Year: 2018
Type: article
Abstract: Front-of-package nutrition labels need to be assessed on their nutrition science rigour MadamWe read with interest the recent editorial by Kanter et al. (1) which provides a timely update on global front-of-pack (FOP) nutrition labelling activities.We note the editorial assesses the risks and benefits of FOP, but only in relation to process issues rather than their nutrition science rigour.For instance, the editorial refers to the controversial Health Star Rating (HSR) system being implemented in Australia and New Zealand, saying its benefits include that it is implemented well and contributes to food reformulation and its risks are that it is displayed on only 5 % of products.But these implementation 'benefits' and 'risks' could more accurately be described as 'risks' and 'benefits', i.e. inverted, if the nutrition science rigour underpinning the HSR is lacking.Our findings from the only comprehensive evaluation of the impact of the voluntary HSR system in the marketplace shows that this is the case.The HSR is being exploited to market discretionary (energydense, nutrient-poor) foods, with 57 % of the HSR on these foods that have entered the marketplace since its launch displaying ≥2•5 (out of 5) so-called 'health' stars (2) .Given that discretionary foods are not a part of a healthy diet and Australians need to eat less of them, we believe that encouraging the display of 3, 3•5 and 4 health stars on foods such as ice confections and chocolate-covered muesli bars misrepresents nutrition science and adds to public health nutrition confusion.The editorial identifies FOP labelling research priorities in terms of:
Source: Public Health Nutrition
Authors: Mark Lawrence, Julie Woods
Institution: Deakin University
Language: English
Field: Medicine
Domain: Health Sciences
Open Access status: bronze
Funder: Deakin University
OpenAlex ID: W2802977320