An independent audit of the Australian food industry's voluntary front-of-pack nutrition labelling scheme for energy-dense nutrition-poor foods

被引:22
作者
Carter, O. B. J. [1 ]
Mills, B. W. [1 ]
Lloyd, E. [1 ]
Phan, T. [1 ]
机构
[1] Curtin Univ Technol, Sch Publ Hlth, Ctr Behav Res Canc Control, Perth, WA, Australia
关键词
public health; food industry; self-regulation; front-of-package; food labelling;
D O I
10.1038/ejcn.2012.179
中图分类号
R15 [营养卫生、食品卫生]; TS201 [基础科学];
学科分类号
100403 ;
摘要
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Since 2006, the Australian food industry has promoted its front-of-pack (FOP) food labelling system- the Daily Intake Guide (DIG) as a success story of industry self-regulation. With over 4000 products already voluntary featuring the DIG, the industry argues that government regulation of FOP nutrition labelling is simply unnecessary. However, no independent audit of the industry's self-regulation has ever been undertaken and we present the first such Australian data. SUBJECTS/METHODS: Energy-dense nutrient-poor (EDNP) snacks were audited at nine Australian supermarkets, including biscuits, candy, ice creams, chocolates, crisps, sports drinks, energy drinks, flavoured milks, sweetened juices and soft drinks. In these categories nutrition labels were recorded for 728 EDNP products in various packaging sizes. RESULTS: The DIG was displayed on 66% of audited EDNP products but most of these (75%) did not report saturated fat and sugar content. Only generic supermarket EDNP products were likely to display saturated fat and sugar content, compared with very few branded products (48% vs 4%, P<0.001). Branded products not displaying fat and sugar content contained on average 10-times more saturated fat than those displaying such (10% vs 1% DI, P<0.001) and nearly twice as much sugar (21 vs 13% DI, P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Most Australian manufacturers of EDNP products have adopted the DIG; consistent with industry claims of widespread adoption, but almost all still avoid displaying the high saturated fat and sugar content of their products by opting for the 'energy alone' option, violating the industry's own voluntarily guidelines and highlighting serious weaknesses with the industry's self-regulation. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition (2013) 67, 31-35; doi:10.1038/ejcn.2012.179; published online 21 November 2012
引用
收藏
页码:31 / 35
页数:5
相关论文
共 23 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2011, Labelling logic: review of food labelling law and policy
[2]  
Australian Chronic Disease Prevention Alliance, FRONT PACK LAB AGR P
[3]  
Australian Food and Grocery Council, 2011, COD PRACT FOOD LAB P
[4]  
Australian Food and Grocery Council, 2009, AUSTR FOOD GROC COUN
[5]  
Australian Food and Grocery Council, 2009, DAIL INT GUID LAB SC
[6]  
Australian Food and Grocery Council, 2010, WELC AFGC
[7]  
Australian Food and Grocery Council, 2009, TRAFF LIGHT LAB SEND
[8]   Impact of different food label formats on healthiness evaluation and food choice of consumers: a randomized-controlled study [J].
Borgmeier, Ingrid ;
Westenhoefer, Joachim .
BMC PUBLIC HEALTH, 2009, 9
[9]   An independent assessment of the Australian food industry's Daily Intake Guide 'energy alone' label [J].
Carter, Owen ;
Mills, Brennen ;
Phan, Tina .
HEALTH PROMOTION JOURNAL OF AUSTRALIA, 2011, 22 (01) :63-67
[10]  
Council Grocery, 2011, RESP DEP HLTH AG LAB