Appetite 81 (2014) 253260

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Appetite
j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s e v i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / a p p e t

Research report

Nutritional quality, labelling and promotion of breakfast cereals on

the New Zealand market
Anandita Devi a, Helen Eyles b, Mike Rayner c, Cliona Ni Mhurchu b, Boyd Swinburn a,d,
Emily Lonsdale-Cooper b, Stefanie Vandevijvere a,*
a

School of Population Health, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

National Institute for Health Innovation, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
c
British Heart Foundation Health Promotion Research Group, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
d WHO Collaborating Centre for Obesity Prevention, Deakin University, Victoria, Australia
b

A R T I C L E

I N F O

Article history:
Received 12 February 2014
Received in revised form 11 June 2014
Accepted 14 June 2014
Available online 19 June 2014
Keywords:
Breakfast cereals
Nutritional quality
Labelling
Claims
Promotional characters
New Zealand

A B S T R A C T

Breakfast cereals substantially contribute to daily energy and nutrient intakes among children. In New
Zealand, new regulations are being implemented to restrict nutrition and health claims to products that
meet certain healthy criteria. This study investigated the difference in nutritional quality, labelling and
promotion between healthy and less healthy breakfast cereals, and between breakfast cereals intended for children compared with other breakfast cereals on the New Zealand market. The cross-sectional
data collection involved taking pictures of the nutrition information panel (NIP) and front-of pack (FoP)
for all breakfast cereals (n = 247) at two major supermarkets in Auckland in 2013. A nutrient proling
tool was used to classify products into healthy/less healthy. In total 26% of cereals did not meet the
healthy criteria. Less healthy cereals were signicantly higher in energy density, sugar and sodium content
and lower in protein and bre content compared with healthy cereals. Signicantly more nutrition claims
(75%) and health claims (89%) featured on healthy compared with less healthy cereals. On the less healthy
cereals, nutrition claims (65%) were more predominant than health claims (17%). Of the 52 products displaying promotional characters, 48% were for cereals for kids, and of those, 72% featured on less healthy
cereals. In conclusion, most breakfast cereals met the healthy criteria; however, cereals for kids were
less healthy and displayed more promotional characters than other cereal categories. Policy recommendations include: food composition targets set or endorsed by government, strengthening and enforcing current regulations on health and nutrition claims, considering the application of nutrient proling
for nutrition claims in addition to health claims, introducing an interpretative FoP labelling system and
restricting the use of promotional characters on less healthy breakfast cereals.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Abbreviations: INFORMAS, International Network for Food and Obesity/non-communicable diseases Research, Monitoring and Action Support; FSANZ, Food Standards
Australia New Zealand; NPSC, Nutrient Proling Scoring Criterion.

Acknowledgements: The authors would like to acknowledge A. Chand and R. Megill for the collection of the data and R. George for contribution to data cleaning and
analysis. S. Vandevijvere and H. Eyles originated the study idea and design. H. Eyles and C. Ni Mhurchu developed the New Zealand Nutritrack database. H. Eyles provided
the nutrition information from NIP and photos of FoP for breakfast cereals from the Nutritrack database for the purposes of this study. H. Eyles and E. Lonsdale-Cooper
analysed the nutritional composition of breakfast cereals. M. Rayner developed the INFORMAS taxonomy for classifying health-related food labelling components. A. Devi
and S. Vandevijvere analysed the results on food labelling and promotion of breakfast cereals. A. Devi drafted the manuscript. S. Vandevijvere supervised the study. All authors
were involved in the interpretation of results and subsequent edits of the manuscript. This study was funded by the Faculty Research Development Fund of the University
of Auckland (Grant no. 3704413). Conict of interest: Helen Eyles holds a National Heart Foundation of New Zealand postdoctoral research fellowship (Grant 1463). The other
authors declare that they have no competing interests.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: s.vandevijvere@auckland.ac.nz (S. Vandevijvere).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2014.06.019
0195-6663/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

254

A. Devi et al./Appetite 81 (2014) 253260

Introduction
Breakfast consumption has been associated with higher bre and
calcium intakes (Barton et al., 2005), as well as a reduced risk of
becoming overweight or obese, compared with skipping breakfast
(De La Hunty, Gibson, & Ashwell, 2013; Szajewska & Ruszczynski,
2010). In New Zealand, the latest national nutrition surveys indicate that 79% of children and young people usually consume breakfast on ve or more days a week (Clinical Trials Research Unit, 2010),
and 40% of children reported eating breakfast cereals at least once
a day (Parnell, Scragg, Wilson, Schaaf, & Fitzgerald, 2003). However,
ready-to-eat (RTE) cereals tend to be highly processed (Cordain et al.,
2005) and high sugar cereals have been found to increase childrens total sugar consumption and decrease the overall nutritional quality of their breakfast (Harris, Schwartz, Ustjanauskas,
Ohri-Vachaspati, & Brownell, 2011). Additionally, breakfast cereals
marketed directly to children have been found to contain signicantly more added sugar than those marketed to adults (Schwartz,
Vartanian, Wharton, & Brownell, 2008).
High sugar RTE breakfast cereals are the most frequently promoted food products on television for child-targeted food advertising (LoDolce, Harris, & Schwartz, 2013). Promotional characters
on food packages, are also used as an attractive lure for advertising to children (Neeley & Schumann, 2004; Tang, Newton, & Wang,
2007). Licenced or spokes characters on food packages, have been
reported to inuence young childrens taste, food preferences and
purchases compared with the same products without such characters (Roberto, Baik, Harris, & Brownell, 2010; Smits & Vandebosch,
2012). It has been found that constant exposure of children to promotional characters encourages them to recognise and like the
related brands (Neeley & Schumann, 2004). On-pack nutrient content
claims and sport celebrity endorsements made pre-adolescents more
likely to choose energy-dense and nutrient-poor products and increased perceptions of their nutrient content compared with
healthier products (Dixon et al., 2014). There are currently no regulations or effective policies in place in New Zealand to reduce exposure of children to advertising of less healthy foods through any
type of medium in New Zealand.
Nutrition and health claims are regulated by the Australia New
Zealand Food Standards Code (FSC) and implemented by the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) in New Zealand (Food Standards
Australia New Zealand, 2013a, 2013b). In accordance with the FSC,
it is mandatory in New Zealand to display a nutrition information
panel (NIP) on most packaged foods (displaying energy, protein, total
fat, saturated fat, carbohydrate, sugars, and sodium per serving, and
per 100 g or 100 mL) and if nutrition claims are made, the nutrition information for that nutrient must be displayed on the NIP. A
new mandatory food standard (Standard 1.2.7) was passed in January
2013 on the regulation of nutrition and health claims on food labels
and in advertisements by the Food Standards Australia New Zealand
(FSANZ), which all food companies must comply with from 18
January 2016 (Food Standards Australia New Zealand, 2013a). This
standard aims to reduce false and misleading nutrition claims and
ensure that claims are only present on foods meeting certain healthy
criteria (Food Standards Australia New Zealand, 2013a). The healthy
criteria are set by the FSANZ Health Claims Nutrient Proling Scoring
Criterion (NPSC), a nutrient proling tool that has been tested on
more than 10,000 New Zealand and Australian food products (Food
Standards Australia New Zealand, 2007, 2013b). Currently the NPSC
only applies to foods displaying health claims and not to foods displaying nutrition claims. Using FSANZs NPSC, overall, 59% of products (n = 550) from seven food groups and 51 food categories in
supermarkets previously met the healthy criteria in New Zealand
(Eyles, Gorton, & Ni Mhurchu, 2010).
Interpretative, consumer-oriented front-of-pack (FoP) nutrition labels (Health Star Rating or trac light labelling system) have

