Aligning front-of-pack labelling with dietary guidelines: including whole grains in the health star rating.

PURPOSE: Front-of-pack labelling systems, such as the Health Star Rating (HSR), aim to aid healthy consumer dietary choices and complement national dietary guidelines. Dietary guidelines aim to be holistic by extending beyond the individual nutrients of food, including other food components that indicate diet quality, including whole grains. We aimed to test the feasibility of including whole grains in the HSR algorithm, to better inform dietary guidance in Australia coherent with existing dietary guidelines. METHODS: We assigned whole-grain points as a favourable component of the HSR based on the whole-grain content of foods. We compared the original, and three modified HSR algorithms (including altered thresholds for star ratings) using independent-samples median tests. Finally, we used Spearman's correlation to measure the strength of association between an item's nutritional composition (all components of the HSR algorithm including all favourable and unfavourable components) and their HSR using each algorithm. RESULTS: Up to 10 points were added for products with ≥ 50% whole-grain content, with no points for products with < 25%. Adjusting the HSR score cut-off by 3 points for grain products created the greatest difference in median HSR between refined and whole-grain items (up to 2 stars difference), compared to the original algorithm (a maximum of 1 star). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of whole grains to the HSR algorithm improved the differentiation of refined and whole-grain items, and therefore better aligned with dietary guidelines. Holistic approaches to food guidance systems are required to provide consistent messaging and inform positive food choices.

Cross-sectional comparisons of dietary indexes underlying nutrition labels: nutri-score, Canadian 'high in' labels and Diabetes Canada Clinical Practices (DCCP).

PURPOSE: To assess the cross-sectional association between dietary indexes (DI) that underlie, respectively, the Nutri-score (NS), the proposed Canadian 'High In' Symbol (CHIL) and the Diabetes Canada Clinical Practice Guidelines (DCCP) with food consumption, nutrient intakes and metabolic markers. METHODS: 1836 adults (18-74 years) participating in the representative ESTEBAN study, conducted in mainland France in 2014-2016, were included in the analysis. Food consumption was assessed with three repeated 24 h dietary recalls. Anthropometric measurements and biomarkers of metabolic risk (cholesterol-total, LDL (Low Density Lipoprotein), HDL (High Density Lipoprotein)-triglycerides, glucose) were obtained through a clinical examination and fasting blood draw. The DI were assessed for their association with food consumption, dietary intakes and metabolic biomarkers as quintiles and continuous variables using multi-adjusted linear regression. Heathier diets were assigned to lower scores. RESULTS: Correlations between scores ranged from + 0.62 between CHIL-DI and NS-DI to + 0.75 between NS-DI and DCCP-DI. All DIs discriminated individuals according to the nutritional quality of their diets through food consumption and nutrient intakes (healthier diets were associated with lower intakes of energy, added sugars and saturated fat; and with higher intakes of fiber, vitamins and minerals). NS-DI was associated with blood glucose (adjusted mean in Q1 = 5 vs. Q5 = 5.46 mmol/dl, ptrend = 0.001) and DCCP-DI was associated with BMI (Q1 = 24.8 kg/m2 vs. Q5 = 25.8 kg/m2, ptrend = 0.025), while CHIL showed no significant association with any anthropometric measures or biomarkers. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides elements supporting the validity of the nutrient profiling systems underlying front-of-package nutrition labellings (FOPLs) to characterize the healthiness of diets.

Impact of front-of-pack nutrition labelling in consumer understanding and use across socio-economic status: A systematic review.

