Search

Knowledge is needed about effective tools that reach public health objectives focused on reducing the intake of sugar-rich foods and drinks. The purpose of this study was to assess the parental acceptability, use and motivational potential of intervention components developed in the randomized family-based trial ‘Are you too sweet?’ aimed at reducing the intake of sugar-rich foods and drinks among children (5–7 y). Intervention components included guidance on sugar-rich foods and drinks at a school health nurse consultation, a box with home-use materials and a digital platform. The methods used were a questionnaire among intervention families (n = 83) and semi-structured interviews with parents in selected intervention families (n = 24). Results showed the good acceptability and usefulness of the components, with reported frequencies of use of materials ranging from 48% to 94% and a high satisfaction rate with the school health nurse consultation. Personalized feedback and guidance from the school health nurse seemed to be a motivational trigger, and components that were compatible with existing practices were most frequently used. However, the components were not considered engaging by all families. Overall, intervention components were well received and hold the potential for enhancing parental knowledge and parenting practices regarding limiting the intake of sugar-rich foods and drinks.

Understanding the determinants of early introduction of sugar sweetened beverages (SSBs) may assist in designing effective public health interventions to prevent childhood weight related conditions (obesity). This study explores the relationship between family/infant characteristics and the early introduction of SSBs among infants in Sydney, Australia. Mothers (n = 934) from an ongoing birth cohort study were interviewed at 8, 17, 34, and 52 weeks postpartum. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to identify family/infant factors independently associated with the likelihood of early introduction of SSBs (<52 weeks of age). Of the 934 mothers interviewed, 42.7% (n = 399) of infants were introduced to SSBs before 52 weeks. Mothers who were born in Vietnam (adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR) = 2.14; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.33, 3.47), other Asian countries (AOR = 1.62; 95% CI 1.02, 2.58) as well as single mothers (AOR = 3.72; 95% CI 2.46, 5.62) had higher odds of introducing SSBs early to their infants. Mothers from highly advantaged socioeconomic background (AOR = 0.43; 95% CI 0.28, 0.68), those who breastfed their baby for 17–25 weeks (AOR = 0.60; 95% CI 0.37, 0.99), 26–51 weeks (AOR = 0.65; 95% CI 0.45, 0.94), and 52 weeks or more (AOR = 0.62; 95% CI 0.43, 0.90); and those who introduced solids between 17–25 weeks (AOR = 0.58; 95% CI 0.36, 0.91) and 26 weeks or more (AOR = 0.55; 95% CI 0.34, 0.91) had reduced odds of introducing SSBs early. Tailoring health promotion programs for these vulnerable groups may delay the introduction of SSBs.

Objective The present research aimed to investigate the impact of the physical activity calorie equivalent (PACE) front-of-pack label on consumption, prospective consumption and liking of familiar and unfamiliar discretionary snack foods. Design In a within-subject randomised design, participants tasted and rated liking (9-point hedonic scale) and prospective consumption (9-point category scale) of four different snack foods with four different labels (i.e. blank, fake, PACE, PACE doubled) and four control snack foods. The twenty snack foods were presented during two 45 min sessions (i.e. ten snack foods per session) which were separated by one week. The amount participants sampled of each snack food was measured. Setting The study was conducted in the Centre for Advanced Sensory Sciences laboratory at Deakin University, Australia. Subjects The participants were 153 university students (126 females, twenty-seven males, mean age 24·3 (sd 4·9) years) currently enrolled in an undergraduate nutrition degree at Deakin University. Results When the PACE label was present on familiar snack foods, participants sampled 9·9 % (22·8 (sem 1·4) v. 25·3 (sem 1·5) g, P=0·03) less than when such label was not present. This was in line with a decreased prospective snack food consumption of 9·1 % (3·0 (sem 0·2) v. 3·3 (sem 0·2) servings, P=0·03). Such pattern was not seen in unfamiliar snacks. Conclusions The PACE label appears to be a promising way to decrease familiar discretionary snack food consumption in young, health-minded participants.

The notion of sustainable food consumption has acquired a broader definition in recent years: as the incidence of obesity and other diet-related chronic diseases rises, “sustainable” consumption has come to refer to not only planetary health but also human health. The food sustainability debate has thus far centered largely on reducing red meat consumption. However, this paper argues that we cannot seek to align health and environmental objectives without considering the role of discretionary food, defined as foods and drinks not necessary to provide the nutrients the body needs, such as soft drinks and sweets. These foods are typically highly processed and high in sodium, sugar, and saturated fat, and while their negative impacts on health are well documented, their broader environmental sustainability impacts deserve more attention. This is particularly true given that their affordability and palatability is a result of a food system that aggressively promotes the overconsumption of such products.The paper combines unique nutrition and expenditure data from Australia, including a detailed classification of discretionary products, along with environmentally extended input-output analysis to estimate the life cycle environmental impacts of discretionary food consumption across diverse socioeconomic groups. The novelty of the approach lies first in a multi-indicator approach to measuring sustainability, simultaneously taking into account water use, energy use, carbon dioxide equivalent, and land use. Second, the approach accounts for equity considerations and distinguishes, on the basis of dietary intake, whether discretionary foods can be simply eliminated (excess consumption) or require substitution. The latter is typically the case for poorer socioeconomic groups who are currently malnourished because discretionary food has replaced core foods.On average, discretionary foods account for a significant 30 to 40% of overall diet-related water use, energy use, carbon