recently been introduced in some countries to help consumers identify healthier food options (Watson et al., 2014). While Australia recently approved the voluntary implementation of the Health Star
Rating system (Australian Government Department of Health and
Ageing, 2013; Watson et al., 2014) and in the UK the Multiple Trac
Light (MTL) labelling system has also been implemented by several
retailers (United Kingdom Food Standards Agency, 2007), there is
no consumer-oriented, interpretative FoP labelling system implemented in New Zealand (Rosentreter, Eyles, & Mhurchu, 2013). Currently various industry and agency-initiated labelling systems operate
in New Zealand, which can be interpretive or non-interpretive, including the Australian Food and Grocery Councils multi-icon Daily
Intake Guide (DIG) system, individual logos and icons that relate
to a particular issue (e.g., fair trade, organic, glycaemic index (GI),
heart health) of which some are licence-based such as the GI symbol
and the Heart Foundation Tick (HF Tick) (Blewett, Goddard, Pettigrew,
Reynolds, & Yeatman, 2011; MPI Food Safety, 2013). The HF Tick aims
to allow consumers to identify healthier options within a specic
food category and encourages the food industry to reformulate and
improve nutrition quality of foods and labelling (Heart Foundation
NZ, 2013; Young & Swinburn, 2002). Approximately 500 products
currently display the DIGs thumbnails in New Zealand; however,
display of percentage dietary intake (DI) information is only mandatory for energy intake, while the use of additional percentage DI
information (fat, protein, saturated fat, carbohydrate, sugars and
sodium) is voluntary (New Zealand Food & Grocery Council).
Given the signicant contribution of breakfast cereals to childrens diet in New Zealand and the lack of strong policies on food
reformulation, labelling and promotion, the aim of this study was
to investigate the difference in nutritional quality, labelling and promotion between healthy and less healthy breakfast cereals, and
between cereals intended for children compared with other breakfast cereals on the New Zealand market.
Materials and methods
Sampling
Two of the biggest supermarkets (one representing each of the
two major chains) in Auckland, New Zealand were chosen as sites
for data collection (Countdown and PakNSave). From these supermarkets, details of all breakfast cereals available for purchase were
recorded. Where the same product was sold in more than one supermarket that product was included only once in the product
sample.
Data collection
Data collection took place from February to August 2013. A supermarket audit for breakfast cereals was conducted at each site
by two research assistants using a specially developed smart phone
application. Photos were taken of the front, side and back of all breakfast cereal packages (n = 247).
For each product the company name, product name, and barcode
were recorded. Nutrition labelling information recorded included
the HF Tick, DIG, packet size, packet unit, serving size, serving unit
and per 100 g content of energy, protein, total fat, saturated fat, carbohydrates (CHO), sugar, bre (only when present) and sodium. Supermarket data were entered directly into the smartphone in the
supermarket, and exported to an Excel spreadsheet (Microsoft Excel
2010). Photo and nutrient data from the NIP were entered into the
Nutritrack supermarket database, a University of Auckland branded
food and nutrient database which contains package and nutrient
information for the majority of the packaged foods for sale in NZ
supermarkets (National Institute for Health Innovation, 2011).

