Consultationpaper: Reviewof Fast Food Menu Labelling Schemes

Consultationpaper: Reviewof fast food menu labelling schemes

Introduction

Background

InDecember 2010thethenLegislativeand GovernanceForumonFood Regulation(now AustraliaandNewZealandMinisterial ForumonFoodRegulation(theForum)) requestedthe FoodRegulationStandingCommittee(FRSC) toprovide technical regulatoryadviceona nationallyconsistentapproachtotheprovisionofpoint-of-saleinformationinstandardisedfast foodchains.

TheForum requestedthisworkbeundertakeninconsultationwith the AustralianHealth Ministers'Advisory Council (AHMAC)toreducetheintakeof energy,saturatedfat,sugarand salt from fastfoods.TheFRSC developedprinciples tofacilitatenational consistencyif jurisdictionselect to introducestateor territorybasedlegislationfor thedisplayofpoint-of-sale nutritioninformationinstandardfoodoutlets.

These National PrincipleswereendorsedbytheForum inOctober2011(Attachment 1).

Todate,NewSouthWales,SouthAustralia, theAustralianCapitalTerritory and Queensland havepassedlegislationandhaveimplementedfast foodmenu labellingschemes.Victoriahas alsopassedlegislationandisdueto introduce theschemeon1May2018.

SmallerjurisdictionsincludingTasmaniaandtheNorthernTerritoryhaveassessedtheimpact ofintroducinglegislationandfoundthat fewadditional businesseswouldbecapturedbasedon theoutlet thresholdused in most jurisdictions.Thisisbecause legislationinother jurisdictions capturesnational chainsthat havelargelychosentoimplement menu labellingacrossall their Australianoutlets.

In2016, theCouncil ofAustralianGovernments(COAG)Health Council consideredactionsto limitthe impactofunhealthyfoodanddrinkonchildren.This resultedinthe COAGHealth Council writingtotheForum seeking their support for theFRSC toengagewith theAHMAC toreview theeffectivenessofthefast foodmenu labellingschemeswhichhavebeenintroducedand considerimplementationandemergingissues.

Purpose of thispaper

This paper has been prepared to facilitate stakeholder consultation with industry, public health and consumer organisations, and relevant professional associations to assist with the review of the effectiveness of the fast food menu labelling schemes which have been introduced.

Questions for stakeholders are provided at the end of each section. In providing responses to the questions, stakeholders are asked to provide evidence and references to support their statements wherever possible.

What is the problem?

Around 63% of adults (about 11 million) and 27% of children (about 1 million) are overweight or obese in Australia[1]. Dietary risks cause 7% of the disease burden in Australia and obesity can reduce life expectancy by up to ten years.

The obesity problem is partly due to an increase in the availability and consumption of food and drinks which are energy dense and nutrient poor. Children in Australia today are growing up in an obesogenic environment where this type of food is readily available and widely marketed.

Increasinglyconsumer foodchoicesaremadeinaqueue, withagrowing relianceonready-to- eat mealsandsnacks.Australianhouseholdsarenowspendingaround58%of thefooddollar onunhealthyfoodanddrinkssuchassugar-sweetenedbeverages,potatochips, fast-food, cakes, biscuitsandconfectionery[2].Foodspreparedawayfromhometypicallyexceed recommendationsforenergy,saturatedfat,sodiumandsugar[3]. Themajorityofconsumers underestimatethekilojoulecontent ofunhealthyfoods[4].

The prevalence ofobesity

Ratesofobesity inthepopulationhavebeenincreasingfor several decadesandare recognisedasamajor publichealthissue. However,in recent yearstherehasbeenan apparent steadyingin ratesofobesity inAustralianadultsandchildren.Adultobesity increased byabout3% per yearupto2010butsincethen thereisnoevidenceof furtherincrease. Nevertheless, theproblemofhighratesofobesityremains. In2014–15, 30%ofadultswere obesebymeasurementand two-thirdswereoverweight or obese.

Therateofchildhoodoverweightandobesity inAustraliahasstabilisedwithnosignificant differencesince2007–08.However,withpopulationgrowth, thenumber ofchildrenwithexcess weight isnowover1millioncomparedto736,000in2007–08 (a38% increase)[5].

