Research reportNutritional quality, labelling and promotion of breakfast cereals on the New Zealand market☆
Introduction
Breakfast consumption has been associated with higher fibre and calcium intakes (Barton et al., 2005), as well as a reduced risk of becoming overweight or obese, compared with skipping breakfast (De La Hunty et al, 2013, Szajewska, Ruszczyński, 2010). In New Zealand, the latest national nutrition surveys indicate that 79% of children and young people usually consume breakfast on five or more days a week (Clinical Trials Research Unit, 2010), and 40% of children reported eating breakfast cereals at least once a day (Parnell, Scragg, Wilson, Schaaf, & Fitzgerald, 2003). However, ready-to-eat (RTE) cereals tend to be highly processed (Cordain et al., 2005) and high sugar cereals have been found to increase children's total sugar consumption and decrease the overall nutritional quality of their breakfast (Harris, Schwartz, Ustjanauskas, Ohri-Vachaspati, & Brownell, 2011). Additionally, breakfast cereals marketed directly to children have been found to contain significantly more added sugar than those marketed to adults (Schwartz, Vartanian, Wharton, & Brownell, 2008).
High sugar RTE breakfast cereals are the most frequently promoted food products on television for child-targeted food advertising (LoDolce, Harris, & Schwartz, 2013). Promotional characters on food packages, are also used as an attractive lure for advertising to children (Neeley, Schumann, 2004, Tang et al, 2007). Licenced or spokes characters on food packages, have been reported to influence young children's taste, food preferences and purchases compared with the same products without such characters (Roberto et al, 2010, Smits, Vandebosch, 2012). It has been found that constant exposure of children to promotional characters encourages them to recognise and like the related brands (Neeley & Schumann, 2004). On-pack nutrient content claims and sport celebrity endorsements made pre-adolescents more likely to choose energy-dense and nutrient-poor products and increased perceptions of their nutrient content compared with healthier products (Dixon et al., 2014). There are currently no regulations or effective policies in place in New Zealand to reduce exposure of children to advertising of ‘less healthy’ foods through any type of medium in New Zealand.
Nutrition and health claims are regulated by the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code (FSC) and implemented by the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) in New Zealand (Food Standards Australia New Zealand, 2013a, Food Standards Australia New Zealand, 2013b). In accordance with the FSC, it is mandatory in New Zealand to display a nutrition information panel (NIP) on most packaged foods (displaying energy, protein, total fat, saturated fat, carbohydrate, sugars, and sodium per serving, and per 100 g or 100 mL) and if nutrition claims are made, the nutrition information for that nutrient must be displayed on the NIP. A new mandatory food standard (Standard 1.2.7) was passed in January 2013 on the regulation of nutrition and health claims on food labels and in advertisements by the Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ), which all food companies must comply with from 18 January 2016 (Food Standards Australia New Zealand, 2013a). This standard aims to reduce false and misleading nutrition claims and ensure that claims are only present on foods meeting certain ‘healthy’ criteria (Food Standards Australia New Zealand, 2013a). The ‘healthy’ criteria are set by the FSANZ Health Claims Nutrient Profiling Scoring Criterion (NPSC), a nutrient profiling tool that has been tested on more than 10,000 New Zealand and Australian food products (Food Standards Australia New Zealand, 2007, Food Standards Australia New Zealand, 2013b). Currently the NPSC only applies to foods displaying health claims and not to foods displaying nutrition claims. Using FSANZ's NPSC, overall, 59% of products (n = 550) from seven food groups and 51 food categories in supermarkets previously met the ‘healthy’ criteria in New Zealand (Eyles, Gorton, & Ni Mhurchu, 2010).