A. Devi et al./Appetite 81 (2014) 253260

Classication of products as healthy/less healthy

The FSANZ Health Claims NPSC was used to determine whether
breakfast cereals were eligible to carry a health claim. Eligible products (those meeting the NPSC) were classied as healthy and noneligible products as less healthy (Food Standards Australia New
Zealand, 2007). The criterion is based on the UK nutrient proling
model used for the regulation of TV advertising of food to children (Rayner, Scarborough, & Stockley, 2004). The NPSC provides
assessment of overall nutritional composition of a food or beverage product by rstly applying baseline points for energy, saturated fat, total sugar, and sodium content per 100 g and then applying
modifying points for dietary bre (F points), protein (P points), and
percentage of fruit and vegetable (including nuts and legumes,
coconut, spices, herbs, fungi, seeds and algae) content (V points).
A nal score is given by subtracting the modifying points from the
baseline points (baseline points (V points) (P points) (F points)).
In the case where a V or F point could not be obtained for the product
(percentage of fruit and/or vegetables or bre content not mentioned in the ingredient list or NIP), a standard V or F point was used
based on the most common percentage of fruit or vegetables or bre
content for other products in the same category (Food Standards
Australia New Zealand, 2013b). Breakfast cereals were classied as
healthy if the NPSC was less than 4 and less healthy if the NPSC
was 4 or more (Food Standards Australia New Zealand, 2013b).
Classication of health-related labelling information and
promotional characters on food packages
The standardised taxonomy, recently developed by the International Network for Food and Obesity/non-communicable diseases
Research, Monitoring and Action Support (INFORMAS) and based
on Codex food labelling standards, was used to classify the different types of claims used on food packages (Rayner et al., 2013). Nutrition information was classied into: nutrient declarations,
supplementary nutrition information (e.g. percent Guideline Daily
Amount (GDA)), list of ingredients, and other information (e.g. origin).
Claims were classied into three categories: nutrition claims, health
claims and other claims. Nutrition claims were further categorised
into: health-related ingredient claims (e.g. contains more whole
grains) and nutrient claims. Nutrient claims were further divided
into nutrient content claims (e.g. low in fat) and, nutrient comparative claims (e.g. reduced fat). Health claims were categorised
into three categories: general health claims (e.g. healthy), nutrient and other function claims (e.g. contains calcium which is
good for your bones) and, reduction of disease risk claims (e.g. Heart
Foundation Tick). Other claims were all non-health-related claims
(e.g. organic, tasty etc.). The format of the claims was classied
into one of the following three categories: numerical, verbal or
symbolic.
Using the INFORMAS taxonomy, a number of decisions needed
to be made to classify actual labelling according to this taxonomy.
For example INFORMAS classies a claim which states, suggests or
implies that a food has particular nutritional properties by virtue
of its content of an ingredient as a health-related ingredient claim.
Therefore a claim that a breakfast cereal contained whole grain was
considered a health-related ingredient claim because it was thought
that such a claim implied that the product had particular nutritional properties. However, a claim that a breakfast cereal contained fruit such as apple or blueberries was not classied as a
health-related ingredient claim because the implication that the
product had particular nutritional properties was less clear. However,
if the amount of a particular ingredient was specied e.g. contains one of your ve fruits a day, then it was classied as a healthrelated ingredient claim because in that case there is an implication
that the food has particular nutritional properties. Classifying con-

255

tains whole grain as a health-related ingredient claim and a claim

such as contains blueberries as not was a matter of judgement.
Although energy and some antioxidants are not generally considered nutrients, claims related to energy and antioxidants were
classied as nutrient content claims. Claims in slogans were considered as general health claims if words such as goodness, nutritious or super were used to describe the product, as this was
regarded as referring to a healthy product. Due to the large and
variable number of health-related ingredient claims and nutrient
content claims, some ingredients and nutrients were merged together for analysis purposes (e.g. antioxidants/vitamins/minerals
were merged and fruits/nuts/honey were merged) to avoid too many
categories.
The promotional characters were categorised into seven types,
adapted from Hebden et al. (Hebden, King, Kelly, Chapman, &
Innes-Hughes, 2011): Cartoon/company-owned character, licenced character, amateur sportsperson, famous sportsperson, celebrity, movie tie-in and premium offers (downloads, buy one get
one free etc.) (Hebden et al., 2011). As company-owned characters were dicult to distinguish from cartoons, these were
categorised as one type (cartoon/company owned characters).
In addition to classifying breakfast cereals into healthy and less
healthy, they were also categorised into one of the following categories: Biscuits and bites (e.g. Weet-bix), brans (e.g. sultana bran),
bubble akes and puffs (e.g. corn akes), cereals for kids (e.g. Coco
Pops), muesli (e.g. toasted muesli) and oats (e.g. rolled oats),
adapted from Woods and Walker (2007) and Louie et al. (Louie,
Dunford, Walker, & Gill, 2012).
Statistical analyses
Breakfast cereal products with multiple NIPs, such as variety packs
or incomplete nutrition data were excluded from the analysis (n = 3).
Data were analysed using IBM SPSS Statistics 20. Independent
sample t-tests were used to compare mean values of suggested
serving size (g) and nutritional content of: healthy and less healthy
breakfast cereals, and cereals for kids vs. other categories of breakfast cereals.
Chi-square tests were used to compare the number of claims on
healthy and less healthy breakfast cereals. A p < 0.05 was considered statistically signicant. Multiple testing was not adjusted
for, but was considered in the write up and discussion of ndings.
Results
A total of 247/250 breakfast cereal products representing 30
brands had complete data (including NIP) and were included in the
analysis. Overall 182 (74%) products were classied as healthy and
65 (26%) were classied as less healthy according to the NPSC
(Fig. 1).
Nutritional quality of breakfast cereals
Signicant differences (p < 0.05) were found in the nutritional
composition between healthy and less healthy breakfast cereals.
Healthy breakfast cereals on average (mean SD) were signicantly lower in energy density (1559.9 162.2 vs. 1644.5 105.1 kJ/
100 g), carbohydrate (65.7 9.1 vs. 73.5 11.5 g/100 g), sugar
(15.6 9.3 vs. 22.9 9.3 g/100 g) and sodium (142.3 142.3 vs.
338.0 223.7 mg/100 g) content and signicantly higher in protein
(10.5 2.3 vs. 9.1 4.2 g/100 g) and bre (9.7 4.2 vs. 5.2 3.2 g/
100 g) content than less healthy breakfast cereals respectively. The
percentage of healthy breakfast cereals varied across the different types of breakfast cereal categories as shown in Fig. 1. Oats was
the only category to have 100% of products classied as healthy.

256

A. Devi et al./Appetite 81 (2014) 253260

Percentage of breakfast cereals for sale at two Auckland

supermarkets eligible to carry a health claim (2013)
100%

58%

35%

25%

14%

90%

10%

100%

26%

90%

Percentage of breakfast cereals

80%
70%

74%

60%
50%
86%

40%

75%
65%

30%
20%

42%

10%
0%
Cereals for Bubbles,
Kids (n=36) Flakes &
Puffs
(n=65)

Muesli
(n=67)

Classified 'healthy'

Brans
(n=14)

Biscuits & Oats (n=45) All cereals

Bites (n=20)
(n=247)

Classified 'less healthy'

Fig. 1. Percentage of breakfast cereals for sale at two large Auckland supermarkets classied as healthy or less healthy (~2013). ~ Data were collected from two large
Auckland supermarkets between February and August 2013.

In contrast, 58% of cereals for kids (n = 21/36) were classied as

less healthy.
Cereals for kids had a signicantly lower mean suggested serving
size, but signicantly higher sugar and energy content compared
with most other categories of breakfast cereals. Although cereals
for kids had a lower total fat content compared with other categories of breakfast cereals (signicant for bubbles, akes and puffs,
muesli and oats only), they had a signicantly higher sodium
content compared with muesli and oats. Protein and bre content

were signicantly lower for cereals for kids compared with biscuits and bites, brans, muesli and oats. Interestingly, saturated
fat content was signicantly higher for muesli and oats compared with cereals for kids (Table 1).
Nature of claims found on breakfast cereals
Overall 238/247 (96%) breakfast cereal products displayed in total,
916 individual claims of some type on products. The maximum

Table 1
Suggested serving size and nutritional quality of breakfast cereals for kids versus other types of cereals for sale at two large Auckland supermarkets (2013).a

Suggested serving size (g)

Energy (kJ/100 g)
Protein (g/100 g)
Total fat (g/100 g)
Saturated fat (g/100 g)
Carbohydrate (g/100 g)
Sugar (g/100 g)
Fibre (g/100 g)

Sodium (mg/100 g)

Mean
SD
Min
Max
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Nb
Mean
SD

Cereals for Kids

(n = 36)

Biscuits & Bites

(n = 20)

Brans
(n = 14)

Bubbles, Flakes & Puffs

(n = 65)

Muesli
(n = 67)

Oats
(n = 45)

All cereals
(n = 247)

30.1
1.5
25
35
1608.6
37.3
8.5
4.4
2.1
1.9
0.6
0.7
79.6
6.4
26.3
10.8
4.9
2.9
32
298.4
249.9

36.4*
7.5
30
48
1500.3**
68.9
11.5**
1.2
2.3
1.9
0.9
1.2
67.6**
3.5
8.0**
8.1
10.6**
2.0
20
294.6
81.5

43.6**
4.1
30
45
1445.0**
79.3
11.0*
2.5
2.9
1.6
0.6
0.3
60.8**
10.9
21.5
6.2
17.2**
8.3
14
294.3
105.2

40.3**
8.8
25
66
1562.3
215.3
9.2
3.2
3.4*
3.6
0.7
0.8
74.4**
7.3
17.9**
8.1
6.6
3.9
61
293.3
180.6

48.8**
10.2
30
100
1682.3**
109.6
10.2*
2.0
11.4**
5.0
2.7**
1.7
60.1**
7.7
18.8**
6.1
9.0**
2.8
63
94.4**
110.9

39.7**
6.3
30
60
1520.8**
109.8
11.6**
2.3
6.1**
2.1
1.2**
0.4
62.7**
7.0
10.9**
10.6
9.5**
3.2
39
39.2**
69.8

40.9
9.8
25
100
1582.1
153.4
10.1
3.0
5.7
5.0
1.3
1.4
67.8
10.3
17.5
10.0
8.5
4.6
229
193.3
187.9

Note: SD, standard deviation. Signicantly different to corresponding mean for cereals for kids; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.001.
a
Data were collected from two large Auckland supermarkets between February and August 2013.
b N for serving size and all nutrients except bre. Separate N for bre shown as bre is not mandatory to be displayed on Nutrition Information Panels in New Zealand.

A. Devi et al./Appetite 81 (2014) 253260

257

Table 2
Different types of nutrition and health claims present on breakfast cereals for sale at two large Auckland supermarkets (2013).a
Type of claim

Content of claim

NUTRITION CLAIM
Health-related ingredient claim
Whole-grains
Fruits/nuts/honey
Grains
Nutrient claim
Nutrient content claim
Fibre
Energy
Antioxidants/vitamins/minerals
Carbohydrates
Fats
Sugar
Protein
Sodium
Cholesterol
Nutrient comparative claim
Reduced fat
More calcium
Less salt
Reduced sugar
HEALTH CLAIM
General health claim
General
Nutrient and other function claim
Protein for muscle development
Calcium for bone strength
Magnesium for growth
Reduction of disease risk claim
Heart-related
Heart foundation tick
Lowers cholesterol absorption
Glycaemic index
OTHER CLAIM
Non health-related claim
Total
Format of claim
Numerical
Verbal
Symbolic
DIG

Claims
N (%)

Breakfast cereals
total N (%)

Healthy breakfast
cereals N (%)

Less healthy breakfast

cereals N (%)

489 (53.4)
128 (26.2)
93 (72.7)
17 (13.3)
18 (14.1)
353 (72.2)

177 (71.7)
94 (53.1)
71 (75.5)
16 (17.0)
17 (18.1)
149 (84.2)

133 (73.1)
78 (58.6)
63 (80.8)
13 (16.7)
12 (15.4)
117 (88.0)

42 (64.6)
16 (38.1)
8 (50.0)
3 (18.8)
5 (31.3)
32 (76.2)

119 (33.7)
14 (4.0)
104 (29.5)
9 (2.5)
52 (14.7)
19 (5.4)
11 (3.1)
22 (6.2)
3 (0.8)
8 (1.6)
4 (50.0)
1 (12.5)
1 (12.5)
2 (25.0)
122 (13.3)
26 (21.3)
26 (100.0)
5 (4.1)
2 (40.0)
2 (40.0)
1 (20.0)
91 (74.6)
71 (78.0)
69 (75.8)
13 (14.3)
7 (7.7)
305 (33.3)
305 (100.0)
916

105 (70.5)
13 (8.7)
45 (30.2)
9 (6.0)
48 (32.2)
17 (11.4)
11 (7.4)
21 (14.1)
3 (2.0)
6 (3.4)
3 (50.0)
1 (16.7)
1 (16.7)
2 (33.3)
98 (39.7)
26 (26.5)
26 (100.0)
3 (3.1)
2 (66.7)
2 (66.7)
1 (33.3)
72 (73.7)
69 (95.8)
69 (95.8)
13 (18.1)
7 (9.7)
156 (63.2)
156 (100.0)
247

