Alignment of Supermarket Own Brand Foods’ Front-of-Pack Nutrition Labelling with Measures of Nutritional Quality: An Australian Perspective

Two voluntary front-of-pack nutrition labels (FOPNL) are present in Australia: the government-led Health Star Ratings (HSR) and food industry-led Daily Intake Guide (DIG). Australia’s two largest supermarkets are key supporters of HSR, pledging uptake on all supermarket own brand foods (SOBF). This study aimed to examine prevalence of FOPNL on SOBF, and alignment with patterns of nutritional quality. Photographic audits of all SOBF present in three large supermarkets were conducted in Perth, Western Australia, in 2017. Foods were classified as nutritious or nutrient-poor based on the Australian Guide to Healthy Eating (AGTHE), NOVA level of food processing, and HSR score. Most (81.5%) SOBF featured FOPNL, with only 55.1% displaying HSR. HSR was present on 69.2% of Coles, 54.0% of Woolworths, and none of IGA SOBF. Half (51.3%) of SOBF were classified as nutritious using the AGTHE, but using NOVA, 56.9% were ultra-processed foods. Nutrient-poor and ultra-processed SOBF were more likely than nutritious foods to include HSR, yet many of these foods achieved HSR scores of 2.5 stars or above, implying they were a healthy choice. Supermarkets have a powerful position in the Australian food system, and they could do more to support healthy food selection through responsible FOPNL.

Can front-of-pack labels influence portion size judgements for unhealthy foods?

ObjectiveBy clearly conveying the healthiness of a food, front-of-pack (FOP) labels have the potential to influence the portion size considered appropriate for consumption. The present study examined the how the Daily Intake Guide (DIG), Multiple Traffic Lights (MTL) and Health Star Rating (HSR) FOP labels affect judgements of appropriate portion sizes of unhealthy foods compared with when no FOP label is present.DesignRespondents viewed mock packages of unhealthy variations of pizzas, cookies, yoghurts and cornflakes featuring the DIG, MTL, HSR or no FOP label, and indicated the portion size they believed should be eaten of each food on a single occasion.SettingThe survey was completed on the respondent’s personal computer.SubjectsA total of 1505 Australian adults provided 4166 ratings across 192 mock packages relating to four product categories: pizza, yoghurt, cornflakes and cookies.ResultsCompared with no FOP label, the HSR resulted in a small but significant reduction in the portion size selected as appropriate for consumption of pizzas and cornflakes (P<0·05). The MTL resulted in smaller portions of cornflakes being selected compared with no FOP label (P<0·05).ConclusionsRespondents perceived smaller portion sizes as appropriate for some, but not all, of the foods tested when FOP labels with more interpretative formats (HSR, MTL) appeared on-pack compared with no FOP label. No effect was found for the less interpretive FOP label (the DIG). Interpretive FOP labels may have the potential to influence portion size judgements, albeit at modest levels.