ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Choosing breakfast: How well does packetinformation on Australian breakfast cereals, bars anddrinks reflect recommendations?

Julie WOODS and Karen WALKERNutrition and Dietetics Unit, Department of Medicine, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia

AbstractAim: To survey nutrient information and claims appearing on packets of breakfast foods (cereals, bars and drinks)and determine how they conform to dietary guidelines and labelling recommendations.Methods: A cross-sectional study based on data collected in August–September 2004 was conducted in a singlelarge supermarket in metropolitan Melbourne. The main outcome measures are cost, nutrient content, fortification,nutrition and function-related claims. Nutrient content with current recommendations, stated versus calculatedenergy content and consistency of claims made with current regulations and guidelines were analysed.Results: One hundred and eighty-two cereals, 27 bars and 10 drinks were analysed. Only two of six breakfastcereal categories exhibited mean nutrient profiles concordant with present recommendations. Breakfast bars providemore total fat, saturated fat and sugar, while breakfast drinks provide more energy, sugar and sodium, than a serveof cereal eaten with full-cream milk. Bars and drinks were more expensive per gram of protein and per kilojoule thanthe breakfast cereals. On 15% of cereal labels, stated energy content differed by over 5% from that calculated fromthe given macronutrients. Fortification with vitamins and minerals was common. Nutrient claims were largelyconsistent with current regulations.Conclusion: This survey provides baseline data against which future changes in nutrient and health claims andpatterns of fortification in breakfast foods may be measured.

Key words: food regulation, food standards code, nutrition information panel.

INTRODUCTION

Consumption of a cooked or ready-to-eat cereal at breakfastis an important dietary pattern conferring many nutritionalbenefits to adults and children.1 Nearly 80% of Australianadults eat breakfast on five or more days per week, andaround 50% choose a hot or a cold cereal for this meal.2

Consequently, the value of breakfast cereals sold in Australiain 2004 was around $894.5 million,3 and nearly 80% ofthese sales occurred at two main grocery chains (Coles andWoolworths).3

One important health benefit of eating breakfast relates tothe consumption of wholegrain cereal (i.e. cereals containingbran, germ and endosperm in the proportions that occur

naturally within the wholegrain).1 Although consumptionof wholegrains can reduce coronary heart disease risk,4

breakfast cereals are increasingly based on highly processedgrains, with bran and germ removed and endosperm milledto a small and uniform particulate size.5 To aid consumersin selecting healthier choices of foods for breakfast, Choicehas recently surveyed the nutrient content of breakfastfoods in Australia.6,7 The present study adds further aggre-gate data for breakfast cereals sold in a large Melbournesupermarket using similar product categories to those usedby Choice.

The dominant breakfast meal pattern of a bowl ofcooked or ready-to-eat cereal consumed with milk1,2 is nowunder challenge. Breakfast drinks and breakfast bars are asteadily growing category of convenience foods, making up4% of total Australian sales of breakfast foods.3 Whileglobal sales of breakfast cereals in 2004 grew by only 2%,there was a 4% growth in sales of dairy-based drinks and a14% growth in sales of breakfast bars.8 It will be importantto monitor changes in these breakfast foods and theirnutrient content.

J. Woods, Grad Dip Dietetics, LecturerK. Walker, PhD, APD, Senior LecturerCorrespondence: K. Walker, Level 5, Block E, Monash MedicalCentre, Clayton Road, Clayton, Melbourne, Vic. 3168, Australia.Email: karen.walker@med.monash.edu.au

Accepted February 2007

Nutrition & Dietetics 2007; 64: 226–233 DOI: 10.1111/j.1747-0080.2007.00150.x

© 2007 The AuthorsJournal compilation © 2007 Dietitians Association of Australia

226

Food regulation exists to ensure that the food supplyis safe, nutritious, free from misrepresentation and ofacceptable quality. Since 2002, food labelling has been regu-lated by the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code(FSC), as defined by Section 3 of the Australia New ZealandFood Authority Act, 1991. Breakfast cereals, bars and drinkslike all other manufactured foods are thus required todisplay a nutrition information panel (NIP) on the packet,based on data supplied by the manufacturer.9 Many consum-ers appear to consult the NIP when selecting breakfastfoods.10

Regulations and guidelines relating to nutrient contentclaims on foods remained unchanged when the FSC firstcame into law. At this time, nutrient content claims werepermitted but health claims relating to therapeutic or pro-phylactic properties were prohibited, with the exception ofclaims relating to folate and neural tube defects.10 In 2003,however, the Australia and New Zealand Food RegulationMinisterial Council endorsed new Nutrition, Health andRelated Claims Policy Guidelines.11 These provide a revisedframework for permitting claims, allowing now bothfunction-related claims and health claims to be displayedon food packaging. Food Standards Australia New Zealand(FSANZ) is currently determining how the new guidelineswill change the FSC and the gazetting of new regulations cantherefore be anticipated.

