Introduction: Globally the marketing and composition of commercial foods marketed to infants (<12 months) and young children (12-48 months) is in the spotlight. There is limited regulation in Australia for these foods despite 78% failing to meet World Health Organization nutrient recommendations, and many products being marketed to make them seem healthier than they are. Better regulation is currently under consideration in Australia. This is the first large scale study to describe the extent and nature of consumption of these foods by very young Australians, addressing a critical evidence gap which is essential to facilitate comprehensive regulatory action.

Methods: Generation Victoria (GenV) is Australia’s largest and most diverse child and parent study. Between June-August 2025, 7427 parents completed a cross-sectional online survey about their GenV child aged 1.5-4 years. The survey examined consumption of commercial foods marketed to infants and children, including prevalence, dietary contribution, frequency and timing of introduction. Subgroup analyses compared child/parent characteristics including child age/sex, household size, childcare attendance, ethnicity and socio-economic status.

Results: 90% of the young children had ever consumed these foods and 80% consumed them in the last month. Of children who had ever consumed them, 43% were ‘frequent consumers’ in the last month (having these products 5 or more days of the week), and 90% started consuming them within the first 12 months of life. 97% of parents agreed there should be regulation ensuring packaging doesn’t make the food seem healthier than it is.

Conclusions: Most children begin eating commercially marketed foods by 12 months, contributing substantially to their diets. Comprehensive regulation of these foods is needed, given the importance of optimising nutrition during this critical time of life, mounting evidence that these foods do not meet nutritional guidelines, and parent support for more accurate messaging on packaging.

INTRODUCTION: Many commercial infant and toddler foods (CITFs) contain added sugars, contributing to health risks such as dental caries and excess weight gain. Front-of-pack nutrition content claims can create a misleading ‘health halo’ over sugary products, promoting the appeal of these products. Added Sugar Warning Labels (WLs) could counteract this effect and nudge parents toward healthier choices.
METHODS: Three experiments were conducted with parents of children aged 6 to <36 months. Study 1 (N=1,368): An online experiment tested four WL designs: control (no WL), text-only, text + teaspoon icon, text + tooth decay icon, to identify the most effective design. Study 2 (N=1,017): The best-performing WL from Study 1 was tested in a simulated shopping task involving mock products using a 2 (WL: control vs. warning) × 2 (claims: absent vs. present) design. Study 3 (N=533): assessed whether displaying WLs on actual CITF products with added sugars prompted parents to select CITFs without added sugar for their child in a naturalistic setting. Outcomes measured across studies included identification of added sugar, perceived healthiness and suitability, purchasing intentions and product preferences.
RESULTS: All WL designs showed beneficial effects compared to no label, with the text + teaspoon of sugar icon proving most effective (Study 1). Across studies, WL significantly enhanced parents’ ability to identify products containing added sugars, increased perceived total sugar content and reduced perceptions of healthiness and suitability (p < 0.05). WLs significantly reduced parents' likelihood of choosing CITFs with added sugar and decreased purchasing intentions (p < 0.05), reorienting their purchasing preferences towards lower sugar options, regardless of claims (Studies 2 & 3).
CONCLUSIONS: Added sugar WLs offer an effective, scalable, evidence-based policy tool that improve parental understanding of sugar content and reduces selection of high-sugar CITFs. Mandatory implementation could support healthier choices and improve early childhood nutrition.

