Concordance of Australian state and territory government guidelines for classifying the healthiness of foods in public settings.

IF 3 3区 医学 Q2 NUTRITION & DIETETICS
Bettina Backman, Meg Adam, Jasmine Chan, Josephine Marshall, Emalie Rosewarne, Gary Sacks, Adrian J Cameron, Miranda R Blake
{"title":"Concordance of Australian state and territory government guidelines for classifying the healthiness of foods in public settings.","authors":"Bettina Backman, Meg Adam, Jasmine Chan, Josephine Marshall, Emalie Rosewarne, Gary Sacks, Adrian J Cameron, Miranda R Blake","doi":"10.1017/S1368980025000059","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To investigate the concordance between Australian government guidelines for classifying the healthiness of foods across various public settings.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Commonly available products in Australian food service settings across 8 food categories were classified according to each of the 17 Australian state and territory food classification guidelines applying to public schools, workplaces, and healthcare settings. Product nutrition information was retrieved from online sources. The level of concordance between each pair of guidelines was determined by the proportion of products rated at the same level of healthiness.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Australia.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>No human participants.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Approximately half (56%) of the 967 food and drink products assessed were classified as the same level of healthiness across all 15 'traffic light'-based systems. Within each setting type (e.g., schools), pairwise concordance in product classifications between guidelines ranged from 74% to 100%. 'Vegetables' (100%) and 'sweet snacks and desserts' (78%) had the highest concordance across guidelines while 'cold ready-to-eat foods' (0%) and 'savoury snacks' (23%) had the lowest concordance. In addition to differences in classification criteria, discrepancies between guidelines arose from different approaches to grouping of products. The largest proportion of discrepancies (58%) were attributed to whether products were classified as 'Red' (least healthy) or 'Amber' (moderately healthy).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Results indicate only moderate concordance between all guidelines. National coordination to create evidence-based consistency between guidelines would help provide clarity for food businesses, which are often national, on how to better support community health through product development and reformulation.</p>","PeriodicalId":20951,"journal":{"name":"Public Health Nutrition","volume":" ","pages":"1-27"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Health Nutrition","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980025000059","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NUTRITION & DIETETICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To investigate the concordance between Australian government guidelines for classifying the healthiness of foods across various public settings.

Design: Commonly available products in Australian food service settings across 8 food categories were classified according to each of the 17 Australian state and territory food classification guidelines applying to public schools, workplaces, and healthcare settings. Product nutrition information was retrieved from online sources. The level of concordance between each pair of guidelines was determined by the proportion of products rated at the same level of healthiness.

Setting: Australia.

Participants: No human participants.

Results: Approximately half (56%) of the 967 food and drink products assessed were classified as the same level of healthiness across all 15 'traffic light'-based systems. Within each setting type (e.g., schools), pairwise concordance in product classifications between guidelines ranged from 74% to 100%. 'Vegetables' (100%) and 'sweet snacks and desserts' (78%) had the highest concordance across guidelines while 'cold ready-to-eat foods' (0%) and 'savoury snacks' (23%) had the lowest concordance. In addition to differences in classification criteria, discrepancies between guidelines arose from different approaches to grouping of products. The largest proportion of discrepancies (58%) were attributed to whether products were classified as 'Red' (least healthy) or 'Amber' (moderately healthy).

Conclusions: Results indicate only moderate concordance between all guidelines. National coordination to create evidence-based consistency between guidelines would help provide clarity for food businesses, which are often national, on how to better support community health through product development and reformulation.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Public Health Nutrition
Public Health Nutrition 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
6.20%
发文量
521
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Public Health Nutrition provides an international peer-reviewed forum for the publication and dissemination of research and scholarship aimed at understanding the causes of, and approaches and solutions to nutrition-related public health achievements, situations and problems around the world. The journal publishes original and commissioned articles, commentaries and discussion papers for debate. The journal is of interest to epidemiologists and health promotion specialists interested in the role of nutrition in disease prevention; academics and those involved in fieldwork and the application of research to identify practical solutions to important public health problems.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信