The impact ofobesity

Obesity isoneofthe leading risk factorsforill healthanddeath, reducinglifeexpectancy considerably.Aninternational study in2016estimatedthatforAustralia, 1in6premature deathscouldbeavoided ifall thosewhowerecurrentlyoverweightorobesewerewithin the healthyweight range.

Obesity increasestheriskofchronicdisease, particularly diabetes.In2011–12, those Australianadultswhohadbeenmeasuredasobesewereabout7timesas likelytoalsohave diabetes[6].

Thefinancial costofobesity ishighandwasestimated in2015at $8.6billionperyearin Australia. This includedhealthsystem costs, taxforegoneandproductivity lossesincluding absenteeism. Inaddition, the impactoflossofwellbeingandearlydeathwasassessedat$47.4billion.

The impactof theobesogenicenvironmentonchildren’sdietsisevidentwithupto41% of children’sdailyenergy intakebeingsourcedfrom unhealthyfoodanddrinkssuchas

sugar-sweetenedbeverages,potatochips,fast-food,cakes, biscuitsandconfectionery[7].

Actions to preventandmanage obesity

Therehasbeenslowsocietal changeincludingagreaterawarenessof theobesity issuethana decadeagoand increasingemphasisonobesity preventioningovernmentpolicies. The challengeahead istomaintaindownwardpressureonobesityandtocontinue to investin thoseprogramsand initiativesthatareshowingbenefit. Thesuccess inreducingsmokingisaresult ofsustained, multi-dimensional strategiesandprovidesablueprint for obesityprevention.

Continuedinvestment is needed topromotethebenefitsof maintainingahealthyweight, andto support peoplewithin theirhomesandcommunities toprevent weightgainandtoloseweight throughhealthyfoodchoicesandgreaterphysical activity.

Therecentlyendorsed NationalStrategicFramework for ChronicConditions(theFramework) establishes thepolicycontextandprioritiesfor effectivepreventionand management ofchronic conditions. ThisFramework recognisesthat adiverserangeof factors influence thehealthand wellbeingofAustraliansincluding:

Factor / Example / Interventions
Behaviouralrisk factors / ̵Smoking
̵poor diet
̵physical
̵inactivity / ̵awarenesscampaigns,
̵personal skill development
Biomedical risk factors / ̵highblood pressure
̵highcholesterol
̵glucose intolerance / ̵primary health care
̵individual advice
̵medication
Physical environment
determinants / ̵UV exposure
̵air pollution
̵walkability
̵foodavailability
̵accessadvertising / ̵environmental standards
̵urban planning regulations
̵infrastructure provision
Social andeconomicdeterminants / ̵educationandemployment status / ̵school retention
̵return to work programs
̵re-training

It recognisesthathealthisinfluencedpositivelyornegativelybytheenvironments inwhich peoplelive,learn,workandplay.Actionstolimittheimpactofunhealthyfoodanddrinkson peopleareconsistentwith thepreventionfocusof theFrameworkandtargetedopportunitiesto improvehealthatcriticallifestages,includingchildhoodandadolescence.

The WorldHealthOrganization(WHO)CommissiononEndingChildhoodObesityreleaseda landmark report inJanuary2016which reflects the most recentinternational evidenceand expertthinking topreventchildandadolescent obesity.It recommendsactionsaretakento implement programsthat promotethe intakeofhealthyfoodsandreduce theintakeofunhealthyfoodandsugar-sweeteneddrinks, promotephysical activityand reducesedentarybehaviours,strengthenobesitypreventionguidanceduringpreconceptionandantenatal care, provideguidanceandsupportforhealthy lifestylesinearlychildhood,promotehealthyeating andphysical activity inschoolsandprovidefamily-basedweight management servicesfor childrenandyoungpeoplewhoareobese.

Informedbytherecommendationsof theWHO Commissionon EndingChildhood Obesity, actionstolimit the impactofunhealthyfoodanddrinksonchildrencanbeprogressedacross four actionareas:

Improvingchildren’ssettingstoencourageandsupport the intakeofhealthyfoodsand reduceunhealthyfoods.