93 (79.5)
13 (11.1)
31 (26.5)
5 (4.3)
33 (28.2)
17 (14.5)
8 (6.8)
19 (16.2)
3 (2.6)
5 (3.8)
3 (60.0)
1 (20.0)
1 (20.0)
1 (20.0)
87 (47.8)
19 (21.8)
19 (100.0)
1 (1.1)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
1 (100.0)
70 (80.5)
67 (95.7)
67 (95.7)
13 (18.6)
7 (10.0)
114 (62.6)
114 (100.0)
182

12 (37.5)
0 (0.0)
14 (43.8)
4 (12.5)
15 (46.9)
0 (0.0)
3 (9.4)
2 (6.3)
0 (0.0)
1 (2.4)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
1 (100.0)
11 (16.9)
7 (63.6)
7 (100.0)
2 (18.2)
2 (100.0)
2 (100.0)
0 (0.0)
2 (18.2)
2 (100.0)
2 (100.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
42 (64.6)
42 (100.0)
65

122 (13.3)
688 (75.1)
106 (11.6)

97 (39.3)
218 (88.3)
99 (40.1)
130 (52.6)

21 (21.7)
162 (74.3)
87 (87.9)
90 (69.2)

76 (78.4)
56 (25.7)
12 (12.1)
40 (30.8)

Note: DIG, Dietary Intake Guide.

a
Data were collected from two large Auckland supermarkets between February and August 2013.

number of claims (including same type of claim) found on any breakfast cereal product was 14 (n = 2 products), although on average, a
product carried approximately four claims. Of the total number of
claims, 688 (75%) were verbal (n = 218 products; 88%); 122 (13%)
were numerical (n = 97 products; 39%); and 106 (12%) were symbolic (n = 99 products; 40%) claims. Of the breakfast cereals classied as less healthy, 26% (n = 56) contained verbal claims, whereas
78% (n = 76) of less healthy products contained numerical claims
(Table 2).
Nutrition claims, representing 53% of total claims, were found
on 177 (72%) products. Further categorisation of nutrition claims
showed that 26% and 72% of claims were for health-related ingredient claims (predominantly for whole grains) and nutrient content
claims respectively. Nutrient comparative claims were found on only
3% of breakfast cereal products. Health claims featured on 98 (40%)
products, and of those, 21% were general health claims; 4% were
nutrient and other function claims; and 75% were reduction of
disease risk claims (Table 2).
Overall, a signicantly higher number of healthy breakfast cereal
products carried nutrition claims (n = 133/177; 75%) and health
claims (n = 87/98; 89%) compared with less healthy breakfast cereals.
A signicantly higher number of healthy cereal products carried
health-related ingredient claims compared with less healthy products (n = 78/94; 83% vs. n = 16/94; 17% respectively). In addition, a

signicantly higher number of healthy cereal products carried reduction of disease risk claims than less healthy products (n = 70/
72; 97% vs. n = 2/72; 3% respectively) (Table 2).
Of the total number of products classied as healthy (n = 182/
247), nutrition claims featured on 73% of products and of those 59%
(n = 78) were health-related ingredient claims and 88% (n = 117) were
nutrient content claims. Of the total number of products classied
as less healthy (n = 65/247), nutrition claims featured on 65% (n = 42)
of products and they were predominantly nutrient content claims
(n = 32/42; 76%), mostly for fat and antioxidant/vitamins/minerals
respectively (n = 15/32; 47% and n = 14/32; 44%). The HF Tick (reduction of disease risk claim) was displayed on 28% (n = 69/247) of
products, of which 3% were classied less healthy. A higher proportion of less healthy breakfast cereals carried nutrition claims
compared with health claims (n = 42/65; 65% vs. n = 11/65; 17%) respectively (Table 2). As shown in Table 2, 53% (n = 130) of breakfast
cereals displayed DIG labelling, of which 69% were classied healthy.
Figure 2 shows the different types of claims found on different
categories of breakfast cereals. Bubbles, akes & puffs featured the
highest number of claims (29%), mainly nutrient content claims (111
claims), compared with other categories of breakfast cereals (data
not shown). Cereals for kids was the only category to carry nutrient and other function claims (ve claims), with more claims featuring on less healthy products (n = 4/5). Reduction of disease risk

258

A. Devi et al./Appetite 81 (2014) 253260

100%
90%

Other claim

Reduction of disease
risk claim

70%

Nutrient and other

function claim

60%
50%

General health claim

40%
Nutrient
comparative claim

30%
20%

Nutrient content
claim

10%

Health-related
ingredient claim

Biscuits &
Bites (n= 20)

Brans
(n=14)

Bubbles, Cereals for

Flakes & Kids (n=36)
Puffs (n=65)

Muesli
(n=67)

Healthy

Healthy

Unhealthy

Healthy

Unhealthy

Healthy

Unhealthy

Healthy

Unhealthy

Healthy

0%
Unhealthy

Percentage of claims on breakfast cereals

80%

Oats
(n=45)

Type of breakfast cereals

Fig. 2. Percentage of claims present on healthy and less healthy breakfast cereals according to breakfast cereal type at two large Auckland supermarkets (~2013). ~ Data
were collected from two large Auckland supermarkets between February and August 2013.

claims were only present on less healthy products for brans and
bubbles, akes & puffs.
Nature of promotional characters found on breakfast cereal packages
The main types of promotional characters found on breakfast
cereal packages are presented in Table 3.
Promotional characters featured on 21% (n = 52) of breakfast
cereal products, of which 17% (n = 43) carried cartoons/licenced characters and of those, 58% of products were considered less healthy.

Amateur sportspersons were found on 3% (n = 7) of products and

of those 6/7 were classied as healthy. Of the 4% (n = 9) of products featuring premium offers, 6/9 were considered healthy. No licenced characters or celebrities or famous sportspersons were found
on breakfast cereal products. Overall, 48% (n = 25) of cereals for kids
and 35% (n = 18) of bubbles akes and puffs featured promotional characters and of those 69% and 31% were classied as less
healthy products respectively. Less healthy cereals for kids carried
a higher proportion of promotional characters (n = 18/25; 72%) compared with healthy cereals for kids (n = 7/25; 28%).

Table 3
Different types of promotional characters present on packages of breakfast cereals for sale at two large Auckland supermarkets (2013).a
Promotional characters*

Total breakfast cereals N (%)

Healthy breakfast cereals N (%)

Less healthy breakfast cereals N (%)

Cartoon/company owned character

Licenced character
Amateur sportsperson
Celebrity
Movie tie-in
Premium offers (downloads, buy 1 get 1 free etc.)
Famous sportsperson
No promotional characters

43 (17.4)
0 (0.0)
7 (2.8)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
9 (3.6)
0 (0.0)
195 (78.9)

18 (41.9)
0 (0.0)
6 (85.7)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
6 (66.7)
0 (0.0)
156 (80.0)

25 (58.1)
0 (0.0)
1 (14.3)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
3 (33.3)
0 (0.0)
39 (20.0)

Total breakfast cereals N (%)

Healthy breakfast cereals N (%)

Less healthy breakfast cereals N (%)

For products with promotional characters only (n = 52)

Cereal type
Biscuits
Brans
Bubbles, Flakes & Puffs
Cereals for Kids
Muesli
Oats
Total

3 (5.8)
1 (1.9)
18 (34.6)
25 (48.1)
3 (5.8)
2 (3.8)
52

3 (11.5)
1 (3.8)
10 (38.5)
7 (26.9)
3 (11.5)
2 (7.7)
26

a
Data were collected from two large Auckland supermarkets between February and August 2013.
* Few products carried multiple promotional characters.

0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
8 (30.8)
18 (69.2)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
26

A. Devi et al./Appetite 81 (2014) 253260

Discussion
This cross-sectional study provides an overview of the nutritional quality of breakfast cereals on the New Zealand market, as
well as on the different types of labelling information and promotional characters found on them. It is concerning that over a quarter
of breakfast cereals were classied as less healthy. The nutritional quality of less healthy breakfast cereals was signicantly lower
than that of healthy cereals, with on average signicantly lower
bre and protein content and higher energy density, and sugar and
sodium content. Our study specically raises concern regarding the
breakfast cereals intended for children as cereals for kids in general
were found to have signicantly higher energy density, sodium and
sugar content, and lower protein and bre content compared with
other categories of breakfast cereals, and 58% of cereals for kids
were classied as less healthy. These results are similar to those
found by Louie et al. for Australian breakfast cereals (Louie et al.,
2012).
The National Heart Foundation food reformulation programme
(HeartSafe (Sodium Advisory & Food Evaluation)) in New Zealand
was developed in 2010 to facilitate industry-led, cross-category
sodium reduction, based on voluntary sodium reduction targets. For
breakfast cereals the targets for sodium to be achieved by end of
2014 include 600 mg/100 g for Puffed Rice & Corn Flakes, 200 mg/
100 g for Oat-based Muesli & Porridge, and 400 mg/100 g for other
breakfast cereals (Heart Foundation NZ, 2014). This study shows that
on average these targets have been met. However, the 2017 average
sodium target in the UK for all breakfast cereals is substantially lower
at 235 mg/100 g (Food Standards Agency, 2014) and apart from the
categories muesli and oats, New Zealand breakfast cereals on
average do not meet that target. Consequently, current voluntary
sodium targets for breakfast cereals in New Zealand need to be
revised, and ideally food composition targets for sodium, sugar and
other nutrients of concern where appropriate should be informed
by international best practice and set or endorsed by the government. In addition, implementation of the health star rating system
in New Zealand, such as in Australia, should help to improve the
nutritional composition of breakfast cereals over time.
A higher proportion of nutrition and health claims on healthy
cereals in comparison with less healthy breakfast cereals was found
in our study. However, of the less healthy breakfast cereals, 65%
featured nutrition claims and 17% featured health claims. Over 40%
of the nutrient content claims on less healthy products were for
fat (e.g. low fat or fat free claims) and antioxidants/vitamins/
minerals. Such claims may mislead consumers into perceiving those
products as healthier. A 2007 FSANZ survey showed that 84% of Australians and 81% of New Zealanders mentioned food labels as their
primary source of information regarding nutritional information of
foods (Blewett et al., 2011). The mandatory NIP was found to be confusing as not being suciently visible due to small font and location of NIP, which is usually on the side or back of food products
(Jones & Richardson, 2007). Research in New Zealand has found that
the intent to purchase a product is inuenced more by high level
health claims (e.g. risk reduction claims), compared with nutrient
content and function claims. In addition, symbolic claims such
as the HF Tick were regarded as more inuential on the intent
to purchase compared with verbal claims (Mhurchu & Gorton,
2007).
Reduction of disease risk claims was the most frequent type of
health claims found in our study, especially the HF Tick (symbolic
claim), of which not all were found on healthy products.
A high number of nutrition claims were displayed on cereals
for kids and this was the only breakfast cereal category to carry
nutrient and other function claims, with a greater proportion of
such claims found on less healthy cereals for kids products (n = 4/
5). Our results are comparable with a study by Colby et al. which

