Health-related claims on packaged foods in New Zealand: extent, nature and compliance with the NZ Standard

Abstract

Background: Nutrition and health claims are important strategies that food manufacturers use to influence consumers’ food choices. In New Zealand, new regulations have been implemented to prevent misleading nutrition and health claims on food products. Aim: This study assessed: 1) extent and nature of nutrition and health claims on packaged food products sold in major retail outlets in NZ, 2) differences in nutritional quality of packaged foods carrying nutrition or health claims and those without such claims, and 3) whether nutrition claims on packaged food products comply with the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code outlined in Standard 1.2.7. Method: Five food categories (snacks, cereal bars, processed meat, non-alcoholic beverages and breakfast cereals) were selected from the 2015 Nutritrack database. The internationally standardised International Network for Food and Obesity/Non-Communicable Diseases Research, Monitoring and Action Support (INFORMAS) taxonomy was used to classify claims on packages. Standard 1.2.7 schedule 1 on nutrition claims was used to check for compliance. Results: In total, 7,548 claims (n=1,386, 69%) were featured on ‘whole package’. Of the products that contained claims, nutrition claims comprised 44% of claims (n=979/1,438, 68%) on front of pack (FoP) and 42% (n=908/1386, 66%) on ‘whole package’ across five categories. Health claims on FoP comprised 12% of claims (n=306) and 16% (n=381) on ‘whole package’ on packages. The nutrient profile for energy, total fat, saturated fat content and protein content in products with nutrition claims on FoP was better than for products without claims. Health claims had fewer nutrients that were significantly better in nutrient content than those without such claims. In total, 77 claims (11.4%) on FoP and 114 claims (13.8%) on ‘whole package’ were not compliant for nutrient content claims. In total, 71 claims (49%) on FoP and 77 claims (48%) on ‘whole package’ were not compliant for nutrient comparative claims. Conclusion: The abundance of nutrition claims and variations in the nutrient composition of products with nutrition claims and health claims needs to be explored as well as how to strengthen regulation further and consider nutrient profiling for nutrition claims in addition to health claims. The high proportion of claims that did not comply with Standard 1.2.7 should encourage the government to enforce regulations.