Interpretative, consumer-oriented front-of-pack (FoP) nutrition labels (Health Star Rating or traffic light labelling system) have recently been introduced in some countries to help consumers identify healthier food options (Watson et al., 2014). While Australia recently approved the voluntary implementation of the Health Star Rating system (Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing, 2013, Watson et al, 2014) and in the UK the Multiple Traffic Light (MTL) labelling system has also been implemented by several retailers (United Kingdom Food Standards Agency, 2007), there is no consumer-oriented, interpretative FoP labelling system implemented in New Zealand (Rosentreter, Eyles, & Mhurchu, 2013). Currently various industry and agency-initiated labelling systems operate in New Zealand, which can be interpretive or non-interpretive, including the Australian Food and Grocery Council's multi-icon Daily Intake Guide (DIG) system, individual logos and icons that relate to a particular issue (e.g., fair trade, organic, glycaemic index (GI), heart health) of which some are licence-based such as the GI symbol and the Heart Foundation Tick (HF Tick) (Blewett et al, 2011, MPI Food Safety, 2013). The HF Tick aims to allow consumers to identify healthier options within a specific food category and encourages the food industry to reformulate and improve nutrition quality of foods and labelling (Heart Foundation NZ, 2013, Young, Swinburn, 2002). Approximately 500 products currently display the DIGs thumbnails in New Zealand; however, display of percentage dietary intake (DI) information is only mandatory for energy intake, while the use of additional percentage DI information (fat, protein, saturated fat, carbohydrate, sugars and sodium) is voluntary (New Zealand Food & Grocery Council).
Given the significant contribution of breakfast cereals to children's diet in New Zealand and the lack of strong policies on food reformulation, labelling and promotion, the aim of this study was to investigate the difference in nutritional quality, labelling and promotion between ‘healthy’ and ‘less healthy’ breakfast cereals, and between cereals intended for children compared with other breakfast cereals on the New Zealand market.
Section snippets
Sampling
Two of the biggest supermarkets (one representing each of the two major chains) in Auckland, New Zealand were chosen as sites for data collection (Countdown and PakNSave). From these supermarkets, details of all breakfast cereals available for purchase were recorded. Where the same product was sold in more than one supermarket that product was included only once in the product sample.
Data collection
Data collection took place from February to August 2013. A supermarket audit for breakfast cereals was conducted
Results
A total of 247/250 breakfast cereal products representing 30 brands had complete data (including NIP) and were included in the analysis. Overall 182 (74%) products were classified as ‘healthy’ and 65 (26%) were classified as ‘less healthy’ according to the NPSC (Fig. 1).
Discussion
This cross-sectional study provides an overview of the nutritional quality of breakfast cereals on the New Zealand market, as well as on the different types of labelling information and promotional characters found on them. It is concerning that over a quarter of breakfast cereals were classified as ‘less healthy’. The nutritional quality of ‘less healthy’ breakfast cereals was significantly lower than that of ‘healthy’ cereals, with on average significantly lower fibre and protein content and
References (42)
- et al.
The relationship of breakfast and cereal consumption to nutrient intake and body mass index. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Growth and Health Study
Journal of the American Dietetic Association
(2005) - et al.
Nutrition marketing on food labels
Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior
(2010) - et al.
Origins and evolution of the Western diet. Health implications for the 21st century
The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
(2005) - et al.
A menagerie of promotional characters. Promoting food to children through food packaging
Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior
(2011) - et al.
Nutritional quality of Australian breakfast cereals. Are they improving?
Appetite
(2012) - et al.
Nutrition labels and claims in New Zealand and Australia. A review of use and understanding
Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health
(2007) - et al.
Traffic lights and health claims. A comparative analysis of the nutrient profile of packaged foods available for sale in New Zealand supermarkets
Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health
(2013) - et al.
Examining the nutritional quality of breakfast cereals marketed to children
Journal of the American Dietetic Association
(2008) - et al.
