To examine the frequency of television (TV) food and beverage advertisements (F&B ads) to which children (4–11 years) are likely exposed and the nutrient profile of products advertised.

TV broadcasting between September and November 2016 was recorded (288 h of children’s programming; 288 h of family programming) resulting in 8980 advertisements, of which 1862 were F&B ads. Of those, 1473 could be classified into one of the seventeen food groups, and into permitted/non-permitted according to the WHO-EU nutrient profile model. Persuasive marketing techniques used were also identified.

TV programming was recorded for four weekdays and four weekend days, between 06.00 and 00.00 hours (576 total hours), for four channels (two national and two cable), in Costa Rica.

Mean (sd) number of F&B ads/h was greater in cable than national channels (3·7 (0·4) v. 2·8 (0·4), P < 0·05) and during children’s peak viewing hours (4·4 (0·4) v. 2·9 (0·3)). Of F&B ads classified with WHO-EU nutrient profile model (n 1473, 71·1 %), 91·1 % were non-permitted to be marketed to children. Categories most frequently advertised were ready-made/convenience foods (16 %), chocolates/confectionery/desserts (15 %), breakfast cereals (14 %), beverages (15 %), edible ices (9 %) and salty snacks (8 %). Non-permitted F&B ads were more likely to use promotional characters, brand benefit claims, and nutrition and health claims than permitted F&B ads.

Children watching popular TV channels in Costa Rica are exposed to a high number of unhealthy F&B ads daily. Our findings help justify the need for regulatory actions by national authorities.

To analyse the scope and content of the nutrition pledge announced by Lidl.

We applied the approach recommended by the private-sector module of the INFORMAS (International Network for Food and Obesity Research, Monitoring and Action Support) food environment monitoring framework and qualitative content analysis to Lidl’s nutrition pledge.

Global.

The nutrition pledge of Lidl, Europe’s largest food retailer.

Lidl pledges to reduce the average sales-weighted content of added sugar and added salt in its own-brand products by 20 % until 2025, using 2015 as a baseline, starting in Germany. Moreover, it vows to reduce the saturated and trans-fatty acid contents of its own-brand products, without specifying targets or timelines. To achieve these targets, it pledges to apply a number of approaches, including reformulation, promotion of healthier products, reduction of package and portion sizes, and provision of nutrition information and education. Strengths of Lidl’s pledge are its extensive scope, the quantification of some targets, and its partially evidence-based approach to the selection of targets and interventions. Key limitations include the vagueness of many targets, a lack of transparency and the absence of independent monitoring and evaluation.

Lidl’s pledge, while commendable for its scope, does not meet current best practice guidelines. Given their current limitations, industry initiatives of this kind are likely to fall short of what is needed to improve population-level nutrition.

To determine weightings for the relative contributions of nineteen widely recommended good practice food environment policies to improve population nutrition, based on evidence of effectiveness and expert ratings, to facilitate benchmarking of the implementation of food environment policies globally.

A two-round Delphi study was performed in 2015, whereby international food policy experts (nRound1 27, nRound2 21) compared effectiveness of all possible pairs of policy domains and good practice policies within domains to improve population nutrition according to the Saaty scale (1 to 9). Weightings for each domain and policy were derived from expert ratings based on the Analytic Hierarchy Process method.

International.

Food policy experts.

Out of the seven policy domains, Food Prices and Food Promotion received the highest weightings for impact on improving population nutrition, while Food Trade received the lowest weighting. Among the nineteen specific policies, taxing unhealthy foods (3·8 (0·7)), healthy food provision in schools (2·8 (0·4)) and minimizing taxes on healthy foods (2·6 (0·4)) were given the highest weightings, while nutrient declarations on packaged foods (1·2 (0·2)) and healthy food policies in private-sector workplaces (1·0 (0·2)) received the lowest weightings (mean (95 % CI)).

Expert-derived weightings on the relative contributions of recommended food environment policies to improve population nutrition will facilitate monitoring and benchmarking the implementation of these policies by governments among countries globally. Additional weightings for contributions of policies to reducing nutrition inequalities and improving consumer and child rights could be developed in the future.

To undertake a systematic review to determine similarities and differences in metrics and results between recently and/or currently used tools, protocols and methods for monitoring Australian healthy food prices and affordability.

Electronic databases of peer-reviewed literature and online grey literature were systematically searched using the PRISMA approach for articles and reports relating to healthy food and diet price assessment tools, protocols, methods and results that utilised retail pricing.

National, state, regional and local areas of Australia from 1995 to 2015.

Assessment tools, protocols and methods to measure the price of ‘healthy’ foods and diets.

The search identified fifty-nine discrete surveys of ‘healthy’ food pricing incorporating six major food pricing tools (those used in multiple areas and time periods) and five minor food pricing tools (those used in a single survey area or time period). Analysis demonstrated methodological differences regarding: included foods; reference households; use of availability and/or quality measures; household income sources; store sampling methods; data collection protocols; analysis methods; and results.

‘Healthy’ food price assessment methods used in Australia lack comparability across all metrics and most do not fully align with a ‘healthy’ diet as recommended by the current Australian Dietary Guidelines. None have been applied nationally. Assessment of the price, price differential and affordability of healthy (recommended) and current (unhealthy) diets would provide more robust and meaningful data to inform health and fiscal policy in Australia. The INFORMAS ‘optimal’ approach provides a potential framework for development of these methods.