ArticlePublic health nutrition2024
The use of food processing terminology in Australian news media: a content analysis.
Article in Public health nutrition, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Public knowledge of ultra-processed foods: Insights from a national survey of Australian adults.Nutrition journal · 2026Article
- Research roadmap for ultra-processed foods in the context of the Australian food system.Nutrition & dietetics : the journal of the Dietitians Association of Australia · 2025Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aims to determine whether ultra-processed foods (UPFs) are being discussed in news media in Australia and whether this terminology, as described in the NOVA system, is being applied accurately.
designInterpretive content analysis of online and print media articles that mentioned UPFs from 2009 to 2023 in Australia.
settingAustralia.
participantsOnline and print media articles.
resultsA total of two hundred ninety-eight Australian media articles were captured. A substantial increase in the number of UPF articles was observed between 2017-2019 and 2021-2023. The UPF concept was inaccurately explained or defined in 32 % of the articles and was frequently used interchangeably with other descriptors, such as 'highly or heavily processed food', 'junk food', 'unhealthy food', 'packaged food' and 'discretionary food'. Most of the articles had a health focus; however, sustainability interest increased, particularly in the past 18 months.
conclusionsUPFs are increasingly being discussed in news media in Australia; however, the concept is still incorrectly presented in over a third of articles. This highlights the importance of improving the literacy about UPFs to ensure that messages are communicated in a way that is salient, accessible and accurate.
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.