Can front-of-pack labelling schemes guide healthier food choices? Australian shoppers’ responses to seven labelling formats
Appetite
(2014) Front-of-pack labelling updates
Labelling logic. Review of food labelling law and policy
A national survey of children and young people's physical activity and dietary behaviours in New Zealand: 2008/09. Key Findings
Does regular breakfast cereal consumption help children and adolescents stay slimmer? A systematic review and meta-analysis
Obesity Facts
Effects of nutrient content claims, sports celebrity endorsements and premium offers on pre-adolescent children's food preferences. Experimental research
Pediatric Obesity
Classification of ‘healthier’ and ‘less healthy’ supermarket foods by two Australasian nutrient profiling models
The New Zealand Medical Journal
Precision in nutritional information declarations on food labels in Australia
Asia Pacific Journal of Clinical Nutrition
2017 UK salt reduction targets
Calculation method for determining foods eligible to make health claims. Nutrient profiling calculator
Nutrition content claims and health claims
Short guide for industry to the nutrient profiling scoring criterion (NPSC) in standard 1.2.7. Nutrition, health and related claims
Effects of serving high-sugar cereals on children's breakfast-eating behavior
Pediatrics
Cited by (70)
Nutritional quality of prepackaged foods carrying health or nutritional claims in KSA
2023, Journal of Taibah University Medical SciencesSensory specific satiety or appetite? Investigating effects of retronasally-introduced aroma and taste cues on subsequent real-life snack intake
2022, Food Quality and PreferenceCitation Excerpt :The protocol of the study was approved by the University of Otago Human Ethics Committee (Reference: 20/108). This study used an overnight-soaked water-based oat pudding as the test meal, which is a familiar breakfast to New Zealand consumers (Chepulis, Hill, & Mearns, 2017; Devi et al., 2014). The oat pudding was made of traditional rolled oats (Traditional and Creamy Rolled Oats, Harraway and Sons Ltd, NZ), chia seeds (Alison’s Pantry chia seeds, NZ), and water, following a ratio of 10 g: 0.7 g: 22.8 mL.
Occurrence of acrylamide, hydroxymethylfurfural and furaldehyde as process contaminants in traditional breakfast cereals: “Bsissa”
2021, Food ControlCitation Excerpt :Rufian-Henares et al. (2006a) studied 60 cereal breakfast commercial samples and found that total carbohydrates were ranging between 38.0 and 87.02 g/100 g. Those results are comparable to ours for the Bsissa flour (Table 2). Regarding reducing sugar, a ‘healthy’ breakfast contained a value lesser than 15.6 g/100 g as reported by Devi et al. (2014). This value is about at least five times higher than the values found in Bsissa flour.
Nutrient profile models a useful tool to facilitate healthier food choices: A comprehensive review
2021, Trends in Food Science and TechnologyNutrition Claims on Fruit Drinks Are Inconsistent Indicators of Nutritional Profile: A Content Analysis of Fruit Drinks Purchased by Households With Young Children
2021, Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics
- ☆
Acknowledgements: The authors would like to acknowledge A. Chand and R. Megill for the collection of the data and R. George for contribution to data cleaning and analysis. S. Vandevijvere and H. Eyles originated the study idea and design. H. Eyles and C. Ni Mhurchu developed the New Zealand Nutritrack database. H. Eyles provided the nutrition information from NIP and photos of FoP for breakfast cereals from the Nutritrack database for the purposes of this study. H. Eyles and E. Lonsdale-Cooper analysed the nutritional composition of breakfast cereals. M. Rayner developed the INFORMAS taxonomy for classifying health-related food labelling components. A. Devi and S. Vandevijvere analysed the results on food labelling and promotion of breakfast cereals. A. Devi drafted the manuscript. S. Vandevijvere supervised the study. All authors were involved in the interpretation of results and subsequent edits of the manuscript. This study was funded by the Faculty Research Development Fund of the University of Auckland (Grant no. 3704413). Conflict of interest: Helen Eyles holds a National Heart Foundation of New Zealand postdoctoral research fellowship (Grant 1463). The other authors declare that they have no competing interests.