The snack food landscape is changing in Australia. Ingredient lists, long dominated by ultra-processed foods (UPFs), are under ever-increasing scrutiny by experts and consumers alike. As regulation looks to catch up, brands and industry swing between competition and opportunity.
In September 2021, the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) announced a comprehensive review of the Australian Dietary Guidelines. Among the stated goals of the initiative was a dedicated evidence review on ultra-processed foods (UPFs) and their health outcomes. Five years in, the review remains ongoing as ingredient literacy rises amongst shoppers.
The Regulatory Lag
Despite the NHMRC review, current food standards continue to say little about ultra-processed foods or their impact on human health. Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ), the body responsible for setting Australia’s food code, does not define or even mention UPFs in its standards.
While FSANZ states that it continues to monitor emerging nutritional literature, acknowledging for example the NOVA system, it continues to assess nutrition by looking exclusively at individual nutrients (macros) and ignoring processing. Its assessment frameworks, the Health Star Rating (HSR) system and Nutrient Profiling Scoring Criterion (NPSC), are both built solely on the number of macros in a product.
Two recent FSANZ proposals, the HSR label review and sugar labelling requirements, are each a case in point. Since February this year, the HSR system has been in review at the request of food ministers to make the HSR label mandatory on pack. Despite calls from nutritionists and dietary experts and knowing industry will need to bear the cost of the label changes regardless, FSANZ has confirmed it is not looking at changes to the HSR algorithm.
Just a month later in March, FSANZ abandoned a long-running proposal that would have required sugars to be broken down separately on the nutrition information panel, citing significant costs on industry and government as well as no clear public health benefit.
The practical effect is that the HSR will continue to give shoppers no information about the degree of processing in a food, while intrinsic and free sugars will still be reported as single “sugars” on pack. At least for now, reading between the lines of an ingredient list remains the shopper’s job, not the label.
State of the Shelf
With regulation yet to catch up, our team looked across the industry to understand what the UPF landscape looked like, and where our own brand sits. To do this, we conducted an audit of 276 snack foods from 60 brands across Australia, including our own.
Each product’s nutritional integrity was assessed based on frameworks set by the World Health Organisation (WHO), UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), and the NOVA Food Classification system.
Out of 276 products and 60 brands surveyed:
- Most products (82 per cent) had at least one ingredient classified as a UPF/Group 4 marker under NOVA; and
- only 11 of the 60 brands were found to be completely free of UPFs across their entire product line.
Essentially, four in five snack products on Australian shelves carry ingredients the world’s leading food health bodies flag as ultra-processed.
For a category that markets itself on health, convenience, and better-for-you credentials, the gap between what is on the label and what is in the bag is significant.
Shoppers pivot towards health food
Tellingly, market data reveals shoppers are paying more attention to this gap. Research by Hawkins Watts, building on work by Mintel and Circana, reveals Australians are becoming more interested in matters of food health, and they are demanding more functional benefits for what they’re willing to pay for. A recent publication in Appetite by Barrett et al. adds to this, citing consumers being “concerned but confused” about UPFs, and wanting clearer ingredients in their food.
As shoppers increasingly use ingredient lists to guide healthier choices, the snack food category is shifting in response: away from UPFs and additives and towards natural flavours, fibre, and wholefood nutrition.
Industry and Brands
Such a shift in consumer consciousness should have industry take note, where the 82 per cent presence of UPFs points to most brands still lagging. And shoppers are not making their food choices alone. Despite the lack in regulation, the private sector has shown promising signs of filling the gap, using self-directed food advice to guide consumers towards healthy eating.
Real Food Rating (RFR), an independent parallel to the HSR, is a good example of industry stepping up. The rating looks at additives, processing methods, nutrient quality, and ingredient integrity to give expert-backed scientific weight to its food assessments.
Brands who have noted this shift are making natural and UPF-free ingredients a part of their identity. Emerging names are challenging, and at times outperforming, established ones by promoting shopper understanding of ingredient lists. But for new and existing players alike, the shift means that credibility, health, and ingredient clarity are no longer mere advantages on the playing field. They are minimum requisites to be able to compete effectively in an increasingly health-conscious environment.
Adam Elharte is the founder and director of Viva Perfetto, a family brand designed to help Australians lead healthier lives by making all-natural snacks free of additives and UPFs. The research cited in this article was conducted by the Viva Perfetto team.