Creatinghealthyfoodenvironmentswherechildren,adolescentsandparentsandcarersplay,shopandvisit.
Empoweringparentsandcarerstoprovidehealthierdietsfor their children.
Ensuring routinehealthservicedeliveryencouragesandsupportshealthiereating.

Furtherinformationabout thefour actionareasandcurrent jurisdictioninitiativesareincludedinAttachment 2.

All Australian jurisdictionsareaddressing theseriskfactorsthroughacoordinatedsuiteof interventions. Thecomplexityanddiversityof thefactorsmeanthat thepreventionofchronic conditionsbenefitsfrom activitiesacrossawiderangeofsectors.Thegreatest impactwill come fromabroadrangeofactionswhichoccuracrossmultipleanddifferentsettingsandsectors.

Menulabellingschemesareanexampleofacontributionfrom thefoodsector whichhas improveddietandtheavailabilityofhealthier foodoptions.

Thefood industry isplayingitspart inthecomprehensivemixofinitiatives requiredtoaddress obesitybyresponding toademandforandexpectationofhealthyfoodchoicesandby providingconsumer information. Fast foodmenulabellingschemesmakeanimportantcontributionbysupportingpeople tomakemoreinformedchoiceswheneatingout ofthehome.

The Review

Insummary, fivejurisdictionshaveintroduced legislation that requireslargerbusinessesselling fastfoodtoprovideconsumerswith theaveragekilojoulecontentofstandardfooditems.

Onejurisdictionhascompletedanevaluationofitskilojoulemenulabellinglegislation(two othersare inprogress).Resultsshowthattheinitiativewasimplementedwell by industryand regulators, consumersnoticed thenewinformationinoutlets, therewasashift towards consumershavingabetterunderstandingof theaveragedailyenergy intake,andasignificant reductioninkilojoulespurchasedwasobserved.

Comparisonbetweenlegislationshasdemonstratedahighdegreeofnational consistency in keyareasof thevariouslegislations. However,areviewofsubmissionstomenulabelling consultationprocessesandinitial consultationwithgovernment officialsindicatessome implementationandemergingissueslinkedtothe limitedinconsistency inlegislationbetween jurisdictions, tochangingtrendsinthefast foodindustryandto lowconsumer understandingof kilojoulesanddifficulties interpreting the information.

These issuesareoutlinedin thispaper andaregroupedtogether under thefollowingheadings:

Inconsistency inlegislationbetween jurisdictions –Part A

Changing trends inthefast foodindustry –PartB

Difficultiesofinterpretation–Part C

Thisconsultationpaper seeksviewson these issues,provides theopportunitytoidentifyother issuesandinvitesacontribution towhatcouldbedone toaddresstheissues.

Evaluation

NewSouthWaleswas thefirst jurisdiction topass menu labellinglegislation.Followingits introduction in2010, anevaluation toassessingtheimpactsandtheappropriatenessof kilojoulemenulabellingwasundertaken.Theresearchdesignoftheevaluationinvolveda mixtureofconsumerinterviews,anonlinesurveyandcompliancechecksconductedthree timesoveratwelve monthperiodin2011-12.

The NewSouthWalesevaluationof kilojoulemenulabellinglegislationshows that theinitiative wasimplementedwell byindustryandregulators, consumersnoticedthenewinformationin outlets, therewasashifttowardsconsumershavingabetterunderstandingoftheaveragedaily energy intake, andasignificant reductioninkilojoulespurchasedwasobserved.

Highlightsof theresults included:

•Around40% ofconsumersnoticedthekilojouleinformation.

•Around40% of theparticipantsindicatedthat thelabellinginfluencedtheir choiceof food, eitherat thetimeofpurchaseor intothefuture.

•For thoseindicating the labellingwouldinfluencetheirchoice,over70% indicated they wouldchooseitemswithlower kilojoulecontent and30% wouldeatlessoftenat that chain.

•Themediankilojoulespurchaseddecreasedby15%during theevaluationperiod. Inthe contextofoverconsumptionandtheratesofoverweight andobesity, thisrepresentsan improvement indietarychoice.

•Thenumberofcustomersunderestimating thekilojoulecontent of foodfellbynearly25%.

•There was a significant increase over the evaluation period in consumers nominating thecorrect range of the average daily energy intake (8700kJ).