Introduction
This study aimed to explore parents’ relative perceived effectiveness of different types of food labels shown alongside unhealthy packaged snacks in an online grocery shopping context.
Method
A national sample of 1,326 Australian parents (with children 5-18 years) evaluated one of four unhealthy packaged snacks shown with no label (baseline), then according to label conditions: control label (shown first), Health Star Rating (HSR), Nutri-score (NS), and Warning Label (WL; either nutrient content, health effects or ultra-processed food WL) in randomised order. Participants rated: likelihood of purchasing (baseline, and after viewing labels), perceived effectiveness of labels (‘persuasive potential’, ‘discourage consumption’), and ranked labels from least to most likely to reduce purchase. Scores between label conditions were compared using General Linear Models (repeated measures, one-way).
Results
All labels (WL, HSR and NS) performed better on all measures compared to the control label and/or baseline (ps<.001). Participants reported significantly higher mean scores for WL than HSR and NS on each perceived effectiveness measure, and significantly lower mean scores on likelihood of purchasing (i.e., reduced likelihood). HSR and NS were generally perceived similarly, though HSR scored significantly higher than NS for ‘persuasive potential’, and NS scored significantly lower than HSR on likelihood of purchasing. Participants ranked WLs as most likely to discourage purchasing (53%), followed by HSR (22%), NS (15%) and control (10%). Between-group comparisons indicated the three WLs (nutrient content, health effects, ultra-processed food) were perceived similarly across all outcomes.
Conclusion
All labels performed better than the control or no label, with warning labels perceived as most effective. Results reinforce findings of other food labelling studies and demonstrate the potential for the application of food labels in an online grocery shopping context to support parents’ informed decisions when purchasing food for their families.

Introduction
Restricting the strategic placement and promotion of unhealthy food and drinks in supermarkets presents a promising policy option for obesity prevention. This study aimed to evaluate the extent to which prominent store displays are being used to promote unhealthy products, and to examine the types of promotions applied in South Australian supermarkets.
Methods
A cross-sectional audit was conducted, sampling supermarkets (n=31) from four store groups (Aldi, Coles, Woolworths, independent stores), located in areas with differing socioeconomic disadvantage across Greater Adelaide. Photographs of prominent in-store displays were coded using an audit tool that captured product categories (sugar/artificially sweetened drinks, confectionery, sweet/savoury snacks, desserts, unhealthy meals, other), location (store entry, near end-of-aisle, checkout area, other general locations) and promotion types (temporary, permanent, other). Results were reported as the proportion (%) of displays containing unhealthy food/drinks and the proportion (%) of unhealthy food/drink placements featuring promotions.
Results
Preliminary findings showed that across all stores, 77% of prominent displays contained unhealthy food/drinks. Confectionery and sugar-sweetened drinks were the most featured unhealthy products in audited displays (35% and 22% respectively). All checkout displays, 81% of end-of-aisle, and 66% of island bin displays contained at least one unhealthy food/drink placement. A total of 74% of unhealthy food/drink placements featured at least one promotion. Specifically, promotions were applied to 80% of confectionery placements and 71% of sugar-sweetened drink placements. The proportion of unhealthy food/drink placements with a promotion was highest in end-of-aisle displays (82%). Temporary promotions were more common than permanent promotions across unhealthy food/drink placements (55% vs. 18%).
Conclusion
The strategic placement and promotion of unhealthy food and drinks are used extensively across South Australian supermarkets, likely encouraging their purchase and adversely affecting population diets. These findings underscore the need for policy reform focused on restricting exposure to, and promotion of, unhealthy food/drinks.

Background: Australian adults are high consumers of ultra-processed foods and drinks, which increases their risk of poor health outcomes such as overweight/obesity, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. The concept of ultra-processing, and a level-of-processing framework to communicate dietary risk, is relatively new way of highlighting ‘what not to eat’. This study aimed to develop insights into consumers’ understanding and knowledge gaps regarding ultra-processed foods and drinks.

Methods: A total of 12 focus groups (n=72) were conducted with Australian adults aged 18-64 years in October/November 2025. A semi-structured discussion guide was used to explore familiarity and understanding of ultra-processing, perceptions of ultra-processed food consumption and their potential health risks, strategies for identifying ultra-processed products, and support for interventions designed to reduce consumption of ultra-processed products. Audio recordings were transcribed and analysed thematically.

