Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Industry use of ‘better-for-you’ features on labels of sugar-containing beverages

  • Aimee L Brownbill (a1) (a2), Caroline L Miller (a1) (a2) and Annette J Braunack-Mayer (a1) (a3)
Abstract
Objective

To examine the ways in which sugar-containing beverages are being portrayed as ‘better-for-you’ (BFY) via features on product labels.

Design

Cross-sectional audit of beverage labels.

Setting

Adelaide, Australia. Data on beverage labels were collected from seventeen grocery stores during September to November 2016.

Subjects

The content of 945 sugar-containing beverages labels were analysed for explicit and implicit features positioning them as healthy or BFY.

Results

The mean sugar content of beverages was high at 8·3 g/100 ml and most sugar-containing beverages (87·7 %) displayed features that position them as BFY. This was most commonly achieved by indicating the beverages are natural (76·8 %), or contain reduced or natural energy/sugar content (48·4 %), or through suggesting that they contribute to meeting bodily needs for nutrition (28·9 %) or health (15·1 %). Features positioning beverages as BFY were more common among certain categories of beverages, namely coconut waters, iced teas, sports drinks and juices.

Conclusions

A large proportion of sugar-containing beverages use features on labels that position them as healthy or BFY despite containing high amounts of sugar.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Industry use of ‘better-for-you’ features on labels of sugar-containing beverages
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Industry use of ‘better-for-you’ features on labels of sugar-containing beverages
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Industry use of ‘better-for-you’ features on labels of sugar-containing beverages
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
Corresponding author
*Corresponding author: Email aimee.brownbill@adelaide.edu.au
References
Hide All
1. Malik, VS, Pan, A, Willett, WC et al. (2013) Sugar-sweetened beverages and weight gain in children and adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Clin Nutr 98, 10841102.
2. Imamura, F, O’Connor, L, Ye, Z et al. (2016) Consumption of sugar sweetened beverages, artificially sweetened beverages, and fruit juice and incidence of type 2 diabetes: systematic review, meta-analysis, and estimation of population attributable fraction. Br J Sports Med 50, 496504.
3. Malik, VS, Popkin, BM, Bray, GA et al. (2010) Sugar-sweetened beverages, obesity, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and cardiovascular disease risk. Circulation 121, 13561364.
4. Bernabe, E, Vehkalahti, MM, Sheiham, A et al. (2014) Sugar-sweetened beverages and dental caries in adults: a 4-year prospective study. J Dent 42, 952958.
5. Popkin, BM & Hawkes, C (2016) Sweetening of the global diet, particularly beverages: patterns, trends, and policy responses. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 4, 174186.
6. Euromonitor International (2016) Better for you beverages in Australia. http://www.euromonitor.com/better-for-you-beverages-in-australia/report (accessed August 2016).
7. Amplify Snack Brands (2017) Better-for-you snacks: the new snacking reality. https://amplifysnackbrands.com/documents/Amplify-2017-Snack-Study.PDF (accessed August 2017).
8. PepsiCo (2018) Explore PepsiCo brands: Better for you. http://www.pepsico.com/Brands/BrandExplorer#better-for-you (accessed July 2018).
9. Obesity Solutions Inititative (2011) Better-for-You Foods. It’s Just Good Business. Washington, DC: Hudson Institute.
10. Campos, S, Doxey, J & Hammond, D (2011) Nutrition labels on pre-packaged foods: a systematic review. Public Health Nutr 14, 14961506.
11. Food Standards Australia New Zealand (2016) Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code – Standard 1.2.7 – Nutrition, Health and Related Claims . Canberra, ACT: Federal Register of Legislation, Australian Government.
12. Abrams, KM, Evans, C & Duff, BR (2015) Ignorance is bliss. How parents of preschool children make sense of front-of-package visuals and claims on food. Appetite 87, 2029.
13. Dean, M, Lahteenmaki, L & Shepherd, R (2011) Nutrition communication: consumer perceptions and predicting intentions. Proc Nutr Soc 70, 1925.
14. Williams, P (2005) Consumer understanding and use of health claims for foods. Nutr Rev 63, 256264.
15. Gorton, D, Mhurchu, CN, Bramley, D et al. (2010) Interpretation of two nutrition content claims: a New Zealand survey. Aust N Z J Public Health 34, 5762.