•Of the 150 random outlets that were checked onsite for compliance, only minor issues were identified (with one exception) and these were resolved within defined timeframes.

Thereisalsoevidence thatbusinesseshave reformulatedproductstoreduce theirkilojoule content. Oneglobalfoodgroupstatedmenulabellinginitiativeshavebeena“catalyst for reformulation”.

Thefull resultsof the NewSouthWalesevaluationareavailablehere:

International studiesreinforcetheseresults.Ameta-analysisoffifteenpeer-reviewedstudies publishedin2016shows thatenergyconsumedwas reducedbyanaverageof420kJ per sale[8].

International studiesalsosuggestthat theoutcomesofmenu labellinginitiativesbuildovertime and thisispartof thereasonforongoingevaluationeffortsinNewSouthWalesandother jurisdictions. TheAustralianCapitalTerritoryhas completed an evaluationandanevaluation isinprogressinQueensland.

Consultationquestion1:Are youawareofanyother pendingor completedevaluations that have relevance to the Australianexperience?Ifyes,pleaseprovide resultsand referenceswith yourresponsewherepossible.

Legislation consistency

Legislationintroduced ineach jurisdiction(NewSouthWales,SouthAustralia,Australian Capital Territory, QueenslandandVictoria)isconsistent with thenationallyagreedapproach. Thereisconsistency in:

•Definitions of a standard food item and ready-to-eat food.

•Places where information must be displayed (on each menu/tag/label that includes thestandardised food, at drive-throughs).

•Information that must be displayed (average energy content of each standard food item, the statement: The average adult daily energy intake is 8700kJ).

•Prescribed method for calculating energy content (in accordance with Food StandardsCode).

•How information must be displayed (clearly legible, in numerals with kJ abbreviation, same font size as price or name).

•The national outlet threshold (50).

PARTA-INCONSISTENCY IN LEGISLATION BETWEEN JURISDICTIONS

Asweoutlinedabove,theadoptionof fast food menulabellingschemesisadecisionfor the individual jurisdictions. Thefive jurisdictions thathavecommencedhadtopasstheir own state/territorylegislation toimplement theschemes.All ofthelegislationspassedareconsistent with thenationallyagreedapproach.However,slightlydifferentapproacheshavebeentakenin thewaythat theprovisionsarewordedandstructured.Theprovisionswith themostvariation relatetoexemptbusinesses.

Exemptbusinesses

Foodbusinessesareexemptfrom legislationontwogrounds– thenatureoftheir businessand thenumber ofoutlets. Cinemas, conveniencestoresandservicestationsarecontentious exemptionswithbothfoodindustrybodiesandpublichealthorganisations. Dine-inchainsthat sell similartypesof foodbutareexempt becausetheydonot provide take-awayhavealsobeen raised (legislationinthe AustralianCapitalTerritoryandVictoriacapturesdine-inchains).

Table1–Exempt businesses(X)ineachjurisdictionwith menulabellinglegislation

NSW / SA / ACT / QLD / VIC
Supermarkets / X
Conveniencestores / X / X / X
Servicestations / X / X / X
Cinemas / X / X
Dine-in / X / X / X
Mobilevendors / X / X
Not-for-profit / X / X / X / X
Healthcarefacilities / X / X / X
Schools / X
Childcare Centres / X

Multiplesubmissions receivedfromfood industrybodiesduringstate-based consultationonlegislationsuggest manyoftheseexemptionsshouldbe removedongroundsof‘alevel playing field’for businesses. Publichealthorganisationssupport thispositiononthegroundsofpublic healthoutcomeandtheintent ofthe legislationbeingabout thetypeof foodnot thetypeof business.Removal ofsomeof theseexemptionswouldalsoseem tosupport thegovernment policyobjectivein mostjurisdictionswhichisfocussedoninformedandhealthier fastfood choices regardlessofwheretheyoccur.For thesesamereasons, considerationcouldalsobe given toapplicationofthelegislationtovendingmachinebusinesses. Thishasbeendone in other international jurisdictions.