259

found that 49% of all food products contained nutrition marketing

(including claims) and of those, 48% had both nutrition marketing
and were high in saturated fat, sodium and/or sugar (11%, 17%, and
31% respectively). Seventy-one percent of food products marketed to children featured nutrition marketing and of those 59%
were high in saturated fat, sodium and/or sugar content, with more
than half being high in sugar (Colby, Johnson, Scheett, & Hoverson,
2010). According to the new food standard regulating nutrition
claims and health claims on food labels and in advertisements in
New Zealand, health claims cannot be used on products classied
as less healthy according to the NPSC. However, there are no
generalised nutritional criteria that restrict the use of nutrition claims
on unhealthy foods. Since 65% of less healthy breakfast cereals
contained nutrition claims, it emphasises the importance of considering the application of the NPSC to nutrition claims in addition to health claims.
In our study no licenced characters or celebrities or famous
sportspersons were found on cereal packages, with most breakfast cereals (79%) using no promotional characters at all. These ndings are in contrast with those of an Australian study (Hebden et al.,
2011) which found 90% of breakfast cereal products featuring
company owned characters, compared with 17% of breakfast cereals
featuring cartoons and/or company owned characters in our study.
However, in this study cereals for kids featured the most promotional characters (n = 25/52; 48%) compared with other breakfast
cereal categories. Less healthy cereals for kids products carried
a much higher percentage (72%) of promotional characters than
healthy cereals for kids, especially cartoons and/or company owned
characters. These ndings are consistent with other studies which
have found promotional characters being used on packages for less
healthy products targeted to children (Hebden et al., 2011; Roberto
et al., 2010).
Studies have found that food companies use strategies with visual
appeal to attract children and build brand loyalty by frequently using
childrens favourite characters (Neeley & Schumann, 2004; Page,
Montgomery, Ponder, & Richard, 2008). Regulation and monitoring of promotional characters on food packages are necessary to restrict promotional characters on less healthy products, as dened
by the NPSC to reduce childrens exposure to them for optimal protection of their health. For instance in Ecuador, though not implemented yet, a regulation has been approved in which unhealthy food
packages are prohibited from displaying labels featuring pictures
of children, real or ctitious animal characters, or celebrities and
in Ireland, the 2005 Childrens Advertising Code states that food advertising to children under the age of 15 must not feature celebrities (World Cancer Research Fund, 2013).
A limitation of this study is that the data collected depend on
the accuracy of the NIP in regard to nutritional composition of breakfast cereals. Food manufacturers may choose to use average quantities over actual values for NIP to allow for seasonal variability and
other factors causing variations in actual values. Furthermore, there
are different methods to obtain the food composition values which
may also affect the results (Fabiansson, 2006). Only two supermarkets were included in this study for data collection; however, they
represented two large stores in New Zealands largest city and therefore it is likely that the breakfast cereals sold at those supermarkets are similar to those available elsewhere. This study has shown
concern over the current practices related to composition, labelling and promotion of breakfast cereal products and points to the
need of further studies examining other food categories. The data
are cross-sectional, but, continuous data collection through
crowdsourcing using the FoodSwitch smartphone application now
in place will allow for ongoing monitoring and evaluation of composition, labelling and promotion of food products over time
(National Institute for Health Innovation (NIHI), T.G.I.f.G.H., and Bupa
New Zealand, 2013).

260

A. Devi et al./Appetite 81 (2014) 253260

Conclusion
In conclusion, more than a quarter of breakfast cereals were classied as less healthy. It is concerning that cereals for kids were
generally less healthy and more likely to display promotional characters than other breakfast cereal categories. Although breakfast
cereal products meeting the healthy criteria were more likely to
carry nutrition and health claims, 65% of less healthy breakfast
cereals featured nutrition claims and 17% featured health claims.
These ndings suggest that other food categories need to be examined as well. Policy recommendations based on the results of this
study include: food composition targets set or endorsed by government, enforcing and strengthening current regulations on health
and nutrition claims, applying the nutrient proling tool to nutrition claims in addition to health claims, introducing an evidencebased, interpretative FoP labelling system and restricting the use
of promotional characters on less healthy breakfast cereals.
References
Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing (2013). Front-of-pack
labelling updates. Available from <http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/
publishing.nsf/Content/foodsecretariat-front-of-pack-labelling-1> Last accessed
09.01.14.
Barton, B. A., Eldridge, A. L., Thompson, D., Affenito, S. G., Striegel-Moore, R. H., Franko,
D. L., et al. (2005). The relationship of breakfast and cereal consumption to
nutrient intake and body mass index. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood
Institute Growth and Health Study. Journal of the American Dietetic Association,
105(9), 13831389.
Blewett, N., Goddard, N., Pettigrew, S., Reynolds, C., & Yeatman, H. (2011). Labelling
logic. Review of food labelling law and policy. Canberra, Commonwealth of Australia.
Clinical Trials Research Unit (2010). A national survey of children and young peoples
physical activity and dietary behaviours in New Zealand: 2008/09. Key Findings.
Auckland, New Zealand: The University of Auckland.
Colby, S. E., Johnson, L., Scheett, A., & Hoverson, B. (2010). Nutrition marketing on
food labels. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 42(2), 9298.
Cordain, L., Eaton, S. B., Sebastian, A., Mann, N., Lindeberg, S., Watkins, B. A., et al.
(2005). Origins and evolution of the Western diet. Health implications for the
21st century. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 81(2), 341354.
De La Hunty, A., Gibson, S., & Ashwell, M. (2013). Does regular breakfast cereal
consumption help children and adolescents stay slimmer? A systematic review
and meta-analysis. Obesity Facts, 6(1), 7085.
Dixon, H., Scully, M., Niven, P., Kelly, B., Chapman, K., Donovan, R., et al. (2014). Effects
of nutrient content claims, sports celebrity endorsements and premium offers
on pre-adolescent childrens food preferences. Experimental research. Pediatric
Obesity, 9(2), e47e57.
Eyles, H., Gorton, D., & Ni Mhurchu, C. (2010). Classication of healthier and less
healthy supermarket foods by two Australasian nutrient proling models. The
New Zealand Medical Journal, 123(1322), 820.
Fabiansson, S. U. (2006). Precision in nutritional information declarations on food
labels in Australia. Asia Pacic Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 15(4), 451458.
Food Standards Agency (2014). 2017 UK salt reduction targets. Available from
<http://www.food.gov.uk/scotland/scotnut/salt/saltreduction> Last accessed
05.05.14.
Food Standards Australia New Zealand (2007). Calculation method for determining
foods eligible to make health claims. Nutrient proling calculator. Canberra, Food
Standards Australia New Zealand.
Food Standards Australia New Zealand (2013a). Nutrition content claims and health
claims. Available from <http://www.foodstandards.govt.nz/consumer/labelling/
nutrition/Pages/default.aspx> Last accessed 16.10.13.
Food Standards Australia New Zealand (2013b). Short guide for industry to the nutrient
proling scoring criterion (NPSC) in standard 1.2.7. Nutrition, health and related
claims. Canberra, Food Standards Australia New Zealand.
Harris, J. L., Schwartz, M. B., Ustjanauskas, A., Ohri-Vachaspati, P., & Brownell, K. D.
(2011). Effects of serving high-sugar cereals on childrens breakfast-eating
behavior. Pediatrics, 127(1), 7176.
Heart Foundation NZ (2013). About the Tick. Available from <http://www
.heartfoundation.org.nz/healthy-living/healthy-eating/heart-foundation-tick/
what-is-the-tick> Last accessed 23.10.13.
Heart Foundation NZ (2014). HeartSAFE. Available from <http://
www.heartfoundation.org.nz/programmes-resources/food-industry-andhospitality/heartsafe> Last accessed 01.05.14.