16. Kaur, A, Scarborough, P & Rayner, M (2017) A systematic review, and meta-analyses, of the impact of health-related claims on dietary choices. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 14, 93.
17. Elliott, C (2016) How Canadians Communicate VI: Food Promotion, Consumption, and Controversy. Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press.
18. Franco-Arellano, B, Bernstein, JT, Norsen, S et al. (2017) Assessing nutrition and other claims on food labels: a repeated cross-sectional analysis of the Canadian food supply. BMC Nutr 3, 74.
19. Christoforou, A, Dachner, N, Mendelson, R et al. (2018) Front-of-package nutrition references are positively associated with food processing. Public Health Nutr 21, 5867.
20. Fernan, C, Schuldt, JP & Niederdeppe, J (2018) Health halo effects from product titles and nutrient content claims in the context of ‘protein’ bars. Health Commun 33, 14251433.
21. Schuldt, JP (2013) Does green mean healthy? Nutrition label color affects perceptions of healthfulness. Health Commun 28, 814821.
22. Roy Morgan Research (2016) Supermarket sweep: ALDI’s share of the Aussie market still rising. http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/6762-supermarket-sweep-aldis-share-of-aussie-market-still-rising-201604142258 (accessed July 2016).
23. Australian Bureau of Statistics (2013) Census of Population and Housing: Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA), Australia, 2011. http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/2033.0.55.001~2011~Main%20Features~Main%20Page~1 (accessed July 2016).
24. Williams, P, Yeatman, H, Ridges, L et al. (2006) Nutrition function, health and related claims on packaged Australian food products – prevalence and compliance with regulations. Asia Pac J Clin Nutr 15, 1020.
25. Dachner, N, Mendelson, R, Sacco, J et al. (2015) An examination of the nutrient content and on-package marketing of novel beverages. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab 40, 191198.
26. Rayner, M, Wood, A, Lawrence, M et al. (2013) Monitoring the health-related labelling of foods and non-alcoholic beverages in retail settings. Obes Rev 14, Suppl. 1, 7081.
27. World Health Organization (2015) Guideline: Sugar Intake for Adults and Children. Geneva: WHO.
28. Kondracki, NL, Wellman, NS & Amundson, DR (2002) Content analysis: review of methods and their applications in nutrition education. J Nutr Educ Behav 34, 224230.
29. Food Standards Australia New Zealand (2016) Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code – Schedule 4 – Nutrition, Health and Related Claims. Canberra, ACT: Federal Register of Legislation, Australian Government.
30. Feng, GC (2013) Underlying determinants driving agreement among coders. Qual Quant 47, 29832997.
31. Hansen, A (2002) Discourses of nature in advertising. Communications 27, 499511.
32. Opel, A (1999) Constructing purity: bottled water and the commodification of nature. J Am Cult 22, 6776.
33. Short, D (2005) When science met the consumer: the role of industry. Am J Clin Nutr 82, 1 Suppl., 256S258S.
34. Scrinis, G (2016) Reformulation, fortification and functionalization: Big Food corporations’ nutritional engineering and marketing strategies. J Peasant Stud 43, 1737.
35. Eden, S (2009) Food labels as boundary objects. Public Underst Sci 20, 179194.
36. Siro, I, Kapolna, E, Kapolna, B et al. (2008) Functional food. Product development, marketing and consumer acceptance – a review. Appetite 51, 456467.
37. Kim, H & House, LA (2014) Linking consumer health perceptions to consumption of nonalcoholic beverages. Agric Resour Econ Rev 43, 116.
38. Luomala, H, Jokitalo, M, Karhu, H et al. (2015) Perceived health and taste ambivalence in food consumption. J Consum Mark 32, 290301.
39. Irmak, C, Vallen, B & Robinson, SR (2011) The impact of product name on dieters’ and nondieters’ food evaluations and consumption. J Consum Res 38, 390405.
40. Scrinis, G (2013) Nutritionism. The Science and Politics of Dietary Advice. New York: Columbia University Press.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Public Health Nutrition
  • ISSN: 1368-9800
  • EISSN: 1475-2727
  • URL: /core/journals/public-health-nutrition
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords

Type Description Title
WORD
Supplementary materials

Brownbill et al. supplementary material
Brownbill et al. supplementary material 1

 Word (15 KB)
15 KB
WORD
Supplementary materials

Brownbill et al. supplementary material
Brownbill et al. supplementary material 2

 Word (17 KB)
17 KB
WORD
Supplementary materials

Brownbill et al. supplementary material
Brownbill et al. supplementary material 3

 Word (20 KB)
20 KB

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed