• Energy Research
• 2. Zero hunger close

Alcoholic beverages sold in Australia are largely exempt from requirements to display nutrition information on packages, unlike other food and beverages. However, alcoholic beverage manufacturers can provide nutrition-related information voluntarily. This study aimed to investigate the prevalence of nutrition-related information on packaged alcoholic beverages in Australia. An in-store audit of the largest alcohol retailer in Melbourne, Australia was conducted in July 2021. A systematic sampling method was used to assess the presence and format of nutrition information on 850 alcoholic beverages across 5 alcohol categories (wine (n = 200), beer (n = 200), spirits (n = 200), ready-to-drink beverages (n = 140) and ciders (n = 110)). Most products (n = 682, 80.2%) did not present nutrition-related information. Where information was presented (n = 168), it was most frequently on ready-to-drink beverages (n = 81, 57.9%) and least frequently on spirits (n = 9, 4.5%) and wines (n = 9, 4.5%). Nutrition information was most frequently in the format of a nutrition information panel (n = 150, 89.3%) and approximately half of labelled beverages (n = 86, 51.2%) included a nutrition content claim (e.g., ‘low in carbs’). Given limited voluntary implementation of nutrition labelling on alcoholic beverages in Australia and the substantial contribution of alcoholic beverages to energy intake, consideration of mandatory nutrition labelling, in a standardised format designed to maximise public health benefit, on alcoholic beverages is warranted.

Objective By clearly conveying the healthiness of a food, front-of-pack (FOP) labels have the potential to influence the portion size considered appropriate for consumption. The present study examined the how the Daily Intake Guide (DIG), Multiple Traffic Lights (MTL) and Health Star Rating (HSR) FOP labels affect judgements of appropriate portion sizes of unhealthy foods compared with when no FOP label is present. Design Respondents viewed mock packages of unhealthy variations of pizzas, cookies, yoghurts and cornflakes featuring the DIG, MTL, HSR or no FOP label, and indicated the portion size they believed should be eaten of each food on a single occasion. Setting The survey was completed on the respondent’s personal computer. Subjects A total of 1505 Australian adults provided 4166 ratings across 192 mock packages relating to four product categories: pizza, yoghurt, cornflakes and cookies. Results Compared with no FOP label, the HSR resulted in a small but significant reduction in the portion size selected as appropriate for consumption of pizzas and cornflakes (P<0·05). The MTL resulted in smaller portions of cornflakes being selected compared with no FOP label (P<0·05). Conclusions Respondents perceived smaller portion sizes as appropriate for some, but not all, of the foods tested when FOP labels with more interpretative formats (HSR, MTL) appeared on-pack compared with no FOP label. No effect was found for the less interpretive FOP label (the DIG). Interpretive FOP labels may have the potential to influence portion size judgements, albeit at modest levels.