Ifconveniencestoresare tocontinuetobeexempt, thenthedefinitionof aconveniencestore andsupermarket couldbefurtherexaminedinlightof theintent ofthe legislations (i.e.when doesaconveniencestorebecomeasupermarket?). Conveniencestoresarecurrentlydefined with referencetoasupermarket (i.e.conveniencestoredoesnotincludeasupermarket). Supermarketsaredefined (inalljurisdictionswithlegislationexceptSouth Australia)ashaving morethan1000metressquareof floorareafor retail saleofatleast11commongrocery items. Thesedefinitionsmean thatsignificant suppliersofready-to-eatfoodin regional andrural communitiesare likelytobeexempt duetotheir smallersize (e.g. IGA, Foodworks). Thisposes aproblemforachievingthepolicyobjectiveofmoreinformedandhealthierfast foodchoicesin anequitablewaygiven most ofour regional andrural communitiesexperienceworsehealth status.

Numberof outlets

Exemptionbasedonthenumber ofoutletswasincludedin the legislation tominimisethe impact onsmall business. Thethresholdsof20outletswithin thestateand50outletsnationally wereestablishedbytheNewSouthWales legislationfollowingconsultationwithindustry. Smallerstateshaveused thesesamethresholds (theAustralianCapitalTerritoryhasa thresholdof sevenoutletswithin theTerritory).

Inorder toachievea morelevel playingfieldbetweenbusinessesandimprovedhealth outcomes, considerationmayneed tobegiven totheappropriatethresholds thatcouldbeset whileminimisingadditional impact onsmall business.

Manyregulatorshaveadoptedthedefinitionofsmall businessusedbytheAustralianBureauof Statistics,whichisabusiness that employsfewer than20people.Using thisdefinition, businesseswith morethan10outletsareunlikelytobeclassifiedassmall.That said,many storeswithinchainsare individuallyfranchisedbusinesses.Considerationofgreater flexibility in thresholdscouldalsobetter enable thevaryingsizesofstatestobeappropriatelymanagedin linewith thelegislations’intent. Manyofthebusinessescapturedbyany loweringofthresholds insmallerstateswouldlikelybealreadycapturedby legislationinNewSouthWalesor Victoria.

Table 2 – Other variations related to implementation and emerging issues

Provision / Mode / Variation
Outlet threshold / 20stateor50national / SA –at least 5ofnational inSA
ACT–7territoryor50national
VoluntarydisplayofkJ
information / Inaccordancewithlegislation / VIC –not requiredtocomplywithlegislation
Legibledisplayof kJ
information / Samesizeandfont aspriceor
name / QLD –samesize, font &colouraspriceor name
Simultaneousdisplayof
kJ information / No requirements / QLD –displayatsametimeandfor sameperiodasnameor price

Voluntarydisplay

Anotherexemptionrelates tovoluntarydisplay.Becauseastandardfoodoutletisoneoperating inachain, anindividualoutlet that choosestovoluntarilydisplaykilojouleinformationisnot necessarilyrequiredtodosoinaprescribedway.Recent Victorianlegislationexempts businessesbelowtheoutletnumber thresholdfromdisplayinginaprescribedway. Thismeans, for example, that energyinformationcouldbedisplayedincalories,rather thankilojoules.The definitionofastandardfoodoutlet includesonly thoseoperatinginachain toavoidimposing requirementsonsmaller businesses.However,thebusinessesareimposing theserequirementsonthemselves.

Consultation question 2: Are there any other issues in relation to exempt businesses that shouldbe considered?

Consultation question 3: What could be done to ensure kilojoule information is available in asmany outlets as possible? What are the pros and cons of your suggested approach?

Legibility

NewSouthWalesalsolegislatedthat theaverageenergycontent hadtobedisplayedin the samesizeandfontasthepriceornamefor theitem (andother jurisdictionsincluded thesame provision). Thiswas tohelpensurethat thekilojouleinformationwaslegible. TheQueensland legislation respondedtoconcernsabout legibility(e.g. greyonwhitebeingused) byalso specifyingthesamecolourasthepriceor namehad tobeused. Other jurisdictionshavealso encountered legibility issuesincluding theuseof boldingandcapitalizationofnameandprice that diminishestheimpactof kilojoule information.Somebusinesseshave raisedconcerns regardingstifledcreativitywith theadditionofacolourrequirementandsuggestedacontrast ratiomayworkbetter.Suchanapproachmaybedifficult toenforce.

