Cited by 13Consumer Attitudes and Food LabelingGlobal Public Health Policies and EpidemiologyFood Safety and Hygiene

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

How effective is food industry self-substantiation of food–health relationships underpinning health claims on food labels in Australia?

Open access
Wellard-Cole, Lyndal, Watson, Wendy L, Hughes, Clare, Chapman, Kathy·2019·Public Health Nutrition

Abstract

Objective: The Food Standards Code regulates health claims on Australian food labels. General-level health claims highlight food–health relationships, e.g. ‘contains calcium for strong bones’. Food companies making claims must notify Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) and certify that a systematic literature review (SLR) substantiating the food–health relationship has been conducted. There is no pre- or post-notification assessment of the SLR, potentially enabling the food industry to make claims based on poor-quality research. The present study assessed the rigour of self-substantiation. Design: Food–health relationships notified to FSANZ were monitored monthly between 2013 and 2017. These relationships were assessed by scoping published literature. Where evidence was equivocal/insufficient, the relevant government food regulatory agency was asked to investigate. If not investigated, or the response was unsatisfactory, the project team conducted an independent SLR which was provided to the government agency. Setting: Australia. Participants: Self-substantiated food–health relationships. Results: There were sixty-seven relationships notified by thirty-eight food companies. Of these, thirty-three relationships (52 %) from twenty companies were deemed to have sufficient published evidence. Four were excluded as they originated in New Zealand. Three relationships were removed before investigations were initiated. The project initiated twenty-seven food–health relationship investigations. Another six relationships were withdrawn, and three relationships were awaiting government assessment. Conclusions: To ensure that SLR underpinning food–health relationships are rigorous and reduce regulatory enforcement burden, pre-market approval of food–health relationships should be introduced. This will increase consumer and public health confidence in the regulatory process and prevent potentially misleading general-level health claims on food labels.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s1368980018004081

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • GLHC can be either preapproved or self-substantiated by the specific company using the claim, but the rigor of the self-substantiation process has been questioned.

    “These can be either preapproved or selfsubstantiated by the specific company using the claim, but the rigor of the self-substantiation process has been questioned (Wellard-Cole, Watson, Hughes, & Chapman, 2019).”

    From Comparison of requirements for using health claims on foods in the European Union, the USA, Canada, and Australia/New Zealand (2021) · cites this paper as Wellard-Cole, Watson, Hughes, & Chapman, 2019

    The introductory passages under Abstract state that companies can self-substantiate food–health relationships for general-level health claims, and the paper questions the rigour of that process. They do not establish that general-level health claims can alternatively be preapproved; the paper explicitly describes preapproval as a requirement for high-level health claims. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In Australia and New Zealand, notified claims are placed on the website without a checking process, and the rigor of the self-substantiation process has been questioned.

    “It should be mentioned that notified claims are placed on the website without a checking process and that the rigor of the self-substantiation process has been questioned (Wellard-Cole et al., 2019).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Still being checked.

Research works printed but not linked: 30

  1. 2007, Systematic Reviews in Health Care: Meta-analysis in Context, 43
  2. 2017, Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2, MR000033
  3. 2009, Guidance Document for Preparing a Submission for Food Health Claims
  4. 2016, Information on Establishing Food-Health Relationships for General Level Health Claims
  5. 1995, Code of Practice Nutrient Claims in Food Labels and in Advertisements
  6. 2017, Summary of Submissions – Proposal P1024 Revision of the Regulation of Nutritive Substances and Novel Foods
  7. 2017, Consultation Paper – Proposal P1024 Revision of the Regulation of Nutritive Substances and Novel Foods
  8. 2014, Consumption Patterns and Food Demand to 2050
  9. 10.1017/S1368980010003691 · DOI
  10. 10.1079/PHN2005666 · DOI
  11. 10.1111/j.1753-4887.2005.tb00382.x · DOI
  12. 10.1111/obr.12098 · DOI · Paper page
  13. 10.1016/j.jand.2016.10.008 · DOI
  14. 10.1111/nure.12140 · DOI
  15. 10.1177/074391569101000103 · DOI
  16. 10.5694/mja16.00094 · DOI
  17. 10.1080/07315724.2016.1248246 · DOI
  18. 1987, Public Health Rep, 102, 398
  19. 10.1186/s12966-017-0548-1 · DOI
  20. 2015, Eur J Public Health, 25, ckv172.102
  21. 2006, Asia Pac J Clin Nutr, 15, 10
  22. 2013, Australian Dietary Guidelines
  23. 10.2471/BLT.15.156281 · DOI
  24. 2012, Health Policy and Systems Research: A Methodology Reader
  25. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001000 · DOI
  26. 2007, What is Health Policy and Systems Research and Why Does it Matter?
  27. 10.1017/S1368980013003078 · DOI
  28. 2010, EFSA J, 8, 1732
  29. 10.2903/j.efsa.2011.2135 · DOI
  30. 2014, Getting Your Claims Right

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Wellard-Cole, L., Watson, W. L., Hughes, C., & Chapman, K.
Affiliations
Cancer Council NSW (AU)
Venue
Public Health Nutrition
Published
2019-03-04
Volume
22
Issue
09
Pages
1686-1695
ISSN
  • 1368-9800 (ISSN-L)
  • 1475-2727
OpenAlex
W2918179927
Cited by
13
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1
FWCI
1.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Public Health Nutrition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Consumer Attitudes and Food Labeling
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Global Public Health Policies and Epidemiology
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Food Safety and Hygiene
Keywords
health claims, food labels, systematic reviews, food industry, regulatory enforcement, premarket approval, quality of evidence, Australia
MeSH terms
Australia, Food Labeling, Government Agencies, Humans, Legislation, Food, New Zealand, Nutritive Value, Public Health

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review