Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26222226›Full record

ArticlePublic health nutrition2016

Ultra-processed foods have the worst nutrient profile, yet they are the most available packaged products in a sample of New Zealand supermarkets.

Claire M Luiten, Ingrid Hm Steenhuis, Helen Eyles, Cliona Ni Mhurchu, Wilma E Waterlander

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Public health nutrition, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 95 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
95citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

95 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

35 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Claire M Luiten1Department of Health Sciences and the EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences,VU University Amsterdam,Amsterdam,The Netherlands.
Ingrid Hm Steenhuis1Department of Health Sciences and the EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences,VU University Amsterdam,Amsterdam,The Netherlands.
Helen Eyles2National Institute for Health Innovation,School of Population Health,Tamaki Campus,The University of Auckland,Private Bag 92019,Auckland Mail Centre,Auckland 1142,New Zealand.
Cliona Ni Mhurchu2National Institute for Health Innovation,School of Population Health,Tamaki Campus,The University of Auckland,Private Bag 92019,Auckland Mail Centre,Auckland 1142,New Zealand.
Wilma E Waterlander2National Institute for Health Innovation,School of Population Health,Tamaki Campus,The University of Auckland,Private Bag 92019,Auckland Mail Centre,Auckland 1142,New Zealand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo examine the availability of packaged food products in New Zealand supermarkets by level of industrial processing, nutrient profiling score (NPSC), price (energy, unit and serving costs) and brand variety.

designSecondary analysis of cross-sectional survey data on packaged supermarket food and non-alcoholic beverages. Products were classified according to level of industrial processing (minimally, culinary and ultra-processed) and their NPSC.

settingPackaged foods available in four major supermarkets in Auckland, New Zealand. SUBJECTS: Packaged supermarket food products for the years 2011 and 2013.

resultsThe majority (84% in 2011 and 83% in 2013) of packaged foods were classified as ultra-processed. A significant positive association was found between the level of industrial processing and NPSC, i.e., ultra-processed foods had a worse nutrient profile (NPSC=11.63) than culinary processed foods (NPSC=7.95), which in turn had a worse nutrient profile than minimally processed foods (NPSC=3.27), P<0.001. No clear associations were observed between the three price measures and level of processing. The study observed many variations of virtually the same product. The ten largest food manufacturers produced 35% of all packaged foods available.

conclusionsIn New Zealand supermarkets, ultra-processed foods comprise the largest proportion of packaged foods and are less healthy than less processed foods. The lack of significant price difference between ultra- and less processed foods suggests ultra-processed foods might provide time-poor consumers with more value for money. These findings highlight the need to improve the supermarket food supply by reducing numbers of ultra-processed foods and by reformulating products to improve their nutritional profile.

Indexed as

Nutritive ValueCommerceCosts and Cost AnalysisCross-Sectional StudiesDatabases, FactualEnergy IntakeFast FoodsFood HandlingFood PackagingLinear ModelsNew ZealandFood brandsNutrient profilingPriceProcessed foodSupermarket interventions

Identifiers

PMID26222226
PMCPMC10271194

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.