Consultation question 4: Are there any other issues in relation to legibility that should be considered?

Consultation question 5: What can be done to ensure kilojoule information is as easy to use as possible by the consumer?

Consultation question 6: What can be done to facilitate businesses to address legibility issues?

What are the pros and cons of your suggested approach?

PART B -CHANGINGTRENDS IN THE FAST FOOD INDUSTRY

Thefast foodindustry isadynamicenvironmentwithsophisticatedstakeholders thatiscontinuallyevolving. Operationalflexibility is requiredtoenable governmentstorespondto emergingissuesthat may impactonthe integrityandeffectivenessofschemes, suchasnew productsor waysofmarketingandpackagingproducts, inatimelymanner.

Since thedevelopment of theNational Principlesand the introductionofschemesbysome jurisdictions,anumberof emergingissueshavebeenidentified that warrant further consideration.

Theissues that relatetoindustrytrendsidentifiedinthe letter fromCOAG Health Council to theForum relateto:

•menucustomisation(e.g.buildyourown,added ingredientstostandardfooditem),

•rolling menuboards,

•onlineordering,

•additionalinterpretiveinformation,and

•combinationmealswithpre-packageddrinks.

Menucustomisation

As more fast food businesses alter their menuto cater tothe‘fresh’ and ‘personalised’ concept, menus are being introduced that allow the consumer tocustomisetheproduct to their individual preference. ‘Build your own’ meals arewhere a customer can select anumber of individual ingredientsto preparea customised food item such as aburger or sandwich. Due to the customisation, the final product maynot beconsidered astandard food item bythedefinitions provided as part of the National Principles. Althoughmost outletscapturedbymenu labelling legislation arestill operating to aset menu, customisationisa fast growing approach.

There are two componentsto this issue: where the customer maychoose to addan additional serve of an ingredient (e.g. cheeseor bacon) to their standard food item; or, where the customer createstheir own food item with much greater flexibilityeither from scratch or a commonbaseproduct (e.g. meat pattie). While the final product maynot be standardised acrossstores and therefore thought of as astandard food item, further discussion is warrantedto consider whether single ingredients(e.g. single meat pattie, slice of cheese etc.) are standardised acrossthe business and therefore should be included in the displayof nutritionalinformation.

Whilefoodbusinessesmaysuggest that ingredientsarenot standardised, inorder tocalculate thetotal nutritional informationfor theproduct thebusinesswill haveinformationavailableforindividual ingredientswhich theycanutilise. It isalsounderstoodthat toensurebrandconsistencyacrossstores,ingredientsareaddedtofoodproductsinstandardservingsizes.

It isacknowledgedthat it maynot bepractical to includenutritional informationforsingle ingredientsonadisplayboardmenudueto limitedspace. However,especiallywhere the orderingisdoneviaaself-servicedisplayunitorother electronicdevice,thenfurther considerationof thedisplayofnutritional informationforingredientswhenofferedindividually is warranted. Theuseofcomputer generatedsystemsinself-servedisplayswhichcanbealtered, makeiteasierforbusinessestodisplaythekilojoulecontent of theseindividual items.This wouldautomaticallyprovideafinal count, allowing theconsumer toselect ahealthier option should theysochooseandassisting theconsumer tobuild thehealthiest optionavailable to them.

Whilethetotalamount cannotbecalculatedeasilyforstaticmenus(e.g.boards, paper), makingtheinformationavailable to theconsumerfor the individual ingredientswill assistthe consumertochoosethehealthieroptionwithinarange(e.g. typeofcheese).

Thedemandfor consumerstopersonalise theirproduct hasalso ledtoan increase inself- serviceoutlets. Theseoutletsmakeavailableingredients that arestandardisedfor content but theportioniscontrolledbytheconsumer.

Consultation question 7: Are there any other issues in relation to menu customisation that should be considered?

Consultation question 8: What could be done to enable healthier choices when customising menu items? What are the pros and cons of your suggested approach?

