ArticleNutrients2018
Alignment of Supermarket Own Brand Foods' Front-of-Pack Nutrition Labelling with Measures of Nutritional Quality: An Australian Perspective.
Article in Nutrients, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Front-of-Package Nutrition Labeling and Its Impact on Food Industry Practices: A Systematic Review of the Evidence.Nutrients · 2023Pooled it
- How Does the Ultra-Processed Food Industry Drive Consumption Through Product Design and Marketing? Mapping a Complex Commercial System According to Expert Mental Models and Evidence Review.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2026Review
- An investigation of the change in alignment between the Health Star Rating Scheme and the Nova Food Processing Classification System and the Australian Dietary Guidelines.Public health nutrition · 2026Article
- Restricting outdoor advertising of unhealthy food: can Australia's food category-based classification system be applied consistently?Health promotion international · 2025Article
- Fifteen Years of NOVA Food-Processing Classification: "Friend or Foe" Among Sustainable Diet Indicators? A Scoping Review.Nutrition reviews · 2025Article
- Australian Consumers Are Willing to Pay for the Health Star Rating Front-of-Pack Nutrition Label.Nutrients · 2020Article
- The nutritional quality of supermarket own brand chilled convenience foods: an Australian cross-sectional study reveals limitations of the Health Star Rating.Public health nutrition · 2020Article
- Energy Density of New Food Products Targeted to Children.Nutrients · 2020Article
- Article
- A Comparison of the Nutritional Qualities of Supermarket's Own and Regular Brands of Bread in Sweden.Nutrients · 2020Article
- Growing the Business of Whole Grain in the Australian Market: A 6-Year Impact Assessment.Nutrients · 2020Article
- Article
- Health Star Rating in Grain Foods-Does It Adequately Differentiate Refined and Whole Grain Foods?Nutrients · 2019Article
- Free Sugars Intake, Sources and Determinants of High Consumption among Australian 2-Year-Olds in the SMILE Cohort.Nutrients · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Two voluntary front-of-pack nutrition labels (FOPNL) are present in Australia: the government-led Health Star Ratings (HSR) and food industry-led Daily Intake Guide (DIG). Australia's two largest supermarkets are key supporters of HSR, pledging uptake on all supermarket own brand foods (SOBF). This study aimed to examine prevalence of FOPNL on SOBF, and alignment with patterns of nutritional quality. Photographic audits of all SOBF present in three large supermarkets were conducted in Perth, Western Australia, in 2017. Foods were classified as nutritious or nutrient-poor based on the Australian Guide to Healthy Eating (AGTHE), NOVA level of food processing, and HSR score. Most (81.5%) SOBF featured FOPNL, with only 55.1% displaying HSR. HSR was present on 69.2% of Coles, 54.0% of Woolworths, and none of IGA SOBF. Half (51.3%) of SOBF were classified as nutritious using the AGTHE, but using NOVA, 56.9% were ultra-processed foods. Nutrient-poor and ultra-processed SOBF were more likely than nutritious foods to include HSR, yet many of these foods achieved HSR scores of 2.5 stars or above, implying they were a healthy choice. Supermarkets have a powerful position in the Australian food system, and they could do more to support healthy food selection through responsible FOPNL.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.