↓ Skip to main content

Nutritional quality of new food products released into the Australian retail food market in 2015 – is the food industry part of the solution?

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
89 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 Mendeley
Title
Nutritional quality of new food products released into the Australian retail food market in 2015 – is the food industry part of the solution?
Published in
BMC Public Health, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12889-018-5127-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sheree A. Spiteri, Dana Lee Olstad, Julie L. Woods

Abstract

Food manufacturers have made public statements and voluntary commitments, such as the Healthier Australia Commitment (HAC), to improve the nutritional quality of foods. However, limited information about the nutritional quality or healthfulness of new products makes it difficult to determine if manufacturers are doing this. The purpose of this study was to assess the healthfulness of new food products released into the Australian retail market in 2015, and whether those companies who were HAC members released healthier food options compared to non-HAC members. This cross-sectional study assessed the healthfulness of all new retail food products launched in Australia in 2015 as indexed in Mintel's Global New Products Database. Healthfulness was assessed using three classification schemes: Healthy Choices Framework Victoria, Australian Dietary Guidelines and NOVA Food Classification System. Descriptive statistics and chi-squared tests described and compared the number and proportions of new foods falling within each of the food classification schemes' categories for companies that were and were not HAC members. In 2015, 4143 new food products were launched into the Australian market. The majority of new products were classified in each schemes' least healthy category (i.e. red, discretionary and ultra-processed). Fruits and vegetables represented just 3% of new products. HAC members launched a significantly greater proportion of foods classified as red (59% vs 51% for members and non-members, respectively) discretionary (79% vs 61%), and ultra-processed (94% vs 81%), and significantly fewer were classified as green (8% vs 15%), core foods (18% vs 36%) and minimally processed (0% vs 6%) (all p < 0.001). This study found that the majority of new products released into the Australian retail food market in 2015 were classified in each of three schemes' least healthy categories. A greater proportion of new products launched by companies that publicly committed to improve the nutritional quality of their products were unhealthy, and a lower proportion were healthy, compared with new products launched by companies that did not so commit. Greater monitoring of industry progress in improving the healthfulness of the food supply may be warranted, with public accountability if the necessary changes are not seen.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 89 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 53 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 19%
Researcher 7 13%
Unspecified 5 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 6%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 19 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 5 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 9%
Social Sciences 4 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 6%
Other 12 23%
Unknown 20 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 61. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 July 2018.
All research outputs
#699,617
of 25,497,142 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#714
of 17,642 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,661
of 447,080 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#25
of 290 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,497,142 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 17,642 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 447,080 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 290 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.