Regulation on food fortification is also likely to changefollowing promulgation of new policy guidelines for theFortification of Foods with Vitamins and Minerals.12 Theguidelines now allow food fortification, where there isdemonstrated evidence of a potential health benefit and noevidence for demonstrated harm. These more liberal guide-lines may well increase the tendency for manufacturers tofortify their highly refined cereal products with added micro-nutrients, including those not normally associated withwhole cereal grains. Already, in Australia, breakfast cerealsreceive more generous permission than other food groupsfor fortification with micronutrients13 in Standard 1.3.2 ofthe FSC. Information is required on these changing patternsof food fortification.

It is of interest to know how manufacturers comply withgiven regulations and guidelines. A study of packaged foodsfor sale in New South Wales in 2001 found that, whileapproximately half carried a nutrition-related claim, theseoften did not comply with regulations or were inconsistentwith the Code of Practice on Nutrient Claims in Food Labelsand in Advertisements (CoPoNC).14 A later study madesimilar findings.15 Moreover, in 2004, a survey by Choice offoods sold in a Sydney supermarket found 30 products madehealth claims when this was prohibited.16

The present study had several aims: first, to survey thenutrient content of different categories of breakfast foods,comparing traditional cereals with the newer conveniencefoods (bars and drinks); second, to examine patterns of foodfortification and the use of nutrition, health and relatedclaims on breakfast food packaging; and third, to determinewhether nutrition, health and related claims made were con-sistent with current regulations and guidelines.

METHODS

Data collection

In August and September 2004, a survey was undertakento record information from the packaging of all breakfastcereals, breakfast bars and breakfast drinks presented for salein a single large Melbourne supermarket (Coles, Glen Waver-ley). Permission was obtained from the supermarket HeadOffice and the store manager. The survey was conducted bythe authors aided by trained second-year undergraduatedietetic students, working systematically through the ‘break-fast cereal’, ‘snack bar’ and ‘health foods’ sections of thestore. Bars and drinks were included if the label indicatedthey were designed for consumption at breakfast. Data wererecorded on standardised entry sheets and included: productname, variety (i.e. flavour variations of the same product),manufacturer, packet size, cost, suggested serving size, nutri-ent content, presence of high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS),vitamin or mineral fortificants in the ingredient list, anddetails of nutrition and health-related claims made on thepacket.

Data rechecking and analysis

Data were entered into a spreadsheet (Microsoft Office Excel2003 version 11.0, Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA,USA) and carefully rechecked against the original datasheets. Average energy content of the food (as given in theNIP) was compared with the energy content calculated byapplying Atwater factors of 17, 37, 17 and 8 kJ/g to statedvalues for protein, fat and carbohydrate and fibre, respec-tively. Where stated energy was <95% or >105% of calcu-lated energy, the NIP was rechecked at the store in November2004. Packets were also rechecked if there appeared to bepoor consistency with labelling recommendations.

Breakfast cereals for which data had been collected weregrouped in categories as in former Choice studies.9,10 TwoAustralian food composition databases (NUTTAB andAUSTNUT, professional editions) on the SERVE NutritionManagement System version 5.0.012, 2004 (Serve NutritionSystems, St Ives, NSW) were consulted to ascertain thenumber of products in each category for which foodcomposition data existed.

Nutrient content obtained from the NIP was comparedusing Students’ unpaired t-test using SPSS for Windowsversion 12.0.1 (SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL, USA). For breakfastcereals, comparisons were made between a given cereal cat-egory and the total remaining cereals minus that category. Forbreakfast bars and breakfast drinks, comparisons were madeagainst total breakfast cereals. A P-value of <0.05 was takenas significant. The overall nutrient content of each cerealcategory was also compared on a per-serve basis with thequalitative recommendations made in the Australian DietaryGuidelines (i.e. preferably wholegrain, low saturated fat, lowsalt and moderate sugars).17

The energy density for dry, unrefined wholegrain cerealssuch as oats, wheat, corn or rice ranges from 14 to 16 kJ/g.

Choosing breakfast

© 2007 The AuthorsJournal compilation © 2007 Dietitians Association of Australia

227

Breakfast cereals were therefore rated as high energy densitywhen they contained over 16 kJ/g.

