of consumers, searching for “healthier” food choices. For these, such practices can present a serious limitation in the variability of food choices. Considering that GF foods are commonly perceived as healthier alternatives, there is a lack of knowledge on the nutritional profile and content of specific nutrients of GF-labelled foods compared to general food supply. A comparison of nutritional composition of GF/non-GF packed foods in the Slovenian food supply was conducted. The nutrient profiling scoring criterion (NPSC) and content of specific nutrients/energy was compared between GF-labelled and regular foods. The highest proportion of GF-labelled products were found in food categories, which typically do not contain gluten (Cheese imitates, Milk imitates, Yoghurt imitates, Canned fish and seafood and Processed meat). Significant differences in the nutrient profile between GF-labelled and regular products were found in Cakes, muffins and pastry, Crisps and snacks, Desserts and Milk imitates. GF-labelled foods often had lower protein and sugar content. Energy value was comparable in most categories and no significant differences in salt content were found, compared to non-GF products. In conclusion, GF-labelled foods will unlikely bring health benefits to those who are not medically required to follow GF diet. Public health initiatives should aim towards promotion of consuming non-processed foods and provision of reliable information about who is required to consume GF foods.

Prospective associations of the original Food Standards Agency nutrient profiling system and three variants with weight gain, overweight and obesity risk: results from the French NutriNet-Santé cohort

Nutrient profiling systems (NPS) are used to classify foods according to their nutritional composition. However, investigating their prospective associations with health is key to their validation. The study investigated the associations of the original Food Standards Agency (FSA)-NPS and three variants (Food Standards Australia New Zealand Nutrient Profiling Scoring Criterion (NPSC), Health Star Rating NPS and the French High Council of Public Health NPS (HCSP-NPS)), with weight status. Individual dietary indices based on each NPS at the food level were computed to characterise the dietary quality of 71403 French individuals from the NutriNet-Santé cohort. Associations of these indices with weight gain were assessed using mixed models and with overweight and obesity risks using Cox models. Participants with a higher dietary index (reflecting lower diet nutritional quality) were more likely to have a significant increase in BMI over time (β-coefficients positive) and an increased risk of overweight (hazard ratio (HR) T3 v. T1 = 1·27 (95 % CI 1·17, 1·37)) for the HCSP-Dietary Index, followed by the original FSA-Dietary Index (HR T3 v. T1 = 1·18 (95 % CI 1·09, 1·28)), the NPSC-Dietary Index (HR T3 v. T1 = 1·14 (95 % CI 1·06, 1·24)) and the Health Star Rating-Dietary Index (HR T3 v. T1 = 1·12 (95 % CI 1·04, 1·21)). Whilst differences were small, the HCSP-Dietary Index appeared to show significantly greater association with overweight risk. Overall, these results show the validity of NPS derived from the FSA-NPS, supporting their use in public policies for chronic disease prevention.

Prospective associations of four nutrient profiles with weigh gain, overweight and obesity risk

Abstract Background Nutrient Profiling Systems (NPSs), including the UK Food Standards Agency NPS and its variants are used to classify foods according to their nutritional composition for nutrition policies. The prospective validity of these NPSs requires however further investigation. The study investigates the associations of the original Food Standards Agency (FSA)-NPS and three variants - the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Nutrient Profiling Scoring Criterion (NPSC), the Health Star Rating (HSR) system NPS and the French NPS (HCSP-NPS) -, which are used as a basis for nutrition policies, with weight status. Methods Dietary indices based on each of the four investigated NPSs applied at the food level were computed at the individual level to characterize the diet quality of 71,178 French individuals from the NutriNet-Santé cohort. Associations of these Dietary Indices (DIs) (as tertiles) with weight gain were assessed using multivariable mixed models, and with overweight and obesity risks using multivariable Cox models. Results For the four NPSs, participants with a lower diet nutritional quality were more likely to have an increase in body mass index over time (median follow-up of 3.14 ± 2.76 years, beta coefficients positive, all p ≤ 0.0001), and an increased risk of overweight (HRT3vs.T1=1.27 [1.17-1.37] for the HCSP-DI, followed by the original FSA-DI with HRT3vs.T1=1.18 [1.09-1.28], the NPSC-DI with HRT3vs.T1=1.14 [1.06-1.24] and the HSR-DI, HRT3vs.T1=1.12 [1.04-1.21]). Whilst differences were small, the HCSP-DI appeared to show significantly greater association with risk of overweight compared to other NPS. Conclusions Less healthy diets defined using the Food Standards Agency-NPS and related systems were all associated with weight gain and overweight risk. Demonstrating this association with health outcomes is an important indicator of one validity dimension of NPSs and supports their use in public policies for the prevention of diet-related chronic diseases. Key messages Nutrient profile models of foods and beverages allow capturing the nutritional quality of diets and are prospectively associated with weight gain and obesity. The French NPS which underpins the front-of-pack Nutri-Score appeared to have a small but significant higher performance.

Impact of front-of-pack nutrition labels on consumer purchasing intentions: a randomized experiment in low- and middle-income Mexican adults

BackgroundFront-of-pack (FOP) nutrition labeling is a cost-effective strategy to help consumers make informed and healthier food choices. We aimed to investigate the effect of the FOP labels used in the Latin American region on consumers’ shopping intentions when prompted to make their choices with specific nutrients-to-limit in mind among low- and middle-income Mexican adults (> 18 y).MethodsIn this experimental study of an online simulated shopping situation participants (n = 2194) were randomly assigned to one of three labeling conditions: Guideline Daily Amounts (GDA), Multiple Traffic Lights (MTL), or red Warning Labels (WL). Participants were required to view a video explaining how to correctly interpret the assigned label. Primary outcomes were the overall nutritional quality (estimated using the Nutrient Profiling Scoring Criterion [NPSC] and NPSC baseline score) and mean energy and nutrient content of purchases. Secondary outcomes included shopping time variables. We also evaluated the impact of the labels across food categories (ready-made foods, dairy beverages, non-dairy beverages, salty snacks, and breakfast cereals) and sociodemographic subgroups.ResultsThe MTL and the WL led to a better overall nutritional quality of the shopping cart compared to the GDA (p < 0.05). According to the NPSC score, the WL led to a better nutritional quality across breakfast cereals and salty snacks compared to the GDA (p < 0.05); a similar effect was observed for the MTL among non-dairy beverages (p < 0.05). The MTL and the WL required shorter shopping times compared to GDA (p < 0.05). Across all labeling conditions, the nutritional quality of the shopping cart tended to be lower among those with low income, education and nutrition knowledge levels.ConclusionWL and MTL may foster healthier food choices in a faster way among low- and middle-income groups in Mexico. To produce an equitable impact among consumers of all socioeconomic strata, efforts beyond simply the inclusion of a communication campaign on how to use and interpret FOP labels will be required.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov. NCT04308408 Retrospectively registered March 16, 2020.

The nutritional content of children's breakfast cereals: a cross-sectional analysis of New Zealand, Australia, the UK, Canada and the USA.

To compare the Nutrition Information Panel (NIP) content, serving size and package size of children's ready-to-eat breakfast cereals (RTEC) available in five different Western countries. NIP label information was collected from RTEC available for purchase in major supermarket chains. Kruskal-Wallis, Mann-Whitney U and χ2 tests were applied to detect differences between countries on manufacturer-declared serving size, total energy (kJ), total protein, fat, saturated fat, carbohydrate, total sugar, Na and fibre content. The Nutrient Profiling Scoring Criterion (NPSC) was used to evaluate the number of products deemed to be 'unhealthy'. Supermarkets in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK and the USA. Children's breakfast cereals (n 636), including those with and without promotional characters. The majority of children's RTEC contained substantial levels of total sugar and differences were apparent between countries. Median sugar content per serving was higher in US cereals than all other countries (10·0 v. 7·7-9·1 g; P < 0·0001). Median fat and saturated fat content were lowest in Australia and New Zealand RTEC, while the Na content of RTEC was 60-120 % higher in the USA and Canada than in Australia and the UK (all P ≤ 0·01). Across all countries, there was a high proportion of RTEC marketed for children that had an unhealthy nutrient profile. Strategies and policies are needed to improve the nutrient value of RTEC for children, so they provide a breakfast food that meets nutrition guidelines.

Nutritional quality and reformulation of a selection of children's packaged foods available in Australian supermarkets: Has the Health Star Rating had an impact?