Rollingmenuboards

The National Principlesspecifythe‘where’ and‘how’ energycontent at thepointof sale must bedisplayed (i.e.adjacent tothenameof the itemandtherequiredsize), but not ‘when’. The issueofrolling menusarosefollowingthereleaseofanewstyleofmenudisplaywhere the nutritional informationwasnot always displayedat thesametimeasthenameorpriceofthe item.This hascausedsomeconfusionfor consumersmaking theinformationmoredifficult toaccess, interpretandapply.

Themorerecently introduced Queenslandschemespecifically addressesthisaspect byalso requiring the nutritional informationtobedisplayedsimultaneouslywith thepriceand/or nameofthefood item. However,thisistheonlyschemecurrently inplacewhichlegislatesthis requirement in this way. In NewSouthWales, because the legislation does not give a time-based exemption from menu labelling, when a standard food item is displayed, it should also display the kilojoule information.

Rollingmenusalsocompromisethepolicy intent ofassistingconsumers to make informedand healthier fastfoodchoicesbecausetheymakeitmoredifficultfor comparisons tobemade.For example,thekilojoulecontent ofoneburger maynotbedisplayedatthesametimeasthe kilojoulecontent for otherburgers. The Queenslandand NewSouthWaleslegislationdoesnotdeal with thisissue.

Thereisasimilar issuewithonline menuswhich,whileprovidingthekilojouleinformation, requireseveral ‘clicks’ bytheconsumer toreach theinformation. The increasein thenumber of capturedfoodbusinesseswhoarenowofferinghomedeliveryviaanonlineorderingsystem makesthisamoresignificantissue. Queensland’ssimultaneousdisplayprovisionsand NewSouthWales lack of time-based exemptionmay addressthisissue.

Consultation question 9: Are there any other issues in relation to rolling menu boards that should be considered?

Consultation question 10: What could be done to ensure kilojoule information is easy to access and that consumers can compare products easily? What are the pros and cons of your suggested approach?

Online ordering

Somefoodbusinessescapturedbythekilojoulelabellingrequirementsarenowinvolvedwith thirdpartydeliveryagentssuchasDeliverooor UberEatswhereconsumersareabletoorder directlyfromdeliverywebsites. Deliveroo recentlyreportedthatitis growing30percentevery week.

As thedeliveryagentisnotafoodbusinesstheyarenot requiredtocomplywith thekilojoule labellingrequirementsandlargelydonot displaykilojoulecontentinformation.Whilefurther investigationiswarranted,it appearsthat the licensedfoodbusinessprovides the information to thedeliveryagent whentheypartner with theservice.

Anotherinnovationinthesaleof foodistheability toorderdirectlyfromanelectroniccatalogue. Thatis, thecataloguehasbecomeamenu.Explanatorynotesandguides invariousjurisdictionsspecificallyexcludecataloguesasmenus,but toachieve theintent ofthe legislations, thismayneed tobeexploredfurther.

Consultation question 11: Are there any other issues in relation to on-line ordering that should be considered?

Consultation question 12:What could be done to ensure kilojoule information is included on all web-based ordering platforms? What are the pros and cons of your suggestedapproach?

Combination meals with pre-packaged food

Thisemergingissueposes twoconcerns. Firstly, somefoodbusinessesarenot including informationregardingpre-packageditemssuchasdrinks in theiradvertised mealcombinations. Secondly,ascanofonline menus revealsfoodbusinessesarenotdisplayinginformationfor known mealdeal combinations online.

TheGuidelineDefinitions(seeAttachment 1)state that “IfanumberofStandardFood Items areshownor displayed forsaleasacombination, thecombinationistobetreatedasasingle StandardFoodItem” andthat “the intention istoprovideconsumerswithnutritioninformation that relatestothemeal asawhole. Thiswill assistconsumerunderstandingandobviatethe need tomakeacalculationbasedonthecomponentsof themeal.” Thissuggeststheremaybe aconflict between thedefinitionandtheintent.

Jurisdictionsareinterpretinglegislationbothbythedefinitionandthe intent. For example, industryuser guidesin NSW make it clear that pre-packageddrinks (witha Nutrition InformationPanel)that aresoldaspartofa meal deal arerequiredtobeincludedaspartof theaveragekilojoulecontent for thewholemeal deal. Otherjurisdictionsarenot expectingpre-packageddrinks tobeincludedinameal deal calculationas theyarenot standardfooditems.

