Kate Austin

Background: Rapid changes to dietary and lifestyle patterns have transformed the home and food environment with an increased trend towards convenience in home food preparation and ready-meal availability [1]. Despite the widespread use of convenience foods, there is a lack of research into the nutritional quality of convenience foods for young children. This study examined the nutritional content of ready-meals for children aged 12 months to 3 years. The objectives of this study were to (i) investigate the nutritional quality of ready-meals, on sale in the UK market for children aged 12 months to 3 years, comparing their nutrition labelling information to dietary standards, (ii) identify the nutrition claims on the packaging of ready-meals for this age group and (iii) determine whether the nutrition claims identified met European Union legislation. Methods: A sample of main course ready-meals (n=38) marketed to children aged 12 months to 3 years from five brands, available in the UK was assessed. One ready-meal represents only a proportion of energy and nutrients consumed per day, therefore dietary standards were obtained taking 30% of age-appropriate dietary reference values (DRVs). The energy, protein and sodium content of these ready-meals were compared to the calculated dietary standards using one sample t-tests. Descriptive analysis was performed on all nutritional information (energy, carbohydrate, sugars, protein, fat, saturated fat, fibre, sodium and iron) collected. Nutrition claims were validated against legislative requirements [2,3,4]. Results: All ready-meals examined were significantly lower in energy (p=0.000) and higher in protein (p=0.000) compared to the dietary standards. Sodium was significantly higher than the dietary standard in three brands; brand 1 (p=0.000), 3 (p=0.004) and 5 (p=0.03), with brand 5 containing only 65mg less than the DRV (500mg) for total daily allowance. Four of the nutrition claims made across the brands were assessed - “no added salt”, “no added sugar”, “low salt” and “source of iron”. Only brand 1 and 5 did not meet legislation for “no added salt” as the ready-meals contained more than the amount of sodium per 100g permitted. All other nutrition claims conformed to legislative requirements; however the majority of ready-meals from brand 1 did contain ingredients with added salt and/or sugar e.g. mustard or sun-dried tomato, despite claims of “no added salt/sugar” and this could misinform consumers. Discussion: The ready-meals investigated did not meet calculated dietary standards and although the majority of nutrition claims displayed on the packaging did meet legislation, some claims did not and there were claims that could mislead consumers. There is paucity in research into the nutritional quality of convenience foods for young children and therefore comparisons between this study and other work cannot be drawn. Furthermore, since comprehensive dietary standards are unavailable for this age group, it is difficult to fully assess the nutritional adequacy of these ready-meals. Conclusion: The development of nutritional standards and transparent nutrition claim legislation would enable practitioners to fully assess the adequacy of children’s diets and enable consumers to make healthier food choices. Keywords : Children’s ready-meals; convenience foods; nutrition labelling.

Background Childhood obesity is a pertinent public health problem in the UK. Consumption of free sugars has been associated with the development of obesity. In 2018, the Change 4Life (C4L) 100 cal snack campaign was launched with the slogan ‘100 calorie snacks, two a day max’, aiming to encourage parents to choose lower sugar, fat and calorie snacks for their children. This study aimed to examine how the campaign has been perceived by parents. Methods An online survey was developed to explore parent awareness, perceptions and understanding of the C4L 100 cal snack campaign. Respondents were recruited via Leeds City Council, posters displayed at primary schools and children’s centres across Leeds and via social media. Paper surveys were also shared with voluntarily led playgroups. Survey data was analysed using descriptive statistics. Thematic analysis was performed on open text responses. Results Three hundred forty-two 342 respondents completed the survey. Just over half of the respondents had come across the campaign, most seeing the leaflet or a television advert. Over two-thirds of respondents ‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ that the campaign caught their attention. A similar proportion ‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ that the campaign informed them about 100 cal snacks and just over a half thought it was memorable. Most respondents used positive language to describe the campaign, but there was no clear consensus of a perceived positive impact on healthier snack purchasing, nor preparing more 100 cal snacks at home. Respondents provided examples of how the campaign could be improved to positively impact eating behaviours: better publicity and information delivery; healthier snack examples made more visible; improved nutritional labelling and access to healthier products in supermarkets (availability, promotion, display, choice). Conclusions The C4L 100 cal snack campaign was perceived positively by parents and carers, with many agreeing that the campaign was informative and memorable. However, there was no agreement in terms of the parents reporting an impact of the campaign on behaviour change and healthier snack habits. Future social marketing campaigns could be improved through more formal pilot testing to assess the understanding and acceptance of the campaign amongst the target audience.