ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Since 2006, the Australian food industry has promoted its front-of-pack (FOP) food labelling system-the Daily Intake Guide (DIG)-as a success story of industry self-regulation. With over 4000 products already voluntary featuring the DIG, the industry argues that government regulation of FOP nutrition labelling is simply unnecessary. However, no independent audit of the industry's self-regulation has ever been undertaken and we present the first such Australian data. SUBJECTS/METHODS: Energy-dense nutrient-poor (EDNP) snacks were audited at nine Australian supermarkets, including biscuits, candy, ice creams, chocolates, crisps, sports drinks, energy drinks, flavoured milks, sweetened juices and soft drinks. In these categories nutrition labels were recorded for 728 EDNP products in various packaging sizes. RESULTS: The DIG was displayed on 66% of audited EDNP products but most of these (75%) did not report saturated fat and sugar content. Only generic supermarket EDNP products were likely to display saturated fat and sugar content, compared with very few branded products (48% vs 4%, P<0.001). Branded products not displaying fat and sugar content contained on average 10-times more saturated fat than those displaying such (10% vs 1% DI, P<0.001) and nearly twice as much sugar (21 vs 13% DI, P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Most Australian manufacturers of EDNP products have adopted the DIG; consistent with industry claims of widespread adoption, but almost all still avoid displaying the high saturated fat and sugar content of their products by opting for the 'energy alone' option, violating the industry's own voluntarily guidelines and highlighting serious weaknesses with the industry's self-regulation.
Subject(s)
Fast Foods/analysis , Food Labeling , Food Quality , Food Supply/economics , Food-Processing Industry/methods , Health Promotion/methods , Snacks , Australia , Beverages/adverse effects , Beverages/analysis , Beverages/economics , Dietary Fats/adverse effects , Dietary Fats/analysis , Dietary Sucrose/adverse effects , Dietary Sucrose/analysis , Energy Intake , Fast Foods/adverse effects , Fast Foods/economics , Food-Processing Industry/economics , Guidelines as Topic , Humans , Nutritive Value , Voluntary ProgramsABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To assess the influence of point-of-sale (POS) cigarette displays on unplanned purchases. METHODS: Intercept interviews were conducted with customers observed purchasing cigarettes from retail outlets featuring POS cigarette displays. Measures included intention to purchase cigarettes prior to entering the store, unprompted and prompted salience of POS tobacco displays, urge to buy cigarettes as a result of seeing the POS display, brand switching and support for a ban on POS cigarette displays. RESULTS: In total, 206 daily smokers aged 18-76 years (90 male, 116 female) were interviewed. Unplanned cigarette purchases were made by 22% of participants. POS displays influenced nearly four times as many unplanned purchases as planned purchases (47% vs 12%, p<0.01). Brand switching was reported among 5% of participants, half of whom were influenced by POS displays. Four times as many smokers were supportive of a ban on POS tobacco displays than unsupportive (49% vs 12%), and 28% agreed that such a ban would make it easier to quit. CONCLUSIONS: POS tobacco displays act as a form of advertising even in the absence of advertising materials. They stimulate unplanned cigarette purchases, play an important role in brand selection and tempt smokers trying to quit. This justifies removing POS tobacco displays from line of sight-something that very few smokers in our sample would object to.