Thisleadstoconsumer confusionanddifficulty incomparing mealsbetweenfoodbusinesses. Notdisplayingmealdeals’ kilojoulecontent requires theconsumer to individually lookat separate itemsandaddthe totalkilojoulecontent.Thismakesmenuselectionadifficult processwhere theconsumer isunlikelyto lookat individual componentsof themeal before ordering, particularly ifthedrinkis inafridgenotaccessible tothecustomer.

It shouldbenotedthatsomebusinessesincludenutritional informationof packageddrinks includedin meal deals(usingadefaultdrink) aswell aspresenting theinformationclearlyfor theentiremeal inone location. Onebusinessincludesnutritional informationforindividual servingsofingredientsandcondiments, however,doesnotincludeany information regarding post mixdrinksor meal combinations.

Mostmajorchainscapturedbytheprovisionsareeither not displayingkilojouleinformation relating topackagedfoodssoldaspartof themeal deal,or arenotadvertisingknown meal dealson theironlinesystems.

Consultation question 13: Are there any other issues in relation to combination meals that should be considered?

Consultation question 14: What could be done to ensure kilojoule information is provided for the whole meal? What are the pros and cons of your suggested approach?

PART C – DIFFICULTIES OF INTERPRETATION

Though improving,consumer understandingof kilojoules remainslimited. Thereislimited knowledgeandunderstandingabout thekilojoulecontent of foodsanddailykilojouleintake.

Greater understandingofkilojoulesisrequiredtosupport behaviourchange. Theeffortof calculatingkilojoulescanberegardedastoohard, meaningkilojoulesarenotconsideredwhen makingfoodchoices. Thesituationisfurther complicatedbythefact thatmanypeoplestill think incalorieswhichis reinforcedbymanyprograms, toolsandhealthprofessionals.

Kilojoulelabellingmust besimple, unambiguousand meaningfulinorder toresonateandmake animpactwithconsumers.

Additional and interpretive information

Somestudiesandmarket researchhasshown that theimpact of kilojoulelabellingmaybe improvedwith theuseof additional and/or interpretiveinformation[9][10]. Asanexample,this informationmightincludethe level ofsalt in the itemor thewalkingdistance requiredtoburn thekilojoules. The National Aboriginal andTorresStrait Islander HealthStandingCommittee

suggeststhatclearinformationonsugarcontentshouldbeconsidered aspart ofeffortstoclose thegapgiven theratesofsugarconsumptionarehigher inall agegroups for Indigenous comparedtonon-IndigenousAustralians.

Consultation question 15: Are there any other issues in relation to additional and interpretive information that should be considered?

Consultation question 16: What could be done to ensure kilojoule information is as easy to interpret as possible? What are the pros and cons of your suggested approach?

Kilojouledisplayvariations

WhenNewSouthWalesintroduceditslegislation, itallowedsupermarkets(only)todisplaythe averageenergycontent per100grams.Thisexceptionhasbeenperpetuatedthroughall subsequentlegislationthatincludessupermarkets. Therationalefor thisexceptionwastoallow consumerstocomparethekilojoulecontent per 100 gramsacross both packaged and unpackaged items on a like-for-like basis, particularly in relation to the significant degree of variation in product type and size in a supermarket setting, for example the number of serves in a whole barbeque chicken. Themajorityofproductsina supermarketarepackagedandthereforecontainaNutritionInformationPanel (NIP). However,theNIP also contains thekilojoulecontentof thewholefooditem. Using thewhole fooditemwouldallowcomparisonwithother supermarket itemsandfoodfromother Standard Food Outletswhicharenotabletodisplayper 100grams.

Theuseofenergycontentper100gramscouldbeseenasaddingcomplexitytoanareanot well understoodbyconsumers.Althoughknowledge isimprovingasaresultofthis legislation andassociatededucationcampaigns,consumer understandingof kilojoulesisstill limited. This exception meansthat further calculationsarerequired toascertainthekilojoulecontent ofthe wholeitemwhich maybeasingleserve. It alsohamperscomparabilityofitemswhenonly somearelabelled thisway.