An unhealthy diet is a leading contributor to the increasing burden of overweight and obesity. Front-of-pack labelling (FOPL) is being recognized as a policy strategy to promote healthier choices yet there is limited evaluation of FOPL to suggest if it is effective for all population subgroups. This systematic review aimed to assess the impact of FOPL on consumer understanding and usage across socio-economic gradients. Six electronic databases were searched through a systematic search process using key terms for FOPL and socioeconomic status (SES) from 2011 to March 2022 to include studies evaluating the effectiveness of FOPL. A narrative synthesis was conducted and the results were assessed according to the effects of FOPL on consumer awareness, understanding, and usage across SES. The review included 36 articles. In general, people of all SES groups were aware of and more likely to pay attention towards FOPL than the nutrition information panel provided on the back of the package. However, the understanding and usage were relatively poor, particularly in low SES groups. While studies conducted in low SES populations suggest FOPL increased the purchase intention of healthy products, the stratified analysis across SES showed less beneficial effects in low SES individuals. The findings highlight simplified and easy-to-understand FOPLs such as Nutri-score and traffic light labelling are likely to be effective for all populations including low SES groups. Overall, the review suggests FOPLs are more visible than the nutrition information panel and may guide healthier food choices for people of all SES backgrounds. It is unclear whether FOPL influences actual purchasing and food intake as there are insufficient studies comparing the effects among higher and lower SES populations.

Eligibility and Prevalence of the American Heart Association Heart Check Certification Program in the US Packaged Food and Beverage Supply: A Cross-Sectional Study.

Objective: Consumers in the US make choices within a food supply dominated by processed packaged foods and beverage products. Front-of-package nutrition labels (FOPL) equip consumers to make healthier choices, but further evaluation and regulation regarding FOPL format, scope, and display have been recommended by the World Health Organization. As a leader in consumer FOPL guidance, the American Heart Association's (AHA) Heart Check programme certifies food companies seeking to add an AHA Heart Check logo as a FOPL for qualifying heart healthy products. A cross-sectional assessment of the AHA Heart Check Standard Certification was conducted within the US packaged food and beverage supply to assess the eligibility and prevalence of the programme as a FOPL. Methods: Data were derived from Label Insight's Open Data initiative, which is the largest publicly-available US branded food composition database. The proportions of products that were certified and eligible to be certified for the Standard Certification were reported by nutrient attributes, grocery aisles and food brands. Results: Among 153,453 products examined, fewer than 1% exhibited the Heart Check certification on their label. Among products that were not Heart Check certified,13.8% were eligible for Standard Certification. The most common reason for ineligibility was the saturated fat content (52%), followed by total fat content (47%) and sodium content (47%). Heart Check certification and eligibility differed substantially across grocery aisle categories. Conclusions: The abundance of unhealthy products in the US packaged food and beverage supply and absence of harmonized FOPL policies suggest the need for FOPL like the Heart Check label to promote adherence to healthy diets. There are opportunities for food manufacturers and the AHA to certify more heart healthy foods and beverages. However, more consistent criteria and transparent labelling could enhance Heart Check certification to facilitate consumers' ability to make more informed and healthful purchases.

Are foods 'healthy' or 'healthier'? Front-of-pack labelling and the concept of healthiness applied to foods.

While food-based dietary guidelines have been widely disseminated for decades to improve nutritional knowledge in the population about healthy diets, more recent interventions such as front-of-pack labelling have made the differences between the two approaches apparent. While food-based dietary guidelines provide the overarching framework and benchmarks for a healthy diet, based on the current knowledge of the associations between various dietary components and health outcomes, front-of-pack labelling provides guidance to select a specific food, either within a food group or among similar foods belonging to various brands. Labelling foods as 'healthy' or 'unhealthy' raises multiple questions on the criteria used to define the terms and the implications of assigning an absolute healthiness value to an individual food in the context of complex diets. Gradual systems may provide more relative assessments and avoid dichotomisation. The present article presents the inherent differences and the complementarity of food-based dietary guidelines and food choice guidance in the context of food labelling.

Evaluating the potential implications of canadian front-of-pack labelling regulations in generic and branded food composition databases.