Claims relating to fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, sugars,fibre, salt/sodium, energy, % free and light/‘lite’ were assessedfor consistency with criteria given in CoPoNC.18 Claimsrelating to type of unsaturated fat were assessed for compli-ance with criteria in Division 3, Standard 1.2.8, while claimsrelating to vitamin and mineral content were assessed forcompliance with Standard 1.3.2 of the FSC.13 The quantityof micronutrients present and claims made for breakfastdrinks were also checked against Standard 2.9.3 for formu-lated supplementary foods.13 Claims such as ‘no-addedsugar’, ‘gluten’ and ‘lactose-free’ were checked for consis-tency with guidelines by reference to the ingredient list, as inall cases there should be none added. Claims such as ‘wheat’,‘yeast’ or ‘egg-free’, for which there are no definitions withinthe FSC or CoPoNC, were categorised as consistent withtrade practice requirements because they could be confirmedby reference to the ingredient list. Claims for which thereare currently no regulations or guidelines were alsodocumented.

RESULTS

Products, packet size and cost

One hundred and eighty-two breakfast cereals, 27 breakfastbars and 10 breakfast drinks were identified at a large Mel-bourne supermarket. Data are unavailable in current Austra-lian food composition databases on approximately two-thirds of these cereals and almost all of the bars and drinks.Breakfast cereals have been compared under six categories,of which ‘Bubbles, Flakes and Puffs’ presented the greatestproduct number. Up to six varieties were present for onegiven product.

Serving size for cereals ranged from 30.5 � 1.5 g (‘Cerealsfor Kids’) to 47.5 � 12.0 g (‘muesli’s’). ‘Biscuits and bites’were the least expensive cereal category on a cost-per-servebasis (Table 1). In terms of energy and protein content,however, ‘oats’ were the least expensive (Table 1) while‘bubbles, flakes and puffs’ and ‘Cereals for Kids’ were themost expensive. The mean recommended serving size forbreakfast drinks was much higher than that suggested forbreakfast cereals (P < 0.001) (Table 2). Bars and drinks sup-plied energy and protein at significantly higher cost(P < 0.001) than the breakfast cereals (Table 2).

Nutrient content

The average nutrient content per serve of different cerealcategories is shown in Table 3. When compared qualitativelyon a per-serve basis, the only cereal categories exhibitinggood overall nutrient content in line with Australian DietaryGuidelines (i.e. preferably wholegrain, low saturated fat, lowsalt and moderate sugars)17 were the ‘Biscuits and Bites’ andthe ‘Oats’ categories. ‘Bubbles, Flakes and Puffs’ were lessrich sources of wholegrain-derived dietary fibre and wererelatively high in sodium. ‘Cereals for Kids’ were not only Tab

le1

Serv

ing

size

and

cost

for

diff

eren

tty

pes

ofbr

eakf

ast

cere

als

foun

din

aM

elbo

urne

supe

rmar

ket

Bisc

uits

&bi

tes

n=

13Br

ans

n=

7Bu

bble

s,fla

kes

&pu

ffsn

=69

Cer

eals

for

Kid

sn

=11

Mue

slis

n=

44O

ats

n=

35

Cos

tpe

rpa

cket

($)

3.91

�1.

24.

01�

1.26

4.66

�1.

20**

4.55

�1.

294.

63�

1.31

3.53

�1.

26**

*Se

rvin

gsi

ze(g

)33

.6�

6.6

43.6

�6.

335

.3�

10.6

**30

.5�

1.5*

47.5

�12

.0**

*38

.3�

13.7

Cos

tpe

rse

rve

($)

0.22

�0.

09*

0.31

�0.

100.

35�

0.14

0.34

�0.

170.

38�

0.20

0.29

�0.

23C

ost

per

MJ

($)

0.45

�0.

210.

52�

0.17

0.73

�0.

38**

*0.

70�

0.34

0.56

�0.

330.

40�

0.2*

*C

ost

per

gpr

otei

n($

)0.

07�

0.04

0.07

�0.

020.

13�

0.10

***

0.17

�0.

06**

0.09

�0.

050.

01�

0.05

**

n=

tota

lnu

mbe

rof

item

sfo

und,

incl

udin

gdi

ffer

ent

vari

etie

s.Va

lues

are

mea

n�

stan

dard

devi

atio

n.Si

gnifi

cant

diff

eren

cefr

omre

stof

the

cere

als,

*P<

0.05

,**

P<

0.01

,**

*P<

0.00

1.

J. Woods and K. Walker

© 2007 The AuthorsJournal compilation © 2007 Dietitians Association of Australia

228

low in fibre (0.6 � 0.2 g/serve), but provided on averagesignificantly less protein (P < 0.001) and more sugars(P < 0.01) and sodium (P < 0.01) per serve than othercereals. Around one-third (36%) of total energy (%E) in‘Cereals for Kids’ was derived from sugars. ‘Brans’ were richin fibre, but were sweetened with sugars and contained onaverage more sodium than other cereals (P < 0.01). ‘Muesli’s’were high in fibre, but contained appreciable amounts oftotal and saturated fat (P < 0.001). Although 23% of the‘muesli’ category were toasted, these did not have a signifi-cantly higher mean fat content per serve than natural‘muesli’.

On a per-serve basis, breakfast bars, on average containedmore fat (P < 0.001), saturated fat (P < 0.05) and sugars(P < 0.05) than the breakfast cereals (Table 4). However,when compared with a serve of cereal eaten with half a cupof whole- or reduced-fat milk, a breakfast bar then providedless energy and nutrients than the cereal. Breakfast drinksprovided more sugar and sodium (both P < 0.001) onaverage per serve than the breakfast cereals eaten alone orserved with whole- or reduced-fat milk. Sweetening in barsand drinks often came from HFCS. HFCS was listed as aningredient in 11% of the breakfast bars and 40% of breakfastdrinks, but appeared in fewer than 2% of breakfast cereals.

‘Cereals for Kids’ contained the greatest proportion ofenergy-dense products (72.7%), followed by ‘breakfast bars’(48.1%), ‘muesli’ (45.5%) and ‘bubbles and flakes’ (29%).Far fewer ‘brans’ (14.2%) or ‘oats’ (17.1%), and no ‘biscuitsand bites’, had an energy density of >16 kJ/g.

Calcium content in bars and drinks was also examined.Where this information was provided on the NIP, breakfastcereals served with half a cup of milk (reduced fat or full fat)provided equivalent amounts of calcium to breakfast drinks.Breakfast bars eaten alone as a meal, however, provided lesscalcium. All of the 10 breakfast drinks conformed to thecompositional requirements of Standard 2.9.3 of the FSC,13

although information on many micronutrients was lacking.

How accurate is information on thenutrition information panel?

Stated energy on the NIP was compared with calculatedenergy from stated macronutrient content. If stated energy

did not closely reflect calculated energy, the NIP wasrechecked and initial NIP data were indeed found to becorrect. In ‘oats’, ‘biscuits and bites’ and breakfast drinks,energy content calculated from macronutrients on the NIPwas consistent with total stated energy. However, in 18.2% of‘Cereals for Kids’, energy as calculated from stated macronu-trient content on the NIP was <95% of stated total energycontent. Conversely, energy as calculated from stated macro-nutrient content was >105% of stated energy content in25.9% of ‘muesli’, in 14.3% of ‘Brans’, in 17.4% of ‘bubbles,flakes and puffs’, and in 14.8% of breakfast bars.

Nutrient fortification

Approximately half (53%) of breakfast cereals surveyed andnearly two-thirds of ‘Cereals for Kids’ had been fortified withvitamins and/or minerals. Most breakfast bars (67%) and allbreakfast drinks were also fortified (Table 5). ‘Muesli’ and‘oats’ were least likely to be fortified (20%), and ‘brans’ plus‘biscuits and bites’ were most likely to be fortified (85–86%).Thiamin, riboflavin, niacin, vitamin C and folate were themost common fortificants. Calcium and iron were commonmineral fortificants, although ‘Cereals for Kids’ were oftenalso fortified with zinc. Breakfast drinks were fortified withup to 13 micronutrients at levels in accordance withStandard 2.9.3 of the FSC.13 Four drinks were found tobe fortified with vitamin E without reporting total vitaminE content.

Nutrition, health and related claims

Nutrient claims were found on most cereals (88%) andbreakfast drinks (90%) and on all the breakfast bars. Mostpackets carried around four claims, and some made up to 11claims. Manufacturers appeared to label cereal packets inaccordance with current regulations, because 90% of 649nutrition claims were found consistent with FSC or CoPoNCclaim descriptors. Many claims were made, however, interms not covered by guideline descriptors. Most related tocarbohydrate content, and others claimed ‘no added fat’,although the food had over twice the fat allowed under a‘low-fat’ claim. Only eight claims (1.2%) clearly breached

Table 2 Cost comparison for breakfast bars, drinks and cereals from a Melbourne supermarket

Breakfast

Barsn = 27

Drinksn = 10

Cerealsn = 182

Maximum number of varieties per product 4 6 5Cost per packet ($) 4.72 � 2.73 3.74 � 0.61 4.32 � 1.28Serving size (g) 39.9 � 8.1 260.5 � 16.9* 38.8 � 12.1Cost per serve ($) 0.82 � 0.59* 1.59 � 0.53* 0.34 � 0.18Cost per MJ ($) 1.67 � 1.27* 1.85 � 0.80* 0.61 � 0.34Cost per g protein ($) 0.24 � 0.08* 0.16 � 0.01* 0.11 � 0.08

n = total number of items found, including different varieties. Values given are mean � standard deviation.Significant difference from total cereals, *P < 0.001.

Choosing breakfast

© 2007 The AuthorsJournal compilation © 2007 Dietitians Association of Australia

229

the appropriate regulation or guideline. Seven of these were‘cholesterol-free’ or ‘fat-free’ claims on products with over3 g fat/100 g.

The most common type of claim made on breakfastcereals concerned vitamin and mineral content. These con-stituted 24.8% of all claims made, appearing on 87.6% ofcereal products (Table 6). Other frequent claims related tofat content, particularly ‘low-fat’ or various ‘% fat-free’ claimsand fibre content, particularly ‘high fibre’ or ‘good source offibre’. Although the claim ‘high in carbohydrates’ was rela-tively common, few cereals bore claims relating to sugarcontent, such as ‘no added sugar’. Sugar-related claims werenever made on children’s cereals. Instead, ‘Cereals for Kids’often bore claims relating to iron.

In contrast to nutrient claims, only 79 function-related orhealth claims were found on breakfast cereals. The mostcommon related to blood sugar control and the glycaemicindex (Table 6). A small proportion of cereals bore the NHFtick logo or had been recommended by sports dietitians.

DISCUSSION

From this survey, it appears that a metropolitan consumer,shopping at a single large supermarket, would have access toa great variety of breakfast cereals, bars and drinks, many ofwhich are not particularly health-promoting as judged quali-tatively by comparison with the Australian Dietary Guide-lines.17 For the consumer, choice is complicated by the largetotal number of breakfast foods, the many different varietiesavailable and the variation in serve size (Tables 2, 3). Con-sistence in serve sizes would assist consumers in makingnutritional comparisons. However, the current absence ofregulations for standard serve sizes allows manufacturers tomanipulate suggested servings to optimise consumer per-ception of the nutritional profile of their product.

It is of interest that 11 different cereals were targetedspecifically at children. The importance of breakfast cereal tothe nutrient intake of children is well established.1 In thissurvey, however, the ‘Cereals for Kids’ were found to providepoor and expensive sources of protein, less fat and fibre, andmore sugars and sodium than other cereals (Table 3). Manywere also fortified with vitamins and minerals (Table 5). Thepoor carbohydrate quality of these cereals is a cause forconcern. Australian National Nutrition surveys have pointedto increased carbohydrate intake as the main contributor toincreasing energy intakes in children and the development ofobesity.19 Although as many as one-quarter of Australianchildren are now overweight or obese,19 manufacturers canpromote the ‘high nutritional value’ of some children’scereals despite high sugar and low fibre content, simplybecause they have been fortified with micronutrients.

The conventional breakfast meal of cereal and milk cannow be replaced with a quickly consumed bar or drink.While these foods are currently marketed as convenientbreakfast food alternatives, children20 in the USA often eatthese convenience foods as meal replacements or snacks.Similar data are lacking on how these foods are consumed byAustralian children.T

able

3C

ompa

riso

nof

nutr

ient

cont

ent

for

diff

eren

tty

pes

ofbr

eakf

ast

cere

als

foun

din

aM

elbo

urne

supe

rmar

ket

Nut

rien

tco

nten

tBi

scui

ts&

bite

sBr

ans

Bubb

les,

flake

s&

puffs

Cer

eals

for

Kid

sM

uesl

iO

ats

Tota

lnu

mbe

rof

item

s13

769

1144

35E

nerg

y(k

J/se

rve)

500

�10

559

8�

128

532

�16

2***

485

�15

737

�21

4***

596

�20

3Pr

otei

n(g

/ser

ve)

3.5

�0.

74.

8�

1.1

3.4

�1.

5**

2.2

�1.

5***

4.7

�1.

5***

3.7

�1.

0To

tal

fat

(g/s

erve

)0.

7�

0.7*

2.2

�2.

21.

1�

1.2*

**0.

4�

0.5*

*4.

7�

2.9*

**2.

7�

1.6

Satu

rate

dfa

t(g

/ser

ve)

0.5

�0.

70.

5�

0.4

0.3

�0.

4***

0.2

�0.

21.

5�

1.7*

**0.

6�

0.6

Car

bohy

drat

e(g

/ser

ve)

22.8

�4.

622

.1�

7.6

24.9

�7.

824

.8�

2.2

27.8

�9.

6*24

.3�

9.9

Suga

rs(g

/ser

ve)

3.2

�3.

2**

9.4

�3.

86.

5�

4.2

10.8

�2.

7**

8.4

�3.

8**

4.9

�5.

5**

Die

tary

fibre

(g/s

erve

)3.

7�

1.2

10.0

�5.

5***

3.2

�2.

6*0.

6�

0.2*

*5.

3�

4.3*

*3.

0�

1.0

Sodi

um(m

g/se

rve)

78�

6015

0�

94**

103

�83

***

132

�42

**29

�35

***

7�

9***

Valu

esar

em

ean

�st

anda

rdde

viat

ion.

Sign

ifica

ntdi

ffer

ence

from

rest

ofth

ece

real

s,*P

<0.

05,

**P

<0.

01,

***P

<0.

001.

J. Woods and K. Walker

© 2007 The AuthorsJournal compilation © 2007 Dietitians Association of Australia

230

Breakfast drinks are classed as formulated supplementaryfoods (FSF). Standard 2.9.3 of the FSC defines these as foods‘specifically designed as a supplement to a normal diet toaddress situations where intakes of energy and nutrients maynot be adequate to meet an individual’s requirements’.13 FSFmust have a specified minimum protein and energy content.Higher levels of fortification with vitamins and minerals arepermitted than with other general-purpose foods. Manufac-turers do not market Breakfast Drinks as FSF; yet theyappear to take advantage of the more generous permissionsfor fortification allowed in this case, and thus produce arange of fortified foods that would otherwise not bepermitted.

Breakfast bars and drinks, like many other conveniencefoods, have a high energy density (Table 4) owing not only tohigher fat content but also to the presence of sugars andsweeteners, such as HFCS. HFCS was present in over a thirdof the breakfast drinks surveyed. In the USA, the high con-sumption of HFCS has been associated with a rising preva-lence of type 2 diabetes.21 As these convenience productscontinue to have high consumer demand,22 there is scope forjudicious product reformulation to reduce their impact in anobesogenic environment.

Consumers often consult the NIP when shopping forbreakfast cereals.10 Many can correctly make simple calcula-tions and comparisons between products, although interpre-tation of all the nutrient information may prove difficult.23

It is therefore very important that the NIP is accurate. Anunexpected finding in the present study was the frequency ofNIPs where the stated total energy content per 100 g differedfrom the energy content calculated by Atwater factors fromthe list of macronutrients. Without further chemical analysis,it is unclear whether it is the total energy content or themacronutrient content here that is incorrect. Yet it points toa need for greater surveillance in this area. The nutritionalimpact on consumers is also as yet unknown.

Australian food manufacturers often stand accused of pro-viding misleading product information.24 Yet this survey of

nutrient claims on breakfast cereals has indicated that mostwere in fact compliant with current FSC regulations. Poorconsistence predominantly related to CoPoNC guidelines,suggesting that industry self-regulation is less successfulthan Food Standards regulations.

At present, it is permissible to make a folate/neural tubehealth claim;13 however, many cereals surveyed here did notmake this claim, although they were in fact fortified withfolate. The function-related claims made by manufacturersmainly referred to maintenance of good health, a generalfunction of the body, or specific benefits to performance orwellbeing and hence, in accordance with proposed regula-tory arrangements, would be classified as general-levelclaims. Some claims, however, related to either bloodglucose or the glycaemic index, both of which are biomark-ers. Under proposed regulations, these would be classified ashigh-level claims (similar to health claims which are cur-rently prohibited). It is possible that manufacturers willprefer biomarker claims to disease-related claims, as they canthen avoid displaying a disease name on the food label.

One limitation of data in the present study was that it wascollected at a single time point, from a single Melbournesupermarket, although this was one of only two major chainshandling the majority of food sales in Australia.3 Anotherlimitation of the present study was the number of studentsinvolved in the initial data collection and entry, although allwere trained in data collection and used standardised col-lection sheets. This limitation was minimised by very thor-ough data entry checking and rechecking of data againstoriginal products by the two authors.

Our food supply is undergoing rapid changes, particularlywith the emergency of new convenience foods,8 and yet ourknowledge of nutrient content is not being regularly sur-veyed and updated. We also lack information on who con-sumes these new products, whether they are eaten largely atbreakfast, and whether they are a meal replacement orsimply added to the habitual meal. The present study indi-cates that breakfast foods are often highly fortified while

Table 4 Comparison of the nutrient content for breakfast bars, breakfast drinks and breakfast cereals

Total cereals(n = 182)

Total cereals plus half acup of full-cream milk(a)

Total cereals plus half acup of reduced-fat milk(a)

Breakfast bars(n = 27)

Breakfast drinks(n = 10)

Energy (kJ/serve) 592 � 196 932 847 611 � 213 836 � 72***Protein (g/serve) 3.8 � 1.5 7.9 8.7 4.0 � 3.2 10.0 � 2.7***Total fat (g/serve) 2.3 � 2.4 7.1 4.0 3.7 � 2.6** 3.2 � 1.3Saturated fat (g/serve) 0.7 � 1.1 3.9 1.8 1.1 � 1.1* 1.2 � 1.0Carbohydrate (g/serve) 25.1 � 8.6 31.0 31.7 21.3 � 11.1* 31.3 � 3.4*Sugars (g/serve) 6.8 � 4.6 12.7 13.4 9.7 � 9.6* 22.0 � 4.7***Dietary fibre (g/serve) 3.9 � 3.4 3.9 3.9 2.7 � 1.5 3.5 � 1.3Sodium (mg/serve) 68 � 76 119 129 75 � 50 193 � 39***Calcium (mg/serve) 154 � 63 309 325 165 � 58 359 � 84***

(23)(b) (17) (10)

Values are mean � standard deviation.Significant difference from breakfast cereals, *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001.(a) Data for milk from NUTTAB95.(b) Number of packets with information on calcium content.

Choosing breakfast

© 2007 The AuthorsJournal compilation © 2007 Dietitians Association of Australia

231

Tab

le5

Fort

ifica

tion

ofbr

eakf

ast

cere

als,

brea

kfas

tba

rsan

dbr

eakf

ast

drin

kssu

rvey

edin

aM

elbo

urne

supe

rmar

ket

Fort

ifica

tion

Bisc

uits

and

bite

sBr

ans

Bubb

les,

flake

s&

puffs

Cer

eals

for

Kid

sM

uesl

iO

ats

All

cere

als

Bars

Dri

nks

Any

fort

ifica

tion

86.4

85.7

78.3

63.6

20.5

20.0

53.3

66.7

100

Fola

te53

.885

.760

.963

.69.

111

.439

.633

.380

Vit

amin

C0

026

.145

.56.

82.

915

.43.

750

Vit

amin

B176

.971

.471

.063

.615

.914

.347

.333

.380

Vit

amin

B276

.971

.468

.154

.513

.611

.444

.533

.380

Vit

amin

B376

.971

.472

.563

.615

.911

.447

.333

.380

Cal

cium

028

.624

.618

.22.

30

12.6

55.6

100

Iron

53.8

85.7

56.5

63.6

11.4

11.4

39.0

33.3

10Z

inc

042

.913

.036

.40

09.

30

10

Res

ults

are

expr

esse

das

the

perc

enta

geof

prod

ucts

and

vari

etie

sid

enti

fied

inth

eca

tego

ry.

Tab

le6

Nut

riti

on-

and

func

tion

-rel

ated

clai

ms

onbr

eakf

ast

cere

alpa

cket

ssu

rvey

edin

aM

elbo

urne

supe

rmar

ket

%of

all

clai

ms

ofth

isty

pe

%of

prod

ucts

with

this

clai

m

%of

all

clai

ms

ofth

isty

pe

%of

prod

ucts

with

this

clai

m

Nut

riti

on-r

elat

edcl

aim

s(n

=64

9)Fa

t13

.755

.3V

itam

ins

&m

iner

als

24.8

87.6

Cho

lest

erol

1.2

5.0

Salt

6.9

28.0

Die

tary

fibre

19.4

78.3

Iron

10.6

42.9

Car

bohy

drat

e10

.040

.4C

alci

um3.

413

.7Su

gars

3.4

13.7

Glu

ten-

free

orw

heat

-fre

e4.

919

.9Pr

otei

n2.

08.

1Fu

ncti

on-r

elat

edcl

aim

s(n

=79

)C

hole

ster

olco

nten

tor

heal

thy

hear

t6.

33.

1Fi

tnes

sor

mus

cle

stre

ngth

2.6

1.2

Fibr

eai

dsdi

gest

ive

syst

em10

.15.

0Su

stai

nsco

ncen

trat

ion

6.3

3.1

Cal

cium

,ir

onor

mag

nesi

umfu

ncti

on10

.15.

0Fo

rmul

ated

supp

lem

enta

ryfo

od2.

51.

2A

ids

grow

th16

.58.

1Fe

elfu

llor

less

hung

ry5.

12.

5Pr

ovid

esen

ergy

orbo

osts

met

abol

ism

15.3

6.8

Goo

dfo

rhe

alth

ygu

ms

1.3

0.6

Con

trol

sbl

ood

suga

r(i

nclu

ding

GI

clai

m)

20.0

9.9

GI,

glyc

aem

icin

dex.

J. Woods and K. Walker

© 2007 The AuthorsJournal compilation © 2007 Dietitians Association of Australia

232

newer convenience products may take advantage of the morepermissive fortification allowance relating to special purposefoods. Confirming other studies,14 breakfast cereals exhib-ited a large number of nutrient claims although these werelargely consistent with current regulations and guidelines.Imminent changes to the Food Regulations, particularlyrelating to claims and fortification, are likely to encouragefurther and more rapid changes. The present study providesbaseline data against which these changes may be assessed.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to thank students in BND2052, Semester 2,2004, for their efforts in data collection, and AssociateProfessor Malcolm Riley for advice on data analysis andhelpful comment on the manuscript.

REFERENCES

1 Siega-Riz AM, Popkin BM, Carson T. Differences in food pat-terns at breakfast by sociodemographic characteristics among anationally representative sample of adults in the United States.Prev Med 2000; 30: 415–24.

2 Williams P. What Australians eat for breakfast: an analysis ofdata from the 1995 Natl Nutrition Survey. Nutr Dietet 2002; 59:103–12.

3 Burton D. Annual Report. Retail World 2004;57: 19–92.4 Jacobs DR Jr, Gallaher DD. Whole grain intake and cardiovas-

cular disease: a review. Curr Atheroscler Rep 2004; 6: 415–23.5 Cordain L, Boyd Eaton S, Sebastian A et al. Origins and evolu-

tion of the Western diet: health implications for the 21stcentury. Am J Clin Nutr 2005; 81: 341–54.

6 Choice. Marrickville, NSW. Australian Consumers’ Association;© 1998–2005 (updated March 2005; cited 24 Aug 2005.)Breakfast cereals; [about 5 screens]. Available from URL: http://www.choice.com.au

7 Choice. Marrickville, NSW. Australian Consumers’ Association;© 1998–2005 (updated September 2004; cited 24 Aug 2005.)Quick breakfasts [about 5 screens]. Available from URL: http://www.choice.com.au

8 What’s Hot Around the Globe. Insights on Growth in Food andBeverages 2004. Sydney: ACNielsen Global Services, 2004.

9 Curran MA. Nutrition labeling: perspectives of a bi-nationalagency for Australia and New Zealand. Asia Pacific J Clin Nutr2002; 11: S72–6.

10 Baines J, Lata S. Consumer understanding and use of nutritioninformation panels. Asia Pac J Clin Nutr 2004; 13 (Suppl.):S160.

11 Australia New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council.Policy Guideline on Nutrition Health, Related Claims [documenton the Internet]. Canberra: Food Regulation Secretariat, 2003.

(Cited 24 Aug 2005.) Available from URL: http://www.health.gov.au/internet/wcms/publishing.nsf/Content/foodsecretariat-policydocs.htm

12 Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation MinisterialCouncil. Policy Guideline Fortification of Food with Vitamins andMinerals. Canberra: Food Regulation Secretariat, 2004. (Cited24 Aug 2005.) Available from URL: http://www.health.gov.au/internet/wcms/publishing.nsf/Content/foodsecretariat-policydocs.htm

13 Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code. Melbourne:Anstat; 2005. (Cited 24 Aug 2005.) Available from URL: http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/_srcfiles

14 Williams P, Yeatman H, Zakrzewski S et al. Nutrition andrelated claims used on packaged Australian foods––implicationsfor regulation. Asia Pac J Clin Nutr 2003; 12: 138–50.

15 Williams P, Yeatman H, Ridges L et al. Nutrition function,health and related claims on packaged Australian foodproducts––prevalence and compliance with regulations. AsiaPacific J Clin Nutr 2006; 15: 10–20.

16 Choice [document on the Internet]. Marrickville, NSW. Austra-lian Consumers’ Association; © 1998–2006 (updated June 2004;cited 14 Dec 2006.) Food . . . or medicine? Good health out ofa packet? Don’t believe it. (Report: health claims on food).[about 8 screens]. Available from URL: http://www.choice.com.au

17 NHMRC. Dietary Guidelines for Australian Adults. Canberra:Commonwealth of Australia, 2003.

18 Code of Practice on Nutrient Claims in Food Labels and inAdvertisements. Canberra: Australia New Zealand Food Author-ity, 1995. (Cited 24 August 2005.) Available from URL: http://www.foodstandards.gov.au

19 Stubbs CO, Lee AJ. The obesity epidemic: both energy intakeand physical activity contribute. Med J Aust 2004; 181: 489–91.

20 Jahns L, Siega-Riz M, Popkin BM. The increasing prevalence ofsnacking among US children from 1977 to 1996. J Paediatr2001; 138: 493–8.

21 Gross LS, Li L, Ford ES, Liu S. Increased consumption of refinedcarbohydrates and the epidemic of type 2 diabetes in the UnitedStates: an ecological assessment. Am J Clin Nutr 2004; 79:774–9.

22 Marceau J, Wixted B. Innovation dynamics. The Australian Pro-cessed Food Product System. In: Jahan N, Foster M, Peat A, eds.Australian Food Statistics 2002. Canberra: ABARE project 2698,Department Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry, AGPS, 2002;20–28.

23 Cowburn G, Stockley L. Consumer understanding and use ofnutrition labelling: a systematic review. Public Health Nutr 2005;8: 21–8.

24 Chan C, Patch C, Williams P. Australian consumers are scepticalabout but influenced by claims about fat on food labels. Eur JClin Nutr 2005; 59: 148–51.

Choosing breakfast

© 2007 The AuthorsJournal compilation © 2007 Dietitians Association of Australia

233