5 Conclusions
[ pdf 89 kb ]
Of the 1262 labels collected in Australia and New Zealand during 2003, 43% carried nutrition, health or related claims. A greater proportion of all labels collected featured nutrition claims (42%) rather than health claims (11%). Ten percent of all labels collected featured both nutrition claims and health claims.
The proportion of labels that carried nutrition claims was approximately the same in Australia and New Zealand (approximately 42%), however health claims featured on a greater proportion (14%) of labels from New Zealand than labels from Australia (9%).
Labels were collected across 14 different food categories. Labels from the three largest categories (Mixed foods, Fruit and vegetables, and Bread and bakery products) made up 48% of all labels collected. Labels from the three smallest categories (Egg and egg products, Sugar, honey and related goods, and Food intended for particular dietary use) made up less than 5% of all labels collected.
Within each category, the labels with claims were compared as a proportion of the total number of labels in each category. The categories with the highest proportion of labels featuring nutrition claims were Food intended for particular dietary use (96%), Edible oils and emulsions (70%), and Dairy products (69%). The categories with the lowest proportion of nutrition claims were Sugar, honey and related products (17%), Confectionery (17%) and Meat and meat products (22%),
The categories with the highest proportion of labels featuring health claims were Food intended for particular dietary use (52%), Edible oils and emulsions (30%) and Cereals and cereal products (24%). The categories with the lowest proportion of health claims were Sugar, honey and related products (0%), Confectionery (0%) and Meat and meat products (5%).
The claims were assessed against the labelling provisions provided in the Food Code, the Fair Trading legislation and the proposed classification framework. Claims on labels collected in Australia were also assessed against the provisions of CoPoNC, and claims on labels collected in New Zealand were also assessed against the provisions of the NZDSR.
The majority of labels that featured claims in both New Zealand and Australia had absolute content claims, generally vitamins or minerals featured within the NIP. These featured on 525, or 97%, of labels that featured claims (42% of all labels collected). Comparative content claims featured on 41 labels, or 8% of labels that featured claims (3% of all labels collected).
A total of 163 health claims were assessed on 137 labels collected in Australia and New Zealand. The main type of health claim featured was the Heart Foundation Tick endorsement, which was assessed as a general level health implied function claim. This featured on 66 labels, representing 5% of all labels collected.
Thirty-eight general level health function claims were assessed and 23 general level health whole of diet claims were assessed. Fourteen enhanced function claims and 11 health-related symbols or graphics were also assessed. Other general level health claims assessed included risk reduction of non-serious disease, lifestage claims and health-related trademarks or product names.
Four high level health claims were assessed, one of which was a biomarker maintenance claim, one was a risk reduction of a serious disease, and 2 were biomarker enhancement claims.
There were differences between Australia and New Zealand in the number of labels featuring certain nutrition claims made according to the provisions of Standard 1.2.8 (Division 3).
In Australia, the highest proportion (41%) of claims made according to these provisions related to fatty acid content and 28% were made in relation to salt. A further 23% were made in relation to gluten content. In New Zealand, the highest number of claims (34%) was made in relation to salt content, 24% were made in relation to gluten content and 18% were made in relation to fat content.
Nutrition claims on labels collected in Australia were assessed against the labelling provisions of CoPoNC. A total of 153 labels collected in Australia were identified as having 220 claims to be assessed against CoPoNC.
Claims in relation to fat content made up 42% of all CoPoNC claims. Claims relating to cholesterol content made up 15%, with claims relating to sugar content making up 13% of CoPoNC claims.
Claims in relation to fibre content made up 11%, and those relating to salt content made up 10% of all CoPoNC claims.
‘Low energy’ and ‘reduced energy’ claims made up only 2% of all CoPoNC claims.
No ‘X% free (other than fat)’ claims were identified for assessment against the CoPoNC provisions in the current survey.
The category with the highest number of claims assessed against CoPoNC provisions was Mixed foods, accounting for 22% of all CoPoNC claims. Labels from the Bread and bakery goods category accounted for 16% of all CoPoNC claims, while labels from the category Cereals and cereal products accounted for 14% of all CoPoNC claims.
Labels from the category Egg and egg products had no CoPoNC claims, while labels from the category Fish and fish products featured 2 CoPoNC claims, as did labels from the category Sugar, Honey and related goods.
The majority (87%) of labels with claims assessed were consistent with the requirements of the labelling provisions used for this survey (469 out of 542 labels with claims). A total of 84 claims on 73 labels were found to be inconsistent with the labelling provisions. Of these claims, the majority (60%) came from labels collected in Australia; overall 91% inconsistent claims (77 claims) related to labelling provisions in the Code, 2% (2 claims) to the Zealand Dietary Supplements Regulations and 7% (6 claims) related to CoPoNC.
The category with the highest proportion of inconsistent claims was ice cream and ice cream products (43%), followed by meat and meat products (30%), and dairy products (25%).
The categories of Egg and egg products and Sugar, honey and related products were not assessed as having any inconsistent claims, while the category of Cereals and cereal products had 6% inconsistent claims as a proportion of total number of labels with claims.
While the labelling provisions of CoPoNC were applied to 220 claims on labels collected in Australia, these were found to be consistent with labelling requirements in almost all (97%) cases. Five labels bearing ‘X% Fat Free’ claims stated the product contained more than the amount of fat allowed by CoPoNC, and were therefore assessed as inconsistent. One further product made a cholesterol free claim, which did not appropriately reference the whole of the class of foods being cholesterol free.
Of the 4 high level health claims assessed, 2 biomarker enhancement claims were consistent with the current labelling provisions. Another high level health claim referenced a serious disease and provided advice of a medical nature and was therefore also assessed as inconsistent with these provisions. One high level health claim referenced a non-serious disease and one general level health claim referenced a physiological condition, so both were therefore assessed as inconsistent with the provisions of Standard 1.1A.2.
One general level health claim was also assessed as inconsistent with the provisions of both Standard 1.1A.2 and NZDSR as it referenced a non-serious disease and provided prophylactic advice.
Whilst the labels collected in Australia were assessed against a greater number of provisions than those from New Zealand, the extra requirements of CoPoNC did not appear to be the cause of the higher number of inconsistent label claims for labels collected in Australia.
As the Label Monitoring Survey enters its second phase under the FSANZ Evaluation Strategy for 2004-2008, the 2003 information assessed in this survey will be a valuable benchmark against the nutrition, health or related claims that are now featured on labels and advertising materials.
back | top of page