Extent of alignment between the Australian Dietary Guidelines and the NOVA classification system across the Australian packaged food supply.

IF 2.6 4区 医学 Q3 NUTRITION & DIETETICS Nutrition & Dietetics Pub Date : 2024-05-13 DOI:10.1111/1747-0080.12880
Hillary Nguyen, Alexandra Jones, Eden M Barrett, Maria Shahid, Allison Gaines, Monica Hu, Simone Pettigrew, Jason H Y Wu, Daisy H Coyle
{"title":"Extent of alignment between the Australian Dietary Guidelines and the NOVA classification system across the Australian packaged food supply.","authors":"Hillary Nguyen, Alexandra Jones, Eden M Barrett, Maria Shahid, Allison Gaines, Monica Hu, Simone Pettigrew, Jason H Y Wu, Daisy H Coyle","doi":"10.1111/1747-0080.12880","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>The Australian Dietary Guidelines are currently being revised and ultra-processed foods have been identified as a high priority action area. To better understand how well the current Dietary Guidelines align with level of processing classifications, the aim of this study was to assess the alignment between the Australian Dietary Guidelines and the NOVA classification system for classifying the healthiness of packaged foods.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data were sourced from the Australian FoodSwitch dataset, which included 28 071 packaged food and beverage products available in major Australian supermarkets in 2022. Products were classified as (i) core or discretionary (Australian Dietary Guidelines) and (ii) non-ultra-processed or ultra-processed (NOVA). Agreement between the two systems (core vs. non-ultra-processed and discretionary vs. ultra-processed) was evaluated using the kappa statistic.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was 'moderate' agreement (κ = 0.41, 95% CI: 0.40-0.42) between the Australian Dietary Guidelines and the NOVA system, with 69.8% of products aligned across the two systems. Alignment was more common for discretionary foods (80.6% were ultra-processed) than core foods (59.9% aligned were not-ultra-processed). Food categories exhibiting the strongest levels of alignment included confectionary, foods for specific dietary use, and egg and egg products. Discordance was most common for convenience foods, sugars, honey and related products, and cereal and grain products.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Despite moderate alignment between the Australian Dietary Guidelines and NOVA, the discordance observed for almost one-third of products highlights the opportunity to develop recommendations for ultra-processed foods within the guidelines to advise Australians how these foods should be considered as part of a healthy diet.</p>","PeriodicalId":19368,"journal":{"name":"Nutrition & Dietetics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nutrition & Dietetics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1747-0080.12880","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NUTRITION & DIETETICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aims: The Australian Dietary Guidelines are currently being revised and ultra-processed foods have been identified as a high priority action area. To better understand how well the current Dietary Guidelines align with level of processing classifications, the aim of this study was to assess the alignment between the Australian Dietary Guidelines and the NOVA classification system for classifying the healthiness of packaged foods.

Methods: Data were sourced from the Australian FoodSwitch dataset, which included 28 071 packaged food and beverage products available in major Australian supermarkets in 2022. Products were classified as (i) core or discretionary (Australian Dietary Guidelines) and (ii) non-ultra-processed or ultra-processed (NOVA). Agreement between the two systems (core vs. non-ultra-processed and discretionary vs. ultra-processed) was evaluated using the kappa statistic.

Results: There was 'moderate' agreement (κ = 0.41, 95% CI: 0.40-0.42) between the Australian Dietary Guidelines and the NOVA system, with 69.8% of products aligned across the two systems. Alignment was more common for discretionary foods (80.6% were ultra-processed) than core foods (59.9% aligned were not-ultra-processed). Food categories exhibiting the strongest levels of alignment included confectionary, foods for specific dietary use, and egg and egg products. Discordance was most common for convenience foods, sugars, honey and related products, and cereal and grain products.

Conclusions: Despite moderate alignment between the Australian Dietary Guidelines and NOVA, the discordance observed for almost one-third of products highlights the opportunity to develop recommendations for ultra-processed foods within the guidelines to advise Australians how these foods should be considered as part of a healthy diet.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
澳大利亚包装食品供应中《澳大利亚膳食指南》与 NOVA 分类系统的吻合程度。
目的:《澳大利亚膳食指南》目前正在修订,超加工食品已被确定为一个高度优先的行动领域。为了更好地了解现行膳食指南与加工等级分类之间的一致性,本研究旨在评估澳大利亚膳食指南与 NOVA 分类系统之间的一致性,以便对包装食品的健康程度进行分类:数据来源于澳大利亚 FoodSwitch 数据集,其中包括 2022 年在澳大利亚主要超市销售的 28 071 种包装食品和饮料产品。产品被分为(i)核心或酌定(澳大利亚膳食指南)和(ii)非超加工或超加工(NOVA)。使用卡帕统计量评估了两个系统(核心与非超加工和酌情与超加工)之间的一致性:结果:《澳大利亚膳食指南》和 NOVA 系统之间的一致性为 "中等"(κ = 0.41,95% CI:0.40-0.42),69.8%的产品在两个系统中保持一致。与核心食品(59.9%的对齐产品为非超高加工食品)相比,酌情食品(80.6%为超高加工食品)的对齐情况更为普遍。吻合程度最高的食品类别包括糖果、特殊膳食用食品和蛋及蛋制品。不一致最常见的是方便食品、糖、蜂蜜和相关产品,以及谷物和谷物制品:尽管《澳大利亚膳食指南》和《NOVA》之间存在一定程度的一致性,但观察到近三分之一的产品存在不一致,这突出表明有机会在指南中为超加工食品制定建议,以告知澳大利亚人应如何将这些食品视为健康膳食的一部分。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Nutrition & Dietetics
Nutrition & Dietetics 医学-营养学
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
16.10%
发文量
69
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Nutrition & Dietetics is the official journal of the Dietitians Association of Australia. Covering all aspects of food, nutrition and dietetics, the Journal provides a forum for the reporting, discussion and development of scientifically credible knowledge related to human nutrition and dietetics. Widely respected in Australia and around the world, Nutrition & Dietetics publishes original research, methodology analyses, research reviews and much more. The Journal aims to keep health professionals abreast of current knowledge on human nutrition and diet, and accepts contributions from around the world.
期刊最新文献
How do plant-based milks compare to cow's milk nutritionally? An audit of the plant-based milk products available in Australia. Food intake in an Australian Aboriginal rural community facing food and water security challenges: A cross-sectional survey. The test-retest reliability and validity of food photography and food diary analyses. What have equity and human rights got to do with dietetics? Foodservice strategies for reducing athlete illness at the Olympic and Paralympic Games.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1