Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

The impact of voluntary front-of-pack nutrition labelling on packaged food reformulation: A difference-in-differences analysis of the Australasian Health Star Rating scheme.
PLoS Med. 2020 11; 17(11):e1003427.PM

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Front-of-pack nutrition labelling (FoPL) of packaged foods can promote healthier diets. Australia and New Zealand (NZ) adopted the voluntary Health Star Rating (HSR) scheme in 2014. We studied the impact of voluntary adoption of HSR on food reformulation relative to unlabelled foods and examined differential impacts for more-versus-less healthy foods.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

Annual nutrition information panel data were collected for nonseasonal packaged foods sold in major supermarkets in Auckland from 2013 to 2019 and in Sydney from 2014 to 2018. The analysis sample covered 58,905 unique products over 14 major food groups. We used a difference-in-differences design to estimate reformulation associated with HSR adoption. Healthier products adopted HSR more than unhealthy products: >35% of products that achieved 4 or more stars displayed the label compared to <15% of products that achieved 2 stars or less. Products that adopted HSR were 6.5% and 10.7% more likely to increase their rating by ≥0.5 stars in Australia and NZ, respectively. Labelled products showed a -4.0% [95% confidence interval (CI): -6.4% to -1.7%, p = 0.001] relative decline in sodium content in NZ, and there was a -1.4% [95% CI: -2.7% to -0.0%, p = 0.045] sodium change in Australia. HSR adoption was associated with a -2.3% [-3.7% to -0.9%, p = 0.001] change in sugar content in NZ and a statistically insignificant -1.1% [-2.3% to 0.1%, p = 0.061] difference in Australia. Initially unhealthy products showed larger reformulation effects when adopting HSR than healthier products. No evidence of a change in protein or saturated fat content was observed. A limitation of our study is that results are not sales weighted. Thus, it is not able to assess changes in overall nutrient consumption that occur because of HSR-caused reformulation. Also, participation into labelling and reformulation is jointly determined by producers in this observational study, impacting its generalisability to settings with mandatory labelling.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, we observed that reformulation changes following voluntary HSR labelling are small, but greater for initially unhealthy products. Initially unhealthy foods were, however, less likely to adopt HSR. Our results, therefore, suggest that mandatory labelling has the greatest potential for improving the healthiness of packaged foods.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. The George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, Australia. University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.The George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, Australia. University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.Department of Economics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.Department of Economics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.

Pub Type(s)

Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Language

eng

PubMed ID

33216747

Citation

Bablani, Laxman, et al. "The Impact of Voluntary Front-of-pack Nutrition Labelling On Packaged Food Reformulation: a Difference-in-differences Analysis of the Australasian Health Star Rating Scheme." PLoS Medicine, vol. 17, no. 11, 2020, pp. e1003427.
Bablani L, Ni Mhurchu C, Neal B, et al. The impact of voluntary front-of-pack nutrition labelling on packaged food reformulation: A difference-in-differences analysis of the Australasian Health Star Rating scheme. PLoS Med. 2020;17(11):e1003427.
Bablani, L., Ni Mhurchu, C., Neal, B., Skeels, C. L., Staub, K. E., & Blakely, T. (2020). The impact of voluntary front-of-pack nutrition labelling on packaged food reformulation: A difference-in-differences analysis of the Australasian Health Star Rating scheme. PLoS Medicine, 17(11), e1003427. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003427
Bablani L, et al. The Impact of Voluntary Front-of-pack Nutrition Labelling On Packaged Food Reformulation: a Difference-in-differences Analysis of the Australasian Health Star Rating Scheme. PLoS Med. 2020;17(11):e1003427. PubMed PMID: 33216747.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - The impact of voluntary front-of-pack nutrition labelling on packaged food reformulation: A difference-in-differences analysis of the Australasian Health Star Rating scheme. AU - Bablani,Laxman, AU - Ni Mhurchu,Cliona, AU - Neal,Bruce, AU - Skeels,Christopher L, AU - Staub,Kevin E, AU - Blakely,Tony, Y1 - 2020/11/20/ PY - 2020/03/09/received PY - 2020/10/19/accepted PY - 2020/11/20/entrez PY - 2020/11/21/pubmed PY - 2021/1/26/medline SP - e1003427 EP - e1003427 JF - PLoS medicine JO - PLoS Med VL - 17 IS - 11 N2 - BACKGROUND: Front-of-pack nutrition labelling (FoPL) of packaged foods can promote healthier diets. Australia and New Zealand (NZ) adopted the voluntary Health Star Rating (HSR) scheme in 2014. We studied the impact of voluntary adoption of HSR on food reformulation relative to unlabelled foods and examined differential impacts for more-versus-less healthy foods. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Annual nutrition information panel data were collected for nonseasonal packaged foods sold in major supermarkets in Auckland from 2013 to 2019 and in Sydney from 2014 to 2018. The analysis sample covered 58,905 unique products over 14 major food groups. We used a difference-in-differences design to estimate reformulation associated with HSR adoption. Healthier products adopted HSR more than unhealthy products: >35% of products that achieved 4 or more stars displayed the label compared to <15% of products that achieved 2 stars or less. Products that adopted HSR were 6.5% and 10.7% more likely to increase their rating by ≥0.5 stars in Australia and NZ, respectively. Labelled products showed a -4.0% [95% confidence interval (CI): -6.4% to -1.7%, p = 0.001] relative decline in sodium content in NZ, and there was a -1.4% [95% CI: -2.7% to -0.0%, p = 0.045] sodium change in Australia. HSR adoption was associated with a -2.3% [-3.7% to -0.9%, p = 0.001] change in sugar content in NZ and a statistically insignificant -1.1% [-2.3% to 0.1%, p = 0.061] difference in Australia. Initially unhealthy products showed larger reformulation effects when adopting HSR than healthier products. No evidence of a change in protein or saturated fat content was observed. A limitation of our study is that results are not sales weighted. Thus, it is not able to assess changes in overall nutrient consumption that occur because of HSR-caused reformulation. Also, participation into labelling and reformulation is jointly determined by producers in this observational study, impacting its generalisability to settings with mandatory labelling. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed that reformulation changes following voluntary HSR labelling are small, but greater for initially unhealthy products. Initially unhealthy foods were, however, less likely to adopt HSR. Our results, therefore, suggest that mandatory labelling has the greatest potential for improving the healthiness of packaged foods. SN - 1549-1676 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/33216747/The_impact_of_voluntary_front_of_pack_nutrition_labelling_on_packaged_food_reformulation:_A_difference_in_differences_analysis_of_the_Australasian_Health_Star_Rating_scheme_ L2 - https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003427 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -