Supermarkets are the principal source of grocery food in many high-income countries. Choice architecture strategies show promise to improve the healthiness of food choices. A retailer-academic collaboration was formed to co-design and pilot selected commercially sustainable strategies to increase sales of healthier foods relative to less healthy foods in supermarkets. Two co-design workshops, involving supermarket corporate staff and public health nutrition academics, identified potential interventions. One intervention, more prominent shelf placement of healthier products within one category (breakfast cereals), was selected for testing. A pilot study (baseline, intervention and follow-up, 12-weeks each) was undertaken in six supermarkets (three intervention and three control) in Auckland, New Zealand. Products were ranked by nutrient levels and profile, and after accounting for the supermarkets' space management principles, healthier products were placed at adult eye level. The primary outcome was change in sales of healthier products relative to total category sales. Secondary outcomes were nutrient profile of category sales, in-store product promotions, customer perceptions, and retailer feedback. There was no difference in proportional sales of more prominently positioned healthier products between intervention (56%) and control (56%) stores during the intervention. There were no differences in the nutrient profile of category sales. A higher proportion of less healthy breakfast cereals were displayed in intervention versus control stores (57% vs 43%). Most customers surveyed supported shelf placement as a strategy (265, 88%) but noted brand preferences and price were more salient determinants of purchases. Retailers were similarly supportive but balancing profit, health/nutrition and customer satisfaction was challenging. Shelf placement alone was not an effective strategy to increase purchases of healthier breakfast cereals. This study showed co-design of a healthy eating intervention with a commercial retailer is feasible, but concurrent retail environment factors likely limited the public health impact of the intervention.

The widely recognized association between high sugar intakes and adverse health outcomes has increased consumer demand for products lower in sugar. This may lead to increased use of other sweeteners by the food industry. The current study investigated the prevalence and types of non-nutritive sweeteners over time (2013–2019) in New Zealand’s packaged food and beverages, overall and between categories. A New Zealand database of packaged foods and beverages was used to investigate the presence of Food Standards Australia New Zealand Code-approved non-nutritive sweeteners (n = 12). Products available in 2013 (n = 12,153) and 2019 (n = 14,645) were compared. Between 2013 and 2019, the prevalence of non-nutritive sweeteners in products increased from 3% to 5%. The most common non-nutritive sweeteners in both years were acesulphame-potassium, sucralose, aspartame, and stevia, which were predominantly found in special foods (breakfast beverages and nutritional supplements), non-alcoholic beverages, dairy products, and confectionery. The prevalence of non-nutritive sweeteners is increasing over time in New Zealand’s packaged foods and beverages and is likely a consequence of consumer demand for lower-sugar products. Ongoing monitoring of the prevalence and type of NNS is important to detect further increases.

This study aimed to benchmark the healthiness of the New Zealand (NZ) fast-food supply in 2020. There are currently no actions or policies in NZ regarding the composition, serving size and labeling of fast food. Data on serving size and nutrient content of products was collected from company websites and in-store visits to 27 fast-food chains. For each fast-food category and type of combo meal, medians and interquartile ranges were calculated for serving size and energy, sodium, total sugar, and saturated fat per serving. Nutrient contents/serving were benchmarked against the United Kingdom (UK) soft drinks levy sugar thresholds and targets for salt for away from home foods, the NZ daily intake guidelines for energy, sodium, and saturated fat, and the World Health Organization (WHO) recommendation for free sugars. Analyses were conducted for the 30.3% (n = 1772) of products with available nutrition information and for 176 meal combos. Most (n = 67; 91.8%) sugar-sweetened drinks would qualify for a UK soft drink industry levy and 47% (n = 1072) of products exceeded the relevant UK sodium target. Half of the meal combos provided at least 50.3% of the daily energy requirements and at least 88.6% of the maximum recommended intake of sodium. Fast-food products and combo meals in NZ contribute far more energy and negative nutrients to recommended daily intake targets than is optimal for good health. The NZ Government should set reformulation targets and serving size guidance to reduce the potential impact of fast- food consumption on the health of New Zealanders.

