Soybean is the most economically important legume globally, providing a major source of plant protein for millions of people; it offers a high-quality, cost-competitive and versatile base-protein ingredient for plant-based meat alternatives. The health benefits of soybean and its constituents have largely been attributed to the actions of phytoestrogens, which are present at high levels. Additionally, consumption of soy-based foods may also modulate gastrointestinal (GI) health, in particular colorectal cancer risk, via effects on the composition and metabolic activity of the GI microbiome. The aim of this narrative review was to critically evaluate the emerging evidence from clinical trials, observational studies and animal trials relating to the effects of consuming soybeans, soy-based products and the key constituents of soybeans (isoflavones, soy proteins and oligosaccharides) on measures of GI health. Our review suggests that there are consistent favourable changes in measures of GI health for some soy foods, such as fermented rather than unfermented soy milk, and for those individuals with a microbiome that can metabolise equol. However, as consumption of foods containing soy protein isolates and textured soy proteins increases, further clinical evidence is needed to understand whether these foods elicit similar or additional functional effects on GI health.

Future food security for healthy populations requires the development of safe, sustainably-produced protein foods to complement traditional dietary protein sources. To meet this need, a broad range of non-traditional protein foods are under active investigation. The aim of this review was to evaluate their potential effects on human health and to identify knowledge gaps, potential risks, and research opportunities. Non-traditional protein sources included are algae, cereals/grains, fresh fruit and vegetables, insects, mycoprotein, nuts, oil seeds, and legumes. Human, animal, and in vitro data suggest that non-traditional protein foods have compelling beneficial effects on human health, complementing traditional proteins (meat/poultry, soy, eggs, dairy). Improvements in cardiovascular health, lipid metabolism, muscle synthesis, and glycaemic control were the most frequently reported improvements in health-related endpoints. The mechanisms of benefit may arise from their diverse range of minerals, macro- and micronutrients, dietary fibre, and bioactive factors. Many were also reported to have anti-inflammatory, antihypertensive, and antioxidant activity. Across all protein sources examined, there is a strong need for quality human data from randomized controlled intervention studies. Opportunity lies in further understanding the potential effects of non-traditional proteins on the gut microbiome, immunity, inflammatory conditions, DNA damage, cognition, and cellular ageing. Safety, sustainability, and evidence-based health research will be vital to the development of high-quality complementary protein foods that enhance human health at all life stages.

Background: For many decades, Australia has required a Nutrient Information Panel to be included on food packaging, usually on the back of products. Recently, two regulated, voluntary systems were introduced for use on food packaging in Australia: the Health Star Rating system and nutrient content and health claims. Nonetheless, the scope and potential for these new initiatives to achieve their purpose is partly depdendant on their perception by consumers. This report describes the results of a population based survey of South Australian adults about how various elements of food labels are used to inform their purchase decisions. Methods: A survey was conducted using a random stratified sampling technique in people aged 15 years and older in the Australian state of South Australia. All surveys were administered face-to-face to 3005 people between September 2015 and December 2015. Data was weighted by the inverse of the individual’s probability of selection, as well as the response rate in metropolitan and country regions and then reweighted to benchmarks from the June 2014 Estimated Resident Population calculated by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Results: The response rate for the survey was 57.3%. Most respondents to the survey rated their own dietary intake as ‘healthy’ (61.5%) or ‘extremely healthy’ (9.1%). Aside from price, country of origin was nominated as the most important information on the food label of a food bought for the first time (by 35.0%), followed by the ingredient list (21.6%) and claims about nutrition (20.9%). The response to this question was markedly different by age group, with almost half (48.3%) of those aged 55 years or over considering that country of origin was the most important information to look for. For the youngest age group (15-34 yrs), 28.4% considered the ingredient list was the most important information, 26.5% considered claims about nutrition to be most important, and 22.2% considered country of origin to be the most important information on the food label. The Nutrition Information Panel was used to guide the purchase decision for a new breakfast cereal by more than half of respondents (50.8%), while a statement on the front of the pack about how the food effects health was used to guide the purchase decision of only 8.9%. While only 22.1% disagreed (16.4% disagreed somewhat, 5.7% disagreed completely) with the statement that ‘the Nutrient Information Panel on food packaging is a trustworthy source of information,’ almost double the amount of subjects at 44.0% disagreed (36.1% disagreed somewhat, 17.9% disagreed completely) that ‘statements about health on food packaging are a trustworthy source of information.’ Conclusion: For South Australian adults, statements about health benefits of food on food packaging are viewed with much greater suspicion than the nutrient information panel. Attitudes towards food packaging varied more by age group than by sex of the respondent. For an unfamiliar food, country of origin is considered the most important information on food packaging by more than a third of adults. Keywords: Food packaging, Nutrition label, Front of Pack, Health Star, South Australia