Many different front-of-pack (FOP) nutrition labels have been introduced worldwide. To continue the debate on the most effective FOP labels for increased consumer health, full comprehension of their visual and functional features is relevant. This paper compares and provides an overview of all FOP labels currently in practice or in preparation in Europe, by means of the visually oriented Funnel Model. The Funnel Models were completed in collaboration with the respective FOP labelling initiatives. In total, six positive FOP labels, two mixed FOP labels and one negative FOP label were compared. There are multiple similarities and differences between the FOP labels, with each FOP label being characterised by a unique set of criteria and methodological approach. This Funnel Model comparison provides the knowledge to ultimately find more common ground for all stakeholders involved in the FOP labelling debate. Importantly, implementation and evaluation activities carried out by FOP labelling organisations are crucial success factors for FOP labels in practice. We conclude that more attention should be paid to methodological differences between FOP labels and recommend that the current comparison is expanded to a global level and periodically updated, as the variety of FOP labels in the global marketplace is changing constantly.

Background: Adolescents spend much of their time online and hence are exposed to a lot of non‐core (energy‐dense, nutrient‐poor) social media food marketing (SMFM). This may influence their dietary choices and health. This present study aimed to investigate adolescents’ perceptions towards SMFM; that is, their recognition and appreciation of SMFM.Methods: Semi‐structured one‐on‐one interviews were conducted with Dutch adolescents aged 13–16 years (n = 16), on Skype. Examples of food promotions on Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok and YouTube were discussed with adolescents.Results: Adolescents’ reasons for recognising and appreciating or liking SMFM were often related to the level of product integration. Factors that determined participants’ recognition of SMFM included product focus (e.g., brand or product prominence), sponsorship disclosure, type of content (paid, influencer and peer‐generated content) and promotional strategy (e.g., discounts, promotional texts, layout). Participants’ appreciation of SMFM was determined by the format of a post (image, video, text, pop‐up), trustworthiness of the source (brand, celebrity, friend/peer), type of product promoted (core, non‐core) and appearance or layout of a post (e.g., professionalism, appeal).Conclusions: The present study contributes to the ongoing debate on how to increase adolescents’ resilience to commercial messages that promote non‐core foods. Adolescents mostly enjoy watching non‐core video content from peers or influencers and do not perceive this as food marketing. It is recommended that future studies investigate the effects of earned social media marketing formats (i.e., unpaid peer and influencer endorsements) promoting non‐core foods on adolescents’ dietary intake, and how they can be made more critical towards such types of SMFM.

In 2011–2012 approximately 26% of Australian children aged between 5–17 years were reported to be overweight or obese. Furthermore, the increase in prevalence of overweight and obesity among US children parallels reported increases in energy intake and portion sizes of common foods, leading to the recognition that availability of larger portion sizes contributes to the rise in overweight and obesity prevalence. Thus, the aim of this time-series analysis was to investigate whether selected food portion sizes in Australian children aged 2–16 years changed between 2007 and 2011–2012. Portion size data from 24-h recalls collected in Australian nutrition surveys were compared between 2007 and 2011–2012. Portion sizes changed significantly in 23% of items with increases in 15% and decreases in 8%. Changes in portion sizes varied by age, sex, and food group. Changes occurred for many meat-based items, energy-dense, nutrient-poor food items, breads, cereals, and some fruits and vegetables. Vegetable and fruit portion sizes were below the respective serving sizes of 75 g and 150 g in the Australian Guide to Healthy Eating, while portion sizes of some energy-dense, nutrient-poor foods have increased. These findings suggest approaches to increasing consumption of nutrient-dense core foods and reducing energy-dense, nutrient-poor food items in children are warranted.