Search

Objective: To analyze the contribution of ultra-processed foods to the intake of free sugars among different age groups in Australia. Methods: Dietary intakes of 12,153 participants from the National Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey (2011–12) aged 2+ years were evaluated. Food items collected through two 24-h recalls were classified according to the NOVA system. The contribution of each NOVA food group and their subgroups to total energy intake was determined by age group. Mean free sugar content in diet fractions made up exclusively of ultra-processed foods, or of processed foods, or of a combination of un/minimally processed foods and culinary ingredients (which includes table sugar and honey) were compared. Across quintiles of the energy contribution of ultra-processed foods, differences in the intake of free sugars, as well as in the prevalence of excessive free sugar intake (≥ 10% of total energy) were examined. Results: Ultra-processed foods had the highest energy contribution among children, adolescents and adults in Australia, with older children and adolescents the highest consumers (53.1% and 54.3% of total energy, respectively). The diet fraction restricted to ultra-processed items contained significantly more free sugars than the two other diet fractions. Among all age groups, a positive and statistically significant linear association was found between quintiles of ultra-processed food consumption and both the average intake of free sugars and the prevalence of excessive free sugar intake. Conclusion: Ultra-processed food consumption drives excessive free sugar intake among all age groups in Australia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To examine the intake and sources of added sugars (AS) of Australian children and adolescents, and compare their intake of free sugars (FS) to the recommended limit set by the World Health Organization (<10 % energy from FS). Method: Data of 4140 children and adolescents aged 2-16 years with plausible intakes based on 2 × 24 h recalls from the 2007 Australian National Children Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey were used. AS content of foods was estimated based on a published method. Intakes of AS and FS, as well as food sources of AS, were calculated. One-way ANOVA was used for comparisons between age groups and gender. Results: The mean (SD) AS intake was 58.9 (35.1) g/day, representing 11.9 (5.6) % of daily energy intake and 46.9 (17.5) % of daily total sugars intake. More than 80 % of the subjects had % energy from FS > 10 %. Significant increasing trends for AS intake, % energy from AS, % energy from FS across age groups were observed. Sugar-sweetened beverages (19.6 %), cakes, biscuits, pastries and batter-based products (14.3 %), and sugar and sweet spreads (10.5 %) were the top three contributors of AS intake in the whole sample. Higher contribution of AS from sugar-sweetened beverages was observed in adolescents ( p < 0.001). Conclusions: A large proportion of Australian youths are consuming excessive amounts of energy from AS. Since the main sources of AS were energy-dense, nutrient-poor foods, interventions which target the reduction in these foods would reduce energy and AS intake with minimal impact to core nutrient intake. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Obesity is a public health challenge faced worldwide. Community pharmacists may be well placed to manage Australia's obesity problem owing to their training, accessibility and trustworthiness. However, determining consumers' needs is vital to the development of any new services or the evaluation of existing services. Objective To explore Australian consumers' perspectives regarding weight management services in the community pharmacy setting, including their past experiences and willingness to pay for a specific pharmacy-based service. Design An online cross-sectional consumer survey was distributed through a marketing research company. The survey instrument comprised open-ended and closed questions exploring consumers' experiences of and preferences for weight management services in pharmacy. It also included an attitudinal measure, the Consumer Attitude to Pharmacy Weight Management Services (CAPWMS) scale. Setting and participants A total of 403 consumers from New South Wales, Australia, completed the survey. Results The majority of respondents had previously not sought a pharmacist's advice regarding weight management. Those who had previously consulted a pharmacist were more willing to pay for and support pharmacy-based services in the future. Most consumers considered pharmacists' motivations to provide advice related to gaining profit from selling a product and expressed concerns about the perceived conflicts of interest. Participants also perceived pharmacists as lacking expertise and time. Conclusion Although Australian consumers were willing to seek pharmacists' advice about weight management, they perceived several barriers to the provision of weight management services in community pharmacy. If barriers are addressed, community pharmacies could be a viable and accessible setting to manage obesity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To investigate consumers' understanding of terms commonly used to provide guidance about frequency and quantity of food consumption. Methods: A survey of 405 shoppers explored how frequently consumers thought food labeled with the terms "eat often," "eat moderately," "eat occasionally," "a sometimes food," and "an extra food" should be eaten. In a separate phase, 30 grocery buyers responded to open-ended questions about their interpretation of these terms. Results: Responses indicated significant differences in meaning between the terms. However, the specific interpretation of each term varied considerably across respondents. The qualitative research found the terms to be highly subjective, and there was a high degree of uncertainty about the meaning of the term "an extra food" in particular. Conclusions and Implications: Food frequency and descriptive terms currently used do not provide meaningful or consistent nutritional guidance. There is a need for simple, unambiguous terminology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]