BACKGROUND: Canada proposed the implementation of mandatory front-of-pack (FOP) labelling regulations, whereby foods meeting or exceeding thresholds for nutrients-of-concern (i.e., total sugars, saturated fat, sodium) must display a 'high-in' FOP symbol (FOP). The objective of the study was to evaluate the potential implications of the proposed regulations using Canadian generic and branded food composition databases. METHODS: A generic food composition database of products consumed by Canadians, Canadian Nutrient File (CNF) 2015 (n = 3,677), and a branded food composition database of packaged foods and beverages, Food Label Information Program (FLIP) 2017 (n = 17,521), were used to evaluate the number and proportion of foods that would display a FOP symbol based on the details of the proposed FOP labelling regulations published in 2018. RESULTS: Overall, 35.5% (n = 1,306) of products in CNF 2015 and 63.9% (n = 11,193) of products in FLIP 2017 would display a FOP symbol for at least one nutrient-of-concern exceeding proposed thresholds. Soups, Combination Dishes, and Desserts categories in CNF 2015 and Combination dishes, Soups, and Meats categories in FLIP 2017 would have the highest proportion of products that would display a FOP symbol. Although displaying a FOP symbol for one nutrient was most common in both CNF 2015 (n = 992; 27.0%) and FLIP 2017 (n = 7,296, 41.6%), the number (i.e., 0-3) and type (i.e., saturated fat, sodium, total sugar) of nutrients displayed varied by food category. CONCLUSION: While the generic database, containing both packaged and unpackaged foods, revealed a low prevalence of foods that would display a FOP symbol, the branded database showed that the proposed FOP labelling regulations would identify over 60% of packaged foods with excess contents of nutrients-of-concern. Considering the high prevalence of packaged foods in Canada that would meet or exceed the thresholds of nutrients-of-concern, the proposed FOP labelling regulations should be implemented in a timely manner to help consumers easily identify foods high in nutrients-of-concern and encourage manufacturer-driven product reformulations.

Are food and drink available in online and physical supermarkets the same? A comparison of product availability, price, price promotions and nutritional information.

OBJECTIVE: Online supermarkets are increasingly used both by consumers and as a source of data on the food environment. We compared product availability, nutritional information, front-of-pack (FOP) labelling, price and price promotions for food and drink products between physical and online supermarkets. DESIGN: For physical stores, we collected data on price, price promotions, FOP nutrition labels and nutrition information from a random sample of food and drinks from six UK supermarkets. For online stores, we used foodDB, a research-ready dataset of over 14 million observations of food and drink products available in online supermarkets. SETTING: Six large supermarket stores located near Oxford, UK. PARTICIPANTS: General sample with 295 food and drink products, plus boost samples for both fruit and vegetables, and alcohol. RESULTS: In the general sample, 85 % (95 % CI 80, 90 %) of products found in physical stores could be matched with an online product. Nutritional information found in the two settings was almost identical, for example, concordance correlation coefficient for energy = 0·995 (95 % CI 0·993, 0·996). The presence of FOP labelling and price promotions differed between the two settings (Cohen's kappa = 0·56 (95 % CI 0·45, 0·66) and 0·40 (95 % CI 0·26, 0·55), respectively). Prices were similar between online and physical supermarkets (concordance correlation coefficient > 0·9 for all samples). CONCLUSIONS: Product availability, nutritional information and prices sourced online for these six retailers are good proxies of those found in physical stores. Price promotions and FOP labelling vary between the two settings. Further research should investigate whether this could impact on health inequalities.

Nutritional marketing of plant-based meat-analogue products: an exploratory study of front-of-pack and website claims in the USA.

OBJECTIVE: To explore how some of the largest food companies involved in producing alternative proteins (AP) use health and nutrition claims to market their products. DESIGN: We identified the largest food manufacturers, meat processors and AP companies selling plant-based AP products in the USA. Using publicly available data, we analysed the voluntary health and nutrition claims made on front-of-pack labels (FOPL) and company webpages. We also analysed company websites for further nutrition and health-related statements about their products or AP more generally. Claim classification was guided by the INFORMAS (International Network for Food and Obesity/Non-Communicable Diseases Research, Monitoring, and Action Support) taxonomy for health-related food labelling. SETTING: USA. PARTICIPANTS: Not applicable. RESULTS: 1394 health and nutrition-related FOPL claims were identified on 216 products, including 685 nutrition claims and 709 'other health-related' claims. No FOPL health claims were identified. Most nutrient claims were for nutrients associated with meat, with 94 % of products carrying a protein claim and 30 % carrying a cholesterol claim. 74 % of products carried a GMO-free claim, and 63 % carried a plant-based claim. On their websites, some companies expanded on these claims or discussed the health benefits of specific ingredients. CONCLUSIONS: Companies involved in this category appear to be using nutritional marketing primarily to position their products in relation to meat. There is a focus on nutrient and ingredient claims, with discussion of processing largely avoided. The findings highlight the challenges companies face in positioning AP products as healthy against the backdrop of debates about ultra-processed foods.

