Dietary contribution of foods and beverages sold within a university campus and its effect on diet quality of young adults.

OBJECTIVE: Tertiary education institutions have been linked with excessive weight in young adults. However, few data are available on the effect of foods from the university food environment on the diet quality of young adults. The aim of this study was to describe the association of a number of foods and beverages consumed at university food outlets with the diet quality of young adults. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional survey in which the 103 university student participants, aged 19 to 24 y, contributed 5 d of dietary data. A purposely designed, validated smartphone application was used to collect the data. Diet quality was assessed by adherence to the 2013 dietary guidelines for food groups and nutrients, and the validated Healthy Eating Index for Australians (HEIFA-2013) was applied. Individual HEIFA-2013 scores were compared with the frequency of food purchase and consumption from university outlets to assess a dose-response effect of the food environment. Comparisons by tertiles of diet quality for body mass index, waist circumference, and takeaway food consumption (university and other) were computed using a one-way analysis of variance and post hoc Tukey test. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant difference between the number of university foods and beverages consumed in 5 d and the HEIFA-2013 scores: More on-campus purchases resulted in a poor-quality diet (P = 0.001). As the HEIFA-2013 tertile scores increased, there was a significant decrease in the number of university campus and other takeaway foods consumed; body mass index and waist circumference showed a decrease in trend. CONCLUSIONS: Efforts to improve the diet quality of young adults attending university may benefit from approaches to improve the campus food environment.

Are gluten-free foods healthier than non-gluten-free foods? An evaluation of supermarket products in Australia.

Despite tremendous growth in the consumption of gluten-free (GF) foods, there is a lack of evaluation of their nutritional profile and how they compare with non-GF foods. The present study evaluated the nutritional quality of GF and non-GF foods in core food groups, and a wide range of discretionary products in Australian supermarkets. Nutritional information on the Nutrition Information Panel was systematically obtained from all packaged foods at four large supermarkets in Sydney, Australia in 2013. Food products were classified as GF if a GF declaration appeared anywhere on the product packaging, or non-GF if they contained gluten, wheat, rye, triticale, barley, oats or spelt. The primary outcome was the 'Health Star Rating' (HSR: lowest score 0.5; optimal score 5), a nutrient profiling scheme endorsed by the Australian Government. Differences in the content of individual nutrients were explored in secondary analyses. A total of 3213 food products across ten food categories were included. On average, GF plain dry pasta scored nearly 0.5 stars less (P< 0.001) compared with non-GF products; however, there were no significant differences in the mean HSR for breads or ready-to-eat breakfast cereals (P≥ 0.42 for both). Relative to non-GF foods, GF products had consistently lower average protein content across all the three core food groups, in particular for pasta and breads (52 and 32% less, P< 0.001 for both). A substantial proportion of foods in discretionary categories carried GF labels (e.g., 87% of processed meats), and the average HSR of GF discretionary foods were not systematically superior to those of non-GF products. The consumption of GF products is unlikely to confer health benefits, unless there is clear evidence of gluten intolerance.

How well do Australian shoppers understand energy terms on food labels?

OBJECTIVE: To investigate nutrition literacy among adult grocery buyers regarding energy-related labelling terms on food packaging. DESIGN: Qualitative interviews and quantitative surveys to determine shoppers' understanding of energy terms ('energy', 'calories' and 'kilojoules') and how energy terms affect perceptions of healthiness and intentions to purchase breakfast cereals, muesli bars and frozen meals. SETTING: Individual in-depth interviews and surveys in two metropolitan supermarkets, Sydney, Australia. SUBJECTS: Australian adults (interview n 40, survey n 405) aged 18-79 years. RESULTS: The relationship between energy and perceived healthiness of food varied by product type: higher energy breakfast cereals were perceived to be healthier, while lower energy frozen meals were seen as healthier choices. Likewise, intentions to purchase the higher energy product varied according to product type. The primary reason stated for purchasing higher energy products was for sustained energy. Participants from households of lower socio-economic status were significantly more likely to perceive higher energy products as healthier. From the qualitative interviews, participants expressed uncertainty about their understanding of kilojoules, while only 40 % of participants in intercept surveys correctly answered that kilojoules and calories measured the same thing. CONCLUSIONS: Australian consumers have a poor understanding of energy and kilojoules and tend to perceive higher energy products as healthier and providing sustained energy. This has implications regarding the usefulness of industry front-of-pack labelling initiatives and quick service restaurant menu labelling that provides information on energy content only. Comprehensive and widely communicated education campaigns will be essential to guide consumers towards healthier choices.