To assess the prevalence of promotions on foods and non-alcoholic drinks purchased by New Zealand households and to determine if they vary according to healthiness of products.

We undertook a cross-sectional analysis of Nielsen New Zealand Homescan® 2018/19 panel data. We conducted multivariate analyses to examine the variability in quantities of healthy v. unhealthy food and beverage products purchased on promotion. Promotion was self-reported by the panellist. Healthiness of products was measured by the Health Star Rating (HSR) system. We also carried out a subgroup analysis for beverages according to the threshold of < 5 g v. ≥ 5 g sugar per 100 ml content of products.

The Nielsen New Zealand Homescan® data were linked with two New Zealand Food Composition Databases (Nutritrack and the FOODfiles).

Food and beverage purchases data by 1800 panel households were used.

Overall, 46 % (1 803 601/3 940 458) of all purchases made were on promotion. Compared with purchases of food and beverage products with HSR < 3·5 (unhealthy), food and beverage products with HSR ≥ 3·5 (healthy) were significantly less likely to be on promotion (OR = 0·78, 95 % CI 0·77, 0·79). The subgroup analysis for beverages shows that products with < 5 g sugar per 100 ml were significantly less likely to be on promotion than those with ≥ 5 g sugar per 100 ml (OR = 0·77, 95 % CI 0·75, 0·79).

Policies to improve healthy food retailing should focus on increasing the promotion of healthier food and drink options in stores and supermarkets.

To assess the nutritional quality of Australian supermarket own brand chilled convenience foods (SOBCCF), for example, ready meals, pizza, pies and desserts.

Cross-sectional.

Two large supermarkets (Coles and Woolworths) in Perth, Western Australia were audited in February 2017.

Data were extracted from photographic images of 291 SOBCCF, including front-of-pack information (i.e. product name, description and nutrition labels including Health Star Rating (HSR)) and back-of-pack information (i.e. nutrition information panel and ingredients list). SOBCCF were classified as healthy or unhealthy consistent with principles of the Australian Guide to Healthy Eating (AGTHE), NOVA classification of level of food processing and HSR score.

Fifty-four percentage of SOBCCF were classified as unhealthy according to AGTHE principles, 94 % were ultra-processed foods using NOVA and 81 % scored a HSR of ≥2·5, implying that they were a healthy choice. Some convenience food groups comprised more healthy choices overall including prepared vegetables, salad kits and bowls, soups and vegetarian food. A significantly larger proportion of SOBCCF from Coles were classified as unhealthy compared with Woolworths (70 v. 44 %, P < 0·05) using the AGTHE.

The findings suggest there is potential for Australian supermarkets to improve the nutritional quality of their SOBCCF and highlights the differences between supermarkets in applying their corporate social responsibility policies. Policies to assist consumers to select healthier foods should address difficulties in identifying healthy convenience foods. The findings reveal misclassification of unhealthy SOBCCF as healthy by the HSR suggesting that its algorithm should be reformed to align with recommendations of the AGTHE.

To compare the Health Star Rating (HSR) and the nutritional profile of branded and generic packaged foods in Australia.

In-store audits of packaged food products capturing data on HSR and nutritional content to analyse differences between branded and generic foods across ten food categories.

The audit was conducted in four major supermarket chains across various locations within metropolitan Sydney regions, Australia.

A total of 6269 products were analysed with 57 % of generic products and 28 % of branded products displaying an HSR. The median HSR of branded products was significantly greater than for generic products overall (4·0 v. 3·5, P<0·005) and in six out of ten food categories (P<0·005). However, when branded products could be matched to their generic counterparts for paired comparisons (n 146), no statistical difference was observed in all ten food categories. Branded products that chose to display an HSR had significantly lower saturated fat and Na, but higher fibre contents than branded products not displaying an HSR.

Our data show no difference in the HSR or nutrient profiles of similar branded and generic products that display HSR. Branded products appear to exploit the voluntary nature of the HSR scheme, preferentially displaying an HSR on healthier products compared with their generic counterparts.

To compare two front-of-pack nutrition labelling systems for the assessment of packaged foods and drinks with Australian Dietary Guidelines.

A cross-sectional nutrient profiling assessment. Food and drink products (n 20 225) were categorised into scoring levels using criteria for the Institute of Medicine (IOM) three-star system and the five-star Australian Health Star Rating (HSR). The effectiveness of these systems to categorise foods in accordance with Australian Dietary Guidelines was explored.

The study was conducted in Australia, using a comprehensive food database.

Packaged food and drink products (n 20 225) available in Australia.

Using the IOM three-star system, the majority (55 %) of products scored the minimum 0 points and 25·5 % scored the maximum 3 points. Using HSR criteria, the greatest proportion of products (15·2 %) scored three-and-a-half stars from a possible five and 12·5 % received the lowest rating of a half-star. Very few products (4·1 %) scored five stars. Products considered core foods and drinks in Australian Dietary Guidelines received higher scores than discretionary foods in all food categories for both labelling systems (all P<0·05; Mann–Whitney U test), with the exception of fish products using IOM three-star criteria (P=0·603). The largest discrepancies in median score between the two systems were for the food categories edible oils, convenience foods and dairy.

Both the IOM three-star and Australian HSR front-of-pack labelling systems rated packaged foods and drinks broadly in line with Australian Dietary Guidelines by assigning core foods higher ratings and discretionary foods lower ratings.