A randomized controlled trial examining consumers' perceptions and opinions on using different versions of a FoodFlip© smartphone application for delivery of nutrition information.

BACKGROUND: Food labelling is a common intervention to improve diets, where the back-of-pack Nutrition Information Panel (or Nutrition Facts table (NFt)) provides comprehensive nutrition information on food packages. However, many consumers find it difficult and time-consuming to identify healthier foods using the NFt. As a result, different interpretative nutrition rating systems (INRS) may enable healthier food choices and it is essential that consumers have the tools to allow for easily accessible nutrition information. The objective of this study was to examine consumers' perceptions of different (INRS) for delivery of nutrition information using different versions of a smartphone app, FoodFlip©. METHODS: This study was part of a larger randomized controlled trial examining consumer perceptions of different INRS on food products. A nationally representative commercial sample of 2008 Canadians were randomized to one of four INRS intervention groups: 1) traffic light, 2) health star rating, 3) 'high-in' warning labels or 4) no INRS (NFt only; control) and asked to scan or enter 20 products into FoodFlip© from a list of food products provided to them with varying levels of healthfulness. After completing the app task, participants were asked a series of 7-point Likert-scale and open-ended questions to provide opinions on the usability and functionality of the app. RESULTS: Of the survey sample of 1997 participants, 95% (n = 1907) completed the app task, with similar number of participants in each treatment group. The mean age was 40 ± 12 years with no differences in sociodemographic characteristics between treatment groups. The health star rating ranked significantly lower in comparison to the other treatment groups in terms of usefulness (OR, 95% CI -0.67, 0.52-0.85), believability (0.59, 0.46-0.75), and understanding (0.55, 0.44-0.71) (p < 0.001). The health star rating (1.20, 0.94-1.53) and control (NFt) (1,1,1) ranked significantly lower than the traffic light or the 'high-in' warning labels for their ability to compare the healthfulness of products (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated Canadian consumers' preference for a nutrient-specific system (i.e. traffic light or 'high-in' warning labels). The app, which was liked by majority of the participants for its functionality and usability, has the potential to support healthy dietary decision making and may also encourage reformulation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03290118 (Clinicaltrials.gov).

Increasing the public health voice in global decision-making on nutrition labelling.

To respond to the global noncommunicable disease (NCD) crisis, the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), a multilateral United Nations body responsible for work on food standards, is developing global guidance for front of pack (FoP) nutrition labelling. Guidance from Codex regarding FoP nutrition labelling at the global level will almost certainly influence national policy making. This shift in Codex's activities towards standards to address NCDs presents new risks for achievement of public health goals, as a result of the high level of industry involvement in this forum; there is a potential commercial conflict of interest held by manufacturers of products whose consumption could be discouraged by such guidance. In this Commentary, we examine the implications of Codex processes for developing robust global guidance on FoP nutrition labelling and identify opportunities to increase consideration of public health objectives. To date, there has been significantly higher representation of food industry compared to public health actors in Codex discussions on FoP nutrition labelling. Without a strong public health voice in Codex, the industry voice could dominate discussions on FoP nutrition labelling, such that subsequent global guidance prioritises future trade and profits over potential risks to public health. There is currently a critical window of opportunity for public health interests to be prioritised in this multisectoral international forum. The key public health priority for global guidance on FoP nutrition labelling is to ensure protection of policy space for national governments to implement strong and effective regulation, and allow scope for innovation. Public health actors can engage directly with Codex processes, at both the national and global level, and also need to raise awareness among domestic policy makers - including with Ministries of Agriculture and Industry, which often represent countries at Codex - regarding the importance and effectiveness of FoP labelling in NCD prevention. Increased engagement with Codex processes represents a tangible new opportunity to strengthen global governance for public health, and move towards improved coherence between trade policy and health protection goals.