To examine whether the nutritional quality of children's packaged food products available in Australian supermarkets improved between 2013 and 2016, and whether any change could be detected in product reformulation since the introduction of the Health Star Rating (HSR) labelling scheme. Packaged food products marketed towards children were purchased from three Australian supermarkets in July 2013 (for a previous study) and July 2016. Nutritional quality was assessed using the Food Standards Australian New Zealand Nutrient Profiling Scoring Criterion. Comparisons were made between the nutrient composition and formulation of products (a) available in 2013 and 2016; and (b) with and without HSR graphics. Of the 252 children's packaged products analysed, 53.6% were classified as 'less healthy'. HSR-labelled products had a significantly higher proportion classified as 'healthy' than those without the HSR (χ2 = 26.5; P < 0.0001; 73.8% and 59.0%, respectively). Overall, 28.5% displayed the HSR; the majority (81.5%) having a rating of ≥3.0 stars. Cereal-based products had the greatest uptake of the scheme, with HSR-labelled products having significantly lower mean energy and saturated fat content (P < 0.01) and higher mean protein and fibre content (P < 0.001) than non-HSR products. Reformulation of products that were available in 2013 had occurred in 100% of HSR-labelled products in comparison to 61.3% of non-HSR labelled products. Despite the introduction of the HSR, more than half of children's packaged foods sampled are 'less healthy'. However, early indications suggest that the HSR may stimulate healthier product reformulation.

A free sugars daily value (DV) identifies more “less healthy” prepackaged foods and beverages than a total sugars DV

Regulatory changes in Canada will require food labels to have a benchmark [% Daily Value, %DV] for total sugars, based on 100 g/day, while US labels will require a %DV for added sugars, based on 50 g/day. The objective of this study was to compare two labelling policies, a total sugars DV (100 g/day) and a free sugars DV (50 g/day) on food labels. This cross-sectional analysis of the Food Label Information Program database focussed on top sources of total sugars intake in Canada (n = 6924 foods). Products were categorized as “less healthy” using two sets of criteria: a) free sugars levels exceeding the WHO guidelines (≥10% energy from free sugars); and b) exceeding healthfulness cut-offs of the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Nutrient Profiling Scoring Criterion (FSANZ-NPSC). The proportion of “less healthy” products with ≥15%DV (defined as “a lot” of sugars i.e. high in sugars, based on Health Canada's %DV labelling footnote and educational message for dietary guidance) were compared for each sugar labelling scenario. The free sugars DV showed better alignment with both methods for assessing “healthfulness” than the total sugars DV. The free sugars DV identified a greater proportion of “less healthy” foods with ≥15%DV, based on both the FSANZ-NPSC (70% vs. 45%, p < .0001) and WHO guidelines (82% vs. 55%, p < .0001); particularly in sweet baked goods, sugars and preserves, chocolate bars, confectionery, and frozen desserts categories. Compared to total sugars DV labelling, using a free sugars DV identified more “less healthy” foods. Findings support the adoption of free sugars labelling.

Healthfulness and nutritional composition of Canadian prepackaged foods with and without sugar claims

The objective of this study was to evaluate differences in calories, nutrient content, overall healthfulness, and use of sweetener ingredients between products with and without sugar claims. Consumers assume products with sugar claims are healthier and lower in calories. It is therefore important claims be found on comparatively healthier items. This study is a cross-sectional analysis of the University of Toronto's 2013 Food Label Database. Subcategories where at least 5% of products (and n ≥ 5) carried a sugar claim were included (n = 3048). Differences in median calorie content, nutrient content, and overall healthfulness, using the Food Standards Australia/New Zealand Nutrient Profiling Scoring criterion, between products with and without sugar claims, were determined. Proportion of products with and without claims that had excess free sugar levels (≥10% of calories from free sugar) and that contained sweeteners was also determined. Almost half (48%) of products with sugar claims contained excess free sugar, and a greater proportion contained sweeteners than products without such claims (30% vs 5%, χ2 = 338.6, p < 0.0001). Overall, products with sugar claims were "healthier" and had lower median calorie, free sugar, total sugar, and sodium contents than products without claims. At the subcategory level, reductions in free sugar contents were not always met with similar reductions in calorie contents. This study highlights concerns with regards to the nutritional composition of products bearing sugar claims. Findings can support educational messaging to assist consumer interpretation of sugar claims and can inform changes in nutrition policies, for example, permitting sugar claims only on products with calorie reductions and without excess free sugar.

Effects of interpretive nutrition labels on consumer food purchases: the Starlight randomized controlled trial ,

Background: Nutrition labeling is a prominent policy to promote healthy eating.Objective: We aimed to evaluate the effects of 2 interpretive nutrition labels compared with a noninterpretive label on consumer food purchases.Design: In this parallel-group randomized controlled trial, we enrolled household shoppers across New Zealand who owned smartphones and were aged ≥18 y. Eligible participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive either traffic light labels (TLLs), Health Star Rating labels (HSRs), or a control [nutrition information panel (NIP)]. Smartphone technology allowed participants to scan barcodes of packaged foods and to receive allocated labels on their smartphone screens. The primary outcome was the mean healthiness of all packaged food purchases over the 4-wk intervention period, which was measured by using the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Nutrient Profiling Scoring Criterion (NPSC).Results: Between October 2014 and November 2015, 1357 eligible shoppers were randomly assigned to TLL (n = 459), HSR (n = 443), or NIP (n = 455) labels. Overall difference in the mean transformed NPSC score for the TLL group compared with the NIP group was −0.20 (95% CI: −0.94, 0.54; P = 0.60). The corresponding difference for HSR compared with NIP was −0.60 (95% CI: −1.35, 0.15; P = 0.12). In an exploratory per-protocol analysis of participants who used the labeling intervention more often than average (n = 423, 31%), those who were assigned to TLL and HSR had significantly better NPSC scores [TLL compared with NIP: −1.33 (95% CI: −2.63, −0.04; P = 0.04); HSR compared with NIP: −1.70 (95% CI: −2.97, −0.43; P = 0.01)]. Shoppers who were randomly assigned to HSR and TLL also found the labels significantly more useful and easy to understand than the NIP (all P values <0.001).Conclusions: At the relatively low level of use observed in this trial, interpretive nutrition labels had no significant effect on food purchases. However, shoppers who used interpretive labels found them to be significantly more useful and easy to understand, and compared with frequent NIP users, frequent TLL and HSR users had significantly healthier food purchases. This trial was registered at the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=366446&isReview=true) as ACTRN12614000644662.

The nutritional quality of foods carrying health-related claims in Germany, The Netherlands, Spain, Slovenia and the United Kingdom.

Background/objectives: Compares the nutritional quality of pre-packaged foods carrying health-related claims with foods that do not carry health-related claims. Subjects/methods: Cross-sectional survey of pre-packaged foods available in Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, Slovenia, and the UK in 2013. 2034 foods were randomly sampled from three food store types (a supermarket, a neighbourhood store and a discounter). Nutritional information was taken from nutrient declarations present on food labels and assessed through a comparison of mean levels, regression analyses, and the application of a nutrient profile model currently used to regulate health claims in Australia and New Zealand, (Food Standards Australia New Zealand’s Nutrient Profiling Scoring Criterion, FSANZ NPSC). Results: Foods carrying health claims had, on average, lower levels, per 100g, of the following nutrients; energy – 29.3kcal (p < 0.05), protein – 1.2g (p < 0.01), total sugars – 3.1g (p < 0.05), saturated fat – 2.4g (p<0.001), and sodium - 842mg (p<0.001), and higher levels of fibre – 0.8g (p<0.001). A similar pattern was observed for foods carrying nutrition claims. 43% (CI 41%, 45%) of foods passed the FSANZ NPSC, with foods carrying health claims more likely to pass (70%, CI 64%, 76%) than foods carrying nutrition claims (61%, CI 57%, 66%) or foods that didn’t carry either type of claim 36% (CI 34%, 38%) Conclusions: Foods carrying health-related claims have marginally better nutrition profiles than those that do not carry claims; these differences would be increased if the FSANZ NPSC was used to regulate health-related claims. It is unclear whether these relatively small differences have significant impacts on health.

Nutrition and health claims on healthy and less-healthy packaged food products in New Zealand.

Nutrition and health claims are displayed to influence consumers' food choices. This study assessed the extent and nature of nutrition and health claims on the front-of-pack of 'healthy' and 'less-healthy' packaged foods in New Zealand. Foods from eight categories, for which consumption may affect the risk of obesity and diet-related chronic diseases, were selected from the 2014 Nutritrack database. The internationally standardised International Network for Food and Obesity/Non-Communicable Diseases Research, Monitoring and Action Support (INFORMAS) taxonomy was used to classify claims on packages. The Nutrient Profiling Scoring Criterion (NPSC) was used to classify products as 'healthy' or 'less healthy'. In total, 7526 products were included, with 47 % (n 3557) classified as 'healthy'. More than one-third of products displayed at least one nutrition claim and 15 % featured at least one health claim on the front-of-pack. Claims were found on one-third of 'less-healthy' products; 26 % of those products displayed nutrition claims and 7 % featured health claims. About 45 % of 'healthy' products displayed nutrition claims and 23 % featured health claims. Out of 7058 individual claims, the majority (69 %) were found on 'healthy' products. Cereals displayed the greatest proportion of nutrition and health claims (1503 claims on 564 products), of which one-third were displayed on 'less-healthy' cereals. Such claims could be misleading consumers' perceptions of nutritional quality of foods. It needs to be explored how current regulations on nutrition and health claims in New Zealand could be further strengthened (e.g. using the NPSC for nutrition claims, including general health claims as per the INFORMAS taxonomy) to ensure consumers are protected and not misled.

The nutritional quality of foods carrying health-related claims in Germany, The Netherlands, Spain, Slovenia and the United Kingdom.

Backgroung/Objectives:Compares the nutritional quality of pre-packaged foods carrying health-related claims with foods that do not carry health-related claims.Subject/Methods:Cross-sectional survey of pre-packaged foods available in Germany, The Netherlands, Spain, Slovenia and the United Kingdom in 2013. A total of 2034 foods were randomly sampled from three food store types (a supermarket, a neighbourhood store and a discounter). Nutritional information was taken from nutrient declarations present on food labels and assessed through a comparison of mean levels, regression analyses and the application of a nutrient profile model currently used to regulate health claims in Australia and New Zealand (Food Standards Australia New Zealand's Nutrient Profiling Scoring Criterion, FSANZ NPSC).Results:Foods carrying health claims had, on average, lower levels, per 100 g, of the following nutrients, energy—29.3 kcal (P<0.05), protein—1.2 g (P<0.01), total sugars—3.1 g (P<0.05), saturated fat—2.4 g (P<0.001), and sodium—842 mg (P<0.001), and higher levels of fibre—0.8 g (P<0.001). A similar pattern was observed for foods carrying nutrition claims. Forty-three percent (confidence interval (CI) 41%, 45%) of foods passed the FSANZ NPSC, with foods carrying health claims more likely to pass (70%, CI 64%, 76%) than foods carrying nutrition claims (61%, CI 57%, 66%) or foods that did not carry either type of claim (36%, CI 34%, 38%).Conclusions:Foods carrying health-related claims have marginally better nutrition profiles than those that do not carry claims; these differences would be increased if the FSANZ NPSC was used to regulate health-related claims. It is unclear whether these relatively small differences have significant impacts on health.

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

To determine whether the ratings from the Australian front-of-pack labelling scheme, Health Star Rating (HSR), and the ability to carry health claims using the Nutrient Profiling Scoring Criterion (NPSC) for core dairy products promote foods consistent with the Australian Dietary Guidelines. The Australian nutrient profiling model used for assessing eligibility for health claims was compared with the nutrient profiling model underpinning the HSR system to determine their agreement when assessing dairy products. Agreement between the extent to which products met nutrient profiling criteria and scored three stars or over using the HSR calculator was determined using Cohen's kappa tests. The four largest supermarket chains in Sydney, Australia. All available products in the milk, hard cheese, soft cheese and yoghurt categories (n 1363) were surveyed in March-May 2014. Nutrition composition and ingredients lists were recorded for each product. There was 'good' agreement between NPSC and HSR overall (κ=0·78; 95 % CI 0·75, 0·81; P<0·001), for hard cheeses (κ=0·72; 95 % CI 0·65, 0·79; P<0·001) and yoghurt (κ=0·79; 95 % CI 0·73, 0·86; P<0·001). There was 'fair' agreement for milk (κ=0·33; 95 % CI 0·20, 0·45; P<0·001) and 'very good' agreement for soft cheese (κ=0·84; 95 % CI 0·75, 0·92; P<0·001). Generally, products tended to have HSR consistent with other products of a similar type within their categories. For dairy products, the HSR scheme largely aligned with the NPSC used for determining eligibility for health claims. Both systems appeared be consistent with the Australian Dietary Guidelines for dairy products, with lower-fat products rating higher.