Changes in household food grocery shopping patterns in Melbourne, Australia during COVID-19 restrictions in 2020.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of COVID-19 restrictions in Melbourne, 2020, on food grocery purchases. METHODS: Grocery purchase data for 2019 and 2020 were accessed for 1,413 Melbourne households (NielsenIQ Homescan Consumer Panel) and linked to a nutrition composition database (FoodSwitch). RESULTS: Per capita expenditure and dietary energy from groceries increased by 21.2% and 17.7%, respectively, during lockdowns, with marginally larger increases in expenditure and energy purchases from unhealthy products than healthy products (21.9% and 18.0% v 20.2% and 17.5%). The most socioeconomically disadvantaged households spent the least on but purchased the most energy from unhealthy products during lockdowns ($108 and 109MJ per capita per month), with the inverse found for the most advantaged households ($121 and 102MJ per capita per month). An increase in the overall proportion of total expenditure from unhealthy products during lockdowns was identified (+0.7%); however, there was no evidence of a difference in the proportion of energy purchased from unhealthy products. For most quintiles of household socioeconomic disadvantage/advantage, there were no statistically significant changes in the contribution of unhealthy products to total expenditure and energy purchases. CONCLUSIONS: There was no substantial deterioration in the healthiness of grocery purchases during COVID-19 lockdowns in Melbourne. However, any additional purchases of unhealthy products are a concern. Further research on other sources of foods and drinks is also required to ascertain impacts on broader dietary patterns. IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH: The increase in energy purchased may have implications for overweight and obesity as a risk factor for COVID-19 and chronic diseases. Governments and retailers may need to consider measures to encourage improved diet quality during future crises.

Socio-economic difference in purchases of ultra-processed foods in Australia: an analysis of a nationally representative household grocery purchasing panel.

BACKGROUND: Consumption of ultra-processed foods is associated with increased risk of obesity and non-communicable diseases. Little is known about current patterns of ultra-processed foods intake in Australia. The aim of this study was to examine the amount and type of ultra-processed foods purchased by Australian households in 2019 and determine whether purchases differed by socio-economic status (SES). We also assessed whether purchases of ultra-processed foods changed between 2015 and 2019.  METHODS: We used grocery purchase data from a nationally representative consumer panel in Australia to assess packaged and unpackaged grocery purchases that were brought home between 2015 to 2019. Ultra-processed foods were identified according to the NOVA system, which classifies foods according to the nature, extent and purpose of industrial food processing. Purchases of ultra-processed foods were calculated per capita, using two outcomes: grams/day and percent of total energy. The top food categories contributing to purchases of ultra-processed foods in 2019 were identified, and differences in ultra-processed food purchases by SES (Index of Relative Social Advantage and Disadvantage) were assessed using survey-weighted linear regression. Changes in purchases of ultra-processed foods between 2015 to 2019 were examined overall and by SES using mixed linear models. RESULTS: In 2019, the mean ± SD total grocery purchases made by Australian households was 881.1 ± 511.9 g/d per capita. Of this, 424.2 ± 319.0 g/d per capita was attributable to purchases of ultra-processed foods, which represented 56.4% of total energy purchased. The largest food categories contributing to total energy purchased included mass-produced, packaged breads (8.2% of total energy purchased), chocolate and sweets (5.7%), biscuits and crackers (5.7%) and ice-cream and edible ices (4.3%). In 2019, purchases of ultra-processed foods were significantly higher for the lowest SES households compared to all other SES quintiles (P < 0.001). There were no major changes in purchases of ultra-processed foods overall or by SES over the five-year period. CONCLUSIONS: Between 2015 and 2019, ultra-processed foods have consistently made up the majority of groceries purchased by Australians, particularly for the lowest SES households. Policies that reduce ultra-processed food consumption may reduce diet-related health inequalities.

Estimating the potential impact of the Australian government's reformulation targets on household sugar purchases.

BACKGROUND: Countries around the world are putting in place sugar reformulation targets for packaged foods to reduce excess sugar consumption. The Australian government released its voluntary sugar reformulation targets for nine food categories in 2020. We estimated the potential impact of these targets on household sugar purchases and examined differences by income. For comparison, we also modelled the potential impact of the UK sugar reduction targets on per capita sugar purchases as the UK has one of the most comprehensive sugar reduction strategies in the world. METHODS: Grocery purchase data from a nationally representative consumer panel (n=7,188) in Australia was linked with a large database (FoodSwitch) with product-specific sugar content information for packaged foods (n=25,261); both datasets were collected in 2018. Potential reductions in per capita sugar purchases were calculated overall and by food category. Differences in sugar reduction across income level were assessed by analysis of variance. RESULTS: In 2018, the total sugar acquired from packaged food and beverage purchases consumed at-home was 56.1 g/day per capita. Australia's voluntary reformulation targets for sugar covered 2,471/25,261 (9.8%) unique products in the FoodSwitch dataset. Under the scenario that all food companies adhered to the voluntary targets, sugar purchases were estimated to be reduced by 0.9 g/day per capita, which represents a 1.5% reduction in sugar purchased from packaged foods. However, if Australia adopted the UK targets, over twice as many products would be covered (n=4,667), and this would result in a more than four times greater reduction in sugar purchases (4.1 g/day per capita). It was also estimated that if all food companies complied with Australia's voluntary sugar targets, reductions to sugar would be slightly greater in low-income households compared with high-income households by 0.3 g/day (95%CI 0.2 - 0.4 g/day, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Sugar-reduction policies have the potential to substantially reduce population sugar consumption and may help to reduce health inequalities related to excess sugar consumption. However, the current reformulation targets in Australia are estimated to achieve only a small reduction to sugar intakes, particularly in comparison to the UK's sugar reduction program.