Hebden, L., King, L., Kelly, B., Chapman, K., & Innes-Hughes, C. (2011). A menagerie
of promotional characters. Promoting food to children through food packaging.
Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 43(5), 349355.
Jones, G., & Richardson, M. (2007). An objective examination of consumer perception
of nutrition information based on healthiness ratings and eye movements. Public
Health Nutrition, 10(3), 238244.
LoDolce, M. E., Harris, J. L., & Schwartz, M. B. (2013). Sugar as part of a balanced
breakfast? What cereal advertisements teach children about healthy eating.
Journal of Health Communication, 18(11), 12931309.
Louie, J. C. Y., Dunford, E. K., Walker, K. Z., & Gill, T. P. (2012). Nutritional quality of
Australian breakfast cereals. Are they improving? Appetite, 59(2), 464470.
Mhurchu, C. N., & Gorton, D. (2007). Nutrition labels and claims in New Zealand and
Australia. A review of use and understanding. Australian and New Zealand Journal
of Public Health, 31(2), 105112.
MPI Food Safety (2013). Food labelling. Available from <http://www
.foodsmart.govt.nz/whats-in-our-food/food-labelling/> Last accessed 23.01.14.
National Institute for Health Innovation (2011). Nutritrack. Reformulation of processed
foods to promote health. Available from <http://www.nihi.auckland.ac.nz/page/
current-research/our-nutrition-and-physical-activity-research/nutritrackreformulation-processe> Last accessed 21.01.14.
National Institute for Health Innovation (NIHI), T.G.I.f.G.H., and Bupa New Zealand
(2013). FoodSwitch. Available from <http://www.foodswitch.co.nz/> Last accessed
10.04.14.
Neeley, S. M., & Schumann, D. W. (2004). Using animated spokes-characters in
advertising to young children. Does increasing attention to advertising necessarily
lead to product preference? Journal of Advertising, 33(3), 723.
New Zealand Food & Grocery Council. Daily intake labelling scheme. Available from
<http://www.fgc.org.nz/education/daily-intake-labelling-scheme> Last accessed
22.10.13.
Page, R., Montgomery, K., Ponder, A., & Richard, A. (2008). Targeting children in the
cereal aisle. Promotional techniques and content features on ready-to-eat
cereal product packaging. American Journal of Health Education, 39(5),
272282.
Parnell, W., Scragg, R., Wilson, N., Schaaf, D., & Fitzgerald, E. (2003). NZ food NZ children.
Key results of the 2002 national childrens nutrition survey. Wellington, New
Zealand: Ministry of Health.
Rayner, M., Scarborough, P., & Stockley, L. (2004). Nutrient proles. Options for
denitions for use in relation to food promotion and childrens diets. London, United
Kingdom: British Heart Foundation Health Promotion Research Group,
Department of Public Health.
Rayner, M., Wood, A., Lawrence, M., Mhurchu, C. N., Albert, J., Barquera, S., et al. (2013).
Monitoring the health-related labelling of foods and non-alcoholic beverages in
retail settings. Obesity Reviews, 14(S1), 7081.
Roberto, C. A., Baik, J., Harris, J. L., & Brownell, K. D. (2010). Inuence of licensed
characters on childrens taste and snack preferences. Pediatrics, 126(1),
8893.
Rosentreter, S. C., Eyles, H., & Mhurchu, C. N. (2013). Trac lights and health claims.
A comparative analysis of the nutrient prole of packaged foods available for
sale in New Zealand supermarkets. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public
Health, 37(3), 278283.
Schwartz, M. B., Vartanian, L. R., Wharton, C. M., & Brownell, K. D. (2008). Examining
the nutritional quality of breakfast cereals marketed to children. Journal of the
American Dietetic Association, 108(4), 702705.
Smits, T., & Vandebosch, H. (2012). Endorsing childrens appetite for healthy
foods. Celebrity versus non-celebrity spokes-characters. Communications, 37(4),
371391.
Szajewska, H., & Ruszczynski, M. (2010). Systematic review demonstrating that
breakfast consumption inuences body weight outcomes in children and
adolescents in Europe. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 50(2),
113119.
Tang, T., Newton, G. D., & Wang, X. (2007). Does synergy work? An examination of
cross-promotion effects. International Journal on Media Management, 9(4),
127134.
United Kingdom Food Standards Agency (2007). Front of pack nutritional signpost
labelling technical guide (Issue 2). London (UK), Food Standards Agency.
Watson, W. L., Kelly, B., Hector, D., Hughes, C., King, L., Crawford, J., et al. (2014). Can
front-of-pack labelling schemes guide healthier food choices? Australian shoppers
responses to seven labelling formats. Appetite, 72, 9097.
Woods, J., & Walker, K. (2007). Choosing breakfast. How well does packet information
on Australian breakfast cereals, bars and drinks reect recommendations?
Nutrition and Dietetics, 64(4), 226233.
World Cancer Research Fund (2013) WCRF International Food Policy Framework for
Healthy Diets: NOURISHING. Available from <http://www.wcrf.org/policy_public
_affairs/nourishing_framework/food_marketing_advertising> Last accessed
14.04.14.
Young, L., & Swinburn, B. (2002). Impact of the Pick the Tick food information
programme on the salt content of food in New Zealand. Health Promotion
International, 17(1), 1319.