Search

Summary: We aimed to understand the process of setting or varying food standards related to non-nutritive sweeteners (NNS) in Australia and New Zealand. Overconsumption of added sugars is a risk factor for non-communicable diseases. Limiting added sugar consumption is recommended by the World Health Organization. NNS are sweet substances with little to no energy that can be used to maintain the sweetness of packaged food when added sugar is reduced. The health and dietary pattern impacts of NNS are contested. Understanding how and why applications for NNS are submitted, assessed and approved within food regulatory systems is important to contextualize the increasing availability of NNS in the food supply. We completed an interpretive content analysis of applications to change the Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ) Code, risk assessments and stakeholder submissions. Literature used in risk assessments were drawn from a mixture of documents supplied by industry and peer-reviewed studies. Risk assessments were primarily focussed on toxicological outcomes, while broader public health outcomes were not explicitly considered. Consumption data available to FSANZ were collected several years prior to dietary exposure assessments, and thus may not accurately represent current intakes. The study findings raise questions about whether the scope of what constitutes a 'risk' to public health in the setting of food standards needs to extend beyond immediate toxicological and food safety concerns, to include longer-term dietary balance considerations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: Fruit and vegetables are strongly promoted because of the nutrients they provide; many processed products contain added sugar and sodium. The present study aims to quantify the sugar and sodium content of pre‐packaged fruit and vegetable‐based products that are available in New Zealand supermarkets. Methods: Nutrition Information Panel data were collected from non‐frozen, processed fruit and vegetable products in New Zealand supermarkets (including soups, sauces, jams and spreads, pickles, chutneys and dips, and canned/bottled fruit and vegetables) where fruit and/or vegetables were the majority ingredient(s). Results: With the exception of canned/bottled vegetables, more than 60% of products contained added sugar. Per serve, the median sugar content was highest in canned/bottled fruit (17.8 g). More than 75% of soups, vegetable‐based sauces, pickles/chutneys and canned/bottled vegetables contained added sodium, with soups (722 mg) recording the highest median values per serve. Conclusions: Consumers need to be aware that although they are encouraged to eat a diet high in fruit and vegetables, there may be large quantities of added sugar and sodium in manufactured fruit and vegetable products that can have significant negative impacts on their health. Government health promotion campaigns encouraging the consumption of fruit and vegetables should be careful to target fresh, frozen and home‐prepared foods, and work on educating the public about the lower nutritional quality associated with most processed fruit and vegetable products. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To assess annual household purchases of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs), artificially sweetened beverages (AFSBs), and unsweetened beverages (USBs) by household composition and income, and over time., Design: Observational cohort study using beverage purchasing data linked to a supermarket database. ANOVA was used to compare total household purchase volumes (L) and the contribution of beverages purchased by category, household composition (size), household income (four categories from New Zealand (NZ) < $30 000 to > $90 000), and over time (trend from 2015 to 2019)., Setting: Aotearoa NZ., Participants: ∼1800 households in the NielsenIQ Homescan® market research panel., Results: In 2019, the mean (sd) annual household purchase volume and relative contribution to total beverage volume of SSBs were 72·3 (93·0) L and 33 %, respectively. Corresponding values for AFSBs were 32·5 (79·3) L (15 %), and USBs were 112·5 (100·9) L (52 %). Larger households purchased more of all beverage types except AFSBs. Total purchases were similar by income, but households earning < $NZ 30 000 purchased fewer AFSBs and USBs (but not SSBs) than households earning > $NZ 90 000. Total and USB purchases were unchanged over time, but SSBs dropped by 5·9 L ( P -trend = 0·04), and AFSBs increased by 5·3 L ( P -trend = 0·00)., Conclusions: USBs contributed the most to household beverage purchases. Total purchases were higher for larger households and similar by income, including for SSBs. The reduction over time was too small for health benefits. Findings support policies and interventions to reduce SSB consumption and highlight the importance of focusing on equitable outcomes.