Aims: Plant‐based eating patterns are recommended for human and planetary health. Plant‐based protein sources in supermarkets include traditional options and plant‐based meat analogues. This cross‐sectional survey examined the nutritional content, healthiness, cost and labelling of these products.Methods: Nutrient content and claims on canned legumes (plain [N = 64] and flavoured [N = 25]), canned baked beans (N = 23), dried legumes (N = 21), tofu (plain [N = 8] and flavoured [N = 5]), falafels (N = 14), meat analogues (meat‐free burgers [N = 11], meat‐free sausages [N = 10] and ‘other’ meat‐free products [N = 20]) were obtained from a database of packaged foods in New Zealand. Mean (SD) energy, protein, total fat, saturated fat, sodium and dietary fibre content (per 100 g) was calculated for each category. Healthiness was assessed using an estimated Health Star Rating (Rating ≥3.5 considered ‘healthy’). Product data were linked with household purchasing data from the 2019 Nielsen IQ® consumer panel to calculate mean purchase price/100 g/category. The number and type of nutrition claims were compared across categories.Results: The highest mean protein content was ‘other’ meat‐free products (14.8 ± 6.9 g/100 g). Meat‐free sausages had the highest sodium and saturated fat content (643 ± 148 mg/100 g, 3.7 ± 4.5 g/100 g). Overall, few meat analogues (N = 5, 12%) scored an estimated Health Star Rating ≥3.5. Dried legumes were the cheapest plant protein (mean ± SD) purchase price = NZ $0.30 ± 0.16/100 g), compared with ‘other’ meat‐free products (purchase price = NZ $2.57 ± 0.88/100 g). The most common nutrition claims on meat analogues were about protein content. Dietary fibre claims were the most common on canned and dried legumes.Conclusion: Meat analogues offer convenience, however, may be less healthy and more expensive than traditional plant‐based proteins. This study assists dietitians in providing accurate consumer messaging about healthy plant‐based proteins.

Aims: To examine the frequency of promotions on breakfast cereals and drinks in a major New Zealand supermarket chain, determine the healthiness of promoted versus non‐promoted products, and quantify the effects of promotions on sales.Methods: Weekly data on product promotions and sales were collected in six Auckland supermarkets for 198 breakfast products over 12 weeks. The healthiness of products was determined using the Health Star Rating system, and the effect of promotions on sales was estimated using linear mixed models.Results: On average, 47% of breakfast products in a given week were promoted using on‐shelf tickets, 12% in weekly mailers, and 9% via promotional displays. The healthiness of promoted and non‐promoted breakfast products was comparable. In relation to weekly sales of non‐promoted products, all three promotional strategies had substantial (2 to 2.5 times higher sales) and statistically significant (P < 0.001) effects on product sales.Conclusion: Promotions are frequently used and effective at increasing sales. Marketing strategies focusing solely on promoting healthier products could be an important nudging strategy to improve the healthiness of supermarket food purchases.

We aimed to compare New Zealand private label (PL) and branded label (BL) packaged food products in relation to their current (2019) healthiness (sodium and sugar contents, and estimated Health Star Rating (HSR) score), display of the voluntary HSR nutrition label on the package, and price. Healthiness and HSR display of products were also explored over time (2015 to 2019). Data were obtained from Nutritrack, a brand-specific food composition database. Means and proportions were compared using Student t-tests and Pearson chi-square tests, respectively. Changes over time were assessed using linear regression and chi-square tests for trends (Mantel–Haenzel tests). Altogether, 4266 PL and 19,318 BL products across 21 food categories were included. Overall, PL products in 2019 had a significantly lower mean sodium content and price, a higher proportion of products with estimated HSR ≥ 3.5/5 (48.9% vs. 38.5%) and were more likely to display the HSR on the pack compared with BL products (92.4% vs. 17.2%, respectively). However, for most food categories, no significant difference was found in mean sodium or sugar content between PL and BL products. In the period 2015–2019, there were no consistent changes in estimated HSR score, sodium or sugar contents of PL or BL products, but there was an increase in the proportion of both PL and BL products displaying HSR labels. In most food categories, there were PL options available which were similar in nutritional composition, more likely to be labelled with the HSR, and lower in cost than their branded counterparts.