ArticleNutrition & dietetics : the journal of the Dietitians Association of Australia2025
Extent of alignment between the Australian Dietary Guidelines and the NOVA classification system across the Australian packaged food supply.
Article in Nutrition & dietetics : the journal of the Dietitians Association of Australia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Extent of alignment between the Australian Dietary Guidelines and the NOVA classification system across the Australian packaged food supply.Nutrition & dietetics : the journal of the Dietitians Association of Australia · 2025Article
- Modifying the Health Star Rating nutrient profiling algorithm to account for ultra-processing.Nutrition & dietetics : the journal of the Dietitians Association of Australia · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsThe Australian Dietary Guidelines are currently being revised and ultra-processed foods have been identified as a high priority action area. To better understand how well the current Dietary Guidelines align with level of processing classifications, the aim of this study was to assess the alignment between the Australian Dietary Guidelines and the NOVA classification system for classifying the healthiness of packaged foods.
methodsData were sourced from the Australian FoodSwitch dataset, which included 28 071 packaged food and beverage products available in major Australian supermarkets in 2022. Products were classified as (i) core or discretionary (Australian Dietary Guidelines) and (ii) non-ultra-processed or ultra-processed (NOVA). Agreement between the two systems (core vs. non-ultra-processed and discretionary vs. ultra-processed) was evaluated using the kappa statistic.
resultsThere was 'moderate' agreement (κ = 0.41, 95% CI: 0.40-0.42) between the Australian Dietary Guidelines and the NOVA system, with 69.8% of products aligned across the two systems. Alignment was more common for discretionary foods (80.6% were ultra-processed) than core foods (59.9% aligned were not-ultra-processed). Food categories exhibiting the strongest levels of alignment included confectionary, foods for specific dietary use, and egg and egg products. Discordance was most common for convenience foods, sugars, honey and related products, and cereal and grain products.
conclusionsDespite moderate alignment between the Australian Dietary Guidelines and NOVA, the discordance observed for almost one-third of products highlights the opportunity to develop recommendations for ultra-processed foods within the guidelines to advise Australians how these foods should be considered as part of a healthy diet.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.