Background: Neonatal hypoglycaemia is common, affecting up to 15% of newborns, and can cause brain damage. Currently, there are no strategies, beyond early feeding, to prevent neonatal hypoglycaemia. Our aim was to determine a dose of 40% oral dextrose gel that will prevent neonatal hypoglycaemia in newborn babies at risk.Methods and Findings: We conducted a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled dose-finding trial of buccal dextrose gel to prevent neonatal hypoglycaemia at two hospitals in New Zealand. Babies at risk of hypoglycaemia (infant of a mother with diabetes, late preterm delivery, small or large birthweight, or other risk factors) but without indication for admission to a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) were randomly allocated either to one of four treatment groups: 40% dextrose at one of two doses (0.5 ml/kg = 200 mg/kg, or 1 ml/kg = 400 mg/kg), either once at 1 h of age or followed by three additional doses of dextrose (0.5 ml/kg before feeds in the first 12 h); or to one of four corresponding placebo groups. Treatments were administered by massaging gel into the buccal mucosa. The primary outcome was hypoglycaemia (<2.6 mM) in the first 48 h. Secondary outcomes included admission to a NICU, admission for hypoglycaemia, and breastfeeding at discharge and at 6 wk. Prespecified potential dose limitations were tolerance of gel, time taken to administer, messiness, and acceptability to parents. From August 2013 to November 2014, 416 babies were randomised. Compared to babies randomised to placebo, the risk of hypoglycaemia was lowest in babies randomised to a single dose of 200 mg/kg dextrose gel (relative risk [RR] 0.68; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.47-0.99, p = 0.04) but was not significantly different between dose groups (p = 0.21). Compared to multiple doses, single doses of gel were better tolerated, quicker to administer, and less messy, but these limitations were not different between dextrose and placebo gel groups. Babies who received any dose of dextrose gel were less likely to develop hypoglycaemia than those who received placebo (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.64-0.98, p = 0.03; number needed to treat = 10, 95% CI 5-115). Rates of NICU admission were similar (RR 0.64; 95% CI 0.33-1.25, p = 0.19), but admission for hypoglycaemia was less common in babies randomised to dextrose gel (RR 0.46; 95% CI 0.21-1.01, p = 0.05). Rates of breastfeeding were similar in both groups. Adverse effects were uncommon and not different between groups. A limitation of this study was that most of the babies in the trial were infants of mothers with diabetes (73%), which may reduce the applicability of the results to babies from other risk groups.Conclusions: The incidence of neonatal hypoglycaemia can be reduced with a single dose of buccal 40% dextrose gel 200 mg/kg. A large randomised trial (Hypoglycaemia Prevention with Oral Dextrose [hPOD]) is under way to determine the effects on NICU admission and later outcomes.Trial Registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12613000322730. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To assess the mean package size and manufacturer-recommended serving size of sweet beverages available in four high-income countries: Australia, Canada, the Netherlands and New Zealand.Design: Cross-sectional surveys.Setting: The two largest supermarket chains of each country in 2012/2013.Subjects: Individual pack size (IPS) drinks (n 891) and bulk pack size (BPS) drinks (n 1904).Results: For all IPS drinks, the mean package size was larger than the mean serving size (mean (sd)=412 (157) ml and 359 (159) ml, respectively). The mean (sd) package size of IPS drinks was significantly different for all countries (range: Australia=370 (149) ml to New Zealand=484 (191) ml; P<0·01). The mean (sd) package size of Dutch BPS drinks (1313 (323) ml) was significantly smaller compared with the other countries (New Zealand=1481 (595) ml, Australia=1542 (595) ml, Canada=1550 (434) ml; P<0·01). The mean (sd) serving size of BPS drinks was significantly different across all countries (range: Netherlands=216 (30) ml to Canada=248 (31) ml; P<0·00). New Zealand had the largest package and serving sizes of the countries assessed. In all countries, a large number of different serving sizes were used to provide information on the amount appropriate to consume in one sitting.Conclusions: At this point there is substantial inconsistency in package sizes and manufacturer-recommended serving sizes of sweet beverages within and between four high-income countries, especially for IPS drinks. As consumers do factor serving size into their judgements of healthiness of a product, serving size regulations, preferably set by governments and global health organisations, would provide consistency and assist individuals in making healthier food choices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To compare the nutrient profile of packaged supermarket food products available in Australia and New Zealand. Eligibility to carry health claims and relationship between nutrient profile score and nutritional content were also evaluated.Design: Nutritional composition data were collected in six major Australian and New Zealand supermarkets in 2012. Mean Food Standards Australia New Zealand Nutrient Profiling Scoring Criterion (NPSC) scores were calculated and the proportion of products eligible to display health claims was estimated. Regression analyses quantified associations between NPSC scores and energy density, saturated fat, sugar and sodium contents.Results: NPSC scores were derived for 23,596 packaged food products (mean score 7.0, range -17 to 53). Scores were lower (better nutrient profile) for foods in Australia compared with New Zealand (mean 6.6 v. 7.8). Overall, 45% of foods were eligible to carry health claims based on NPSC thresholds: 47% in Australia and 41% in New Zealand. However, less than one-third of dairy (32%), meat and meat products (28%) and bread and bakery products (27.5%) were eligible to carry health claims. Conversely, >75% of convenience food products were eligible to carry health claims (82.5%). Each two-unit higher NPSC score was associated with higher energy density (78 kJ/100 g), saturated fat (0.95 g/100 g), total sugar (1.5 g/100 g) and sodium (66 mg/100 g; all P values<0.001).Conclusions: Fewer than half of all packaged foods available in Australia and New Zealand in 2012 met nutritional criteria to carry health claims. The few healthy choices available in key staple food categories is a concern. Improvements in nutritional quality of foods through product reformulation have significant potential to improve population diets. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]