Results: Preliminary findings indicate that the term ultra-processed food was new for many participants, but it was intuitively understood as a category of food that is potentially harmful, and therefore useful for communicating dietary risk. Participants had varied understanding of the differences in manufacturing techniques used to process foods, which contributed to confusion about the differences between processed and ultra-processed products. Additionally, existing information available to consumers (e.g. ingredient lists, nutrition information) were perceived to be of limited value in identifying ultra-processed products. Participants responded favourably to the addition of front-of-pack warning labels to indicate that a product was ultra-processed.

Conclusion: The concept of ultra-processing has value in guiding consumers in what not to eat, but further guidance on how to apply the concept in practice is needed. This could be achieved through mass media campaigns and on-pack warning labels.

Adolescents are frequently exposed to large volumes of unhealthy food and beverage marketing online. However, no randomized trial has quantified its impact in a real-world digital environment. We aimed to assess the impact of digital marketing exposure to a fictitious sugar-sweetened beverage, “Clu”, on purchase intention.

We conducted a single-blinded randomized controlled trial including 121 adolescents aged 16–17, recruited across Australia between 17th January - 5th April 2025. A key eligibility criterion was weekly access to TikTok. Following a baseline survey, participants were classified into three latent classes based on psychographic characteristics and randomized (1:1) to intervention or control within latent classes. Both groups followed identical procedures, including clicking a link that enabled advertisement delivery. The intervention group received sponsored TikTok advertisements for “Clu” with content tailored to their latent class, embedded in their organic feed for two weeks. The control group did not receive any advertisements. An exit survey collected data on purchase intention for “Clu”. Exposure effect on purchase intention was estimated using logistic regression, reported as a risk ratio.

26·2% of participants (n=16) in the control and 71·6% in the intervention group (n=43) reported an intention to buy “Clu”. Participants in the intervention group were 2·73 times more as likely to report intention to purchase “Clu” than those in the control (RR = 2·73; 95% CI:1·74–4·28).

This trial provides strong evidence of the persuasive power of digital marketing for unhealthy foods and underscores the urgent need for regulatory actions to protect young people from this type of marketing. In the absence of government-led policy interventions, adolescents are likely to remain susceptible to pervasive digital marketing tactics that shape their dietary choices and compromise their health.

Introduction: Online grocery shopping is increasingly common, yet qualitative studies show that Australians report facing challenges in making healthy choices in this environment. Nutrition labelling can support healthier decisions, but a 2022 study found that Woolworths and Coles frequently omitted key nutrition and composition information from their product webpages. In response, both retailers publicly committed to improving transparency and ensuring online access to product details. This study aimed to provide an updated assessment of online food labelling practices among Australia’s major grocery retailers.

Methods: In February 2024, data were collected from the online stores of Australia’s two largest grocery retailers, Woolworths and Coles, using automated methods. For each product page, the presence of nutrition information panels (NIPs), ingredients lists, allergen declarations, country-of-origin information, and Health Star Ratings (HSRs) was recorded. The prevalence of each labelling element was compared between retailers and against 2022 data.

Results: Data were collected for 22,332 products in 2024. Compared to 2022, a greater proportion of products displayed NIPs (+6.1%), ingredients lists (+19.5%), and HSRs (+2.5%), while fewer included country-of-origin information (−8.7%) and allergen declarations (−7.0%). In 2024, NIPs, ingredients lists, and allergen declarations were available for approximately half of products (46.3–54.9%). Country-of-origin information was more commonly displayed (84.2%), while HSRs remained infrequent (16.8%) and were more likely to appear on higher-scoring products. One retailer displayed fewer NIPs, ingredients lists, and country-of-origin details, while the other showed fewer allergen declarations and HSRs.

Conclusions: Significant gaps remain in the online provision of nutrition labelling by major Australian supermarkets, despite prior commitments to improve transparency. Regulatory requirements must be updated to ensure that essential health and nutrition information is consistently available in online retail environments. Incomplete labelling undermines consumers’ ability to make informed choices and select products that support short- and long-term health.