Investigating sex differences in the accuracy of dietary assessment methods to measure energy intake in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: To inform the interpretation of dietary data in the context of sex differences in diet-disease relations, it is important to understand whether there are any sex differences in accuracy of dietary reporting. OBJECTIVE: To quantify sex differences in self-reported total energy intake (TEI) compared with a reference measure of total energy expenditure (TEE). METHODS: Six electronic databases were systematically searched for published original research articles between 1980 and April 2020. Studies were included if they were conducted in adult populations with measures for both females and males of self-reported TEI and TEE from doubly labeled water (DLW). Studies were screened and quality assessed independently by 2 authors. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted to pool the mean differences between TEI and TEE for, and between, females and males, by method of dietary assessment. RESULTS: From 1313 identified studies, 31 met the inclusion criteria. The studies collectively included information on 4518 individuals (54% females). Dietary assessment methods included 24-h recalls (n = 12, 2 with supplemental photos of food items consumed), estimated food records (EFRs; n = 11), FFQs (n = 10), weighed food records (WFRs, n = 5), and diet histories (n = 2). Meta-analyses identified underestimation of TEI by females and males, ranging from -1318 kJ/d (95% CI: -1967, -669) for FFQ to -2650 kJ/d (95% CI: -3492, -1807) for 24-h recalls for females, and from -1764 kJ/d (95% CI: -2285, -1242) for FFQ to -3438 kJ/d (95% CI: -5382, -1494) for WFR for males. There was no difference in the level of underestimation by sex, except when using EFR, for which males underestimated energy intake more than females (by 590 kJ/d, 95% CI: 35, 1,146). CONCLUSION: Substantial underestimation of TEI across a range of dietary assessment methods was identified, similar by sex. These underestimations should be considered when assessing TEI and interpreting diet-disease relations.

Gender differences in the accuracy of dietary assessment methods to measure energy intake in adults: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Diet is an important modifiable risk factor for many chronic diseases. Measurement of dietary intake usually relies on self-report, subject to multiple biases. There is a need to understand gender differences in the self-report of dietary intake and the implications of any differences in targeting nutrition interventions. Literature in this area is limited and it is currently unknown whether self-report dietary assessment methods are equally accurate for women and men. The aim of this systematic review is to determine whether there are differences by gender in reporting energy intake compared with a reference measure of total energy expenditure. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A comprehensive search of published original research studies will be performed in MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane library. Original research studies will be included if they were conducted in free-living/unhospitalised adults and included a measure for both women and men of (a) self-reported energy intake and (b) total energy expenditure by doubly labelled water. One author will conduct the electronic database searches, two authors will independently screen studies, conduct a quality appraisal of the included studies using standardised tools and extract data. If further information is needed, then study authors will be contacted. If appropriate, a random-effects meta-analysis will be conducted, with inverse probability weighting, to quantify differences in the mean difference in agreement between reported energy intake and measured energy expenditure between women and men, by self-report assessment method. Subgroup analyses will be conducted by participant factors, geographical factors and study quality. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: All data used will be from published primary research studies or deidentified results provided at the discretion of any study authors that we contact. We will submit our findings to a peer-reviewed scientific journal and will disseminate results through presentations at international scientific conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019131715.

Dietary Assessment Methods in Military and Veteran Populations: A Scoping Review.

Optimal dietary intake is important for the health and physical performance of military personnel. For military veterans, the complex nature of transition into civilian life and sub-optimal dietary intake is a leading contributor to the increased burden of disease. A scoping review was undertaken to determine what is known about the assessment and reporting of dietary intakes within both military and veteran populations. In addition, this review determines if studies reporting on the dietary intake of military personnel or veterans include comparisons with dietary guidelines. Six databases were searched to identify papers published from the database inception to April 2019. Observational and intervention studies were searched to identify if they assessed and reported whole dietary intake data, reported data exclusively for a military or veteran population, and included only healthy populations. A total of 89 studies were included. The majority of studies used one dietary assessment method (n = 76, 85%) with fewer using multiple methods (n = 13, 15%). The most frequent methodology used was food frequency questionnaires (FFQ) (n = 40, 45%) followed by 24-hour recalls (n = 8, 9%) and food records (n = 8, 9%). The main dietary outcomes reported were macronutrients: carbohydrate, protein, fat, and alcohol (n = 66, 74%) with total energy intake reported in n = 59 (66%). Fifty four (61%) studies reported a comparison with country-specific dietary guidelines and 14 (16%) reported a comparison with the country-specific military guidelines. In conclusion, dietary intake in military settings is most commonly assessed via FFQs and 24-hour recalls. Dietary intake reporting is mainly focused around intakes of energy and macronutrients. Most studies compare against dietary guidelines, however, comparison to specific military dietary guidelines is minimal.