Institute of Physical Activity and Nutrition, School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Highway, Burwood, VIC, 3125, Australia.
BMC Public Health. 2018 Feb 7;18(1):222. doi: 10.1186/s12889-018-5127-0.
Food manufacturers have made public statements and voluntary commitments, such as the Healthier Australia Commitment (HAC), to improve the nutritional quality of foods. However, limited information about the nutritional quality or healthfulness of new products makes it difficult to determine if manufacturers are doing this. The purpose of this study was to assess the healthfulness of new food products released into the Australian retail market in 2015, and whether those companies who were HAC members released healthier food options compared to non-HAC members.
This cross-sectional study assessed the healthfulness of all new retail food products launched in Australia in 2015 as indexed in Mintel's Global New Products Database. Healthfulness was assessed using three classification schemes: Healthy Choices Framework Victoria, Australian Dietary Guidelines and NOVA Food Classification System. Descriptive statistics and chi-squared tests described and compared the number and proportions of new foods falling within each of the food classification schemes' categories for companies that were and were not HAC members.
In 2015, 4143 new food products were launched into the Australian market. The majority of new products were classified in each schemes' least healthy category (i.e. red, discretionary and ultra-processed). Fruits and vegetables represented just 3% of new products. HAC members launched a significantly greater proportion of foods classified as red (59% vs 51% for members and non-members, respectively) discretionary (79% vs 61%), and ultra-processed (94% vs 81%), and significantly fewer were classified as green (8% vs 15%), core foods (18% vs 36%) and minimally processed (0% vs 6%) (all p < 0.001).
This study found that the majority of new products released into the Australian retail food market in 2015 were classified in each of three schemes' least healthy categories. A greater proportion of new products launched by companies that publicly committed to improve the nutritional quality of their products were unhealthy, and a lower proportion were healthy, compared with new products launched by companies that did not so commit. Greater monitoring of industry progress in improving the healthfulness of the food supply may be warranted, with public accountability if the necessary changes are not seen.
食品制造商已经公开声明并做出自愿承诺，如《更健康澳大利亚承诺》（HAC），以改善食品的营养质量。然而，新产品的营养质量或健康状况的信息有限，使得难以确定制造商是否在这样做。本研究的目的是评估 2015 年进入澳大利亚零售市场的新产品的健康状况，以及 HAC 成员公司发布的食品是否比非 HAC 成员公司更健康。
本横断面研究评估了 2015 年在澳大利亚发布的所有新的零售食品产品的健康状况，这些产品在明特尔的全球新产品数据库中都有索引。使用三个分类方案评估健康状况：维多利亚健康选择框架、澳大利亚饮食指南和 NOVA 食品分类系统。描述性统计和卡方检验描述并比较了属于每个食品分类方案类别的新食品的数量和比例，这些食品属于 HAC 成员和非 HAC 成员的公司。
2015 年，有 4143 种新食品进入澳大利亚市场。大多数新产品在每个方案的最不健康类别中分类（即红色、自由裁量和超加工）。水果和蔬菜仅占新产品的 3%。HAC 成员推出的被归类为红色（59%比成员和非成员的 51%）、自由裁量（79%比 61%）和超加工（94%比 81%）的食品比例显著更高，而被归类为绿色（8%比 15%）、核心食品（18%比 36%）和最小加工（0%比 6%）的食品比例显著更低（均 P<0.001）。
本研究发现，2015 年进入澳大利亚零售食品市场的大多数新产品被归类为三个方案中每个方案的最不健康类别。与未公开承诺改善产品营养质量的公司相比，公开承诺改善产品营养质量的公司推出的新产品中不健康的比例更高，而健康的比例更低。如果没有看到必要的变化，可能需要更密切地监测行业在改善食品供应健康状况方面的进展，并要求其承担公众责任。
