Use of nutrition content and health claims on ready meals in Australia.

Use of nutrition content and health claims on ready meals in Australia - PMC Skip to main content An official website of the United States government Here's how you know Here's how you know Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States. Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites. Search Log in Dashboard Publications Account settings Log out Search… Search NCBI Primary site navigation Search Logged in as: Dashboard Publications Account settings Log in Search PMC Full-Text Archive Search in PMC Journal List User Guide PERMALINK Copy As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health. Learn more: PMC Disclaimer | PMC Copyright Notice Nutr Diet . 2026 Feb 1;83(2):241–248. doi: 10.1111/1747-0080.70069 Search in PMC Search in PubMed View in NLM Catalog Add to search Use of nutrition content and health claims on ready meals in Australia Ebony Hol Ebony Hol , BND (Hons) APD 1 School of Medical, Indigenous and Health Sciences, Faculty of Science, Medicine and Health, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia Find articles by Ebony Hol 1 , Lyndal Wellard‐Cole Lyndal Wellard‐Cole , PhD APD 2 Cancer Prevention and Advocacy Division, Cancer Council NSW, Woolloomooloo, New South Wales, Australia 3 Discipline of Nutrition and Dietetics, Susan Wakil School of Nursing and Midwifery, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia Find articles by Lyndal Wellard‐Cole 2, 3 , Clare Hughes Clare Hughes , MPH 2 Cancer Prevention and Advocacy Division, Cancer Council NSW, Woolloomooloo, New South Wales, Australia Find articles by Clare Hughes 2 , Simone Pettigrew Simone Pettigrew , PhD 4 The George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia Find articles by Simone Pettigrew 4 , Bridget Kelly Bridget Kelly , PhD 1 School of Medical, Indigenous and Health Sciences, Faculty of Science, Medicine and Health, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia Find articles by Bridget Kelly 1 , Anne McMahon Anne McMahon , PhD APD 1 School of Medical, Indigenous and Health Sciences, Faculty of Science, Medicine and Health, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia Find articles by Anne McMahon 1 , Elizabeth Neale Elizabeth Neale , PhD AdvAPD 1 School of Medical, Indigenous and Health Sciences, Faculty of Science, Medicine and Health, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia Find articles by Elizabeth Neale 1, ✉ Author information Article notes Copyright and License information 1 School of Medical, Indigenous and Health Sciences, Faculty of Science, Medicine and Health, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia 2 Cancer Prevention and Advocacy Division, Cancer Council NSW, Woolloomooloo, New South Wales, Australia 3 Discipline of Nutrition and Dietetics, Susan Wakil School of Nursing and Midwifery, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia 4 The George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia * Correspondence , Elizabeth Neale, School of Medical, Indigenous and Health Sciences, Faculty of Science, Medicine and Health, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia. Email: [email protected] ✉ Corresponding author. Revised 2025 Nov 20; Received 2025 Sep 5; Accepted 2026 Jan 6; Issue date 2026 Apr. © 2026 The Author(s). Nutrition & Dietetics published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Dietitians Australia. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made. PMC Copyright notice PMCID: PMC13096674  PMID: 41622802 Abstract Aims Nutrition content claims and health claims are commonly displayed on food packaging and are known to influence consumer preferences and purchasing of labelled foods. This study aimed to assess the prevalence of content and health claims found on ready meals in the Australian food supply and examine their alignment with the Nutrient Profiling Scoring Criterion and Standard 1.2.7 of the Food Standards Code. Methods In a cross‐sectional analysis, ready meal products were identified from the Australian FoodSwitch 2023 database to record serving size, nutrition information, Health Star Rating and claims for each product. The Nutrient Profiling Score was calculated for each product and claim compliance was assessed against Standard 1.2.7. Descriptive statistics were conducted to explore the data for prevalence of content and health claims, and alignment with the relevant standard. Results A total of n = 777 ready meals were identified in the database. Eighty‐eight percent of products met threshold criteria for eligibility to carry a health claim. In total, 2051 claims were identified, with nutrition content claims the most common (93% of all claims). In total, 92% of nutrition content claims and 39% of general‐level health claims complied with all provisions of Standard 1.2.7. Conclusions This study highlights the widespread use of claims, particularly nutrition content claims, on ready meal products sold in Australia. Strengthened guidelines and stricter enforcement of claim compliance are essential to prevent misleading claims in the Australian food supply. Keywords: food labelling, health claims, nutrient profiling models, nutrition content claims 1. INTRODUCTION Nutrition content claims and health claims are statements that appear on the labelling and advertising of food and beverage products. Nutrition content claims focus on specific nutrients or substances present or absent in a food, whereas health claims establish a food‐health relationship. 1 Claims regarding a food's nutritional content and proposed health benefits can impact consumer preferences and purchasing decisions, regardless of the food's nutritional quality. 2 Food manufacturers strategically utilise claims as a marketing strategy to accentuate a product's beneficial nutritional components. 3 However, this can lead to an overemphasis on certain favourable nutritional components while obscuring less favourable aspects, creating an overall impression of healthiness that may not be accurate. 4 In Australia and New Zealand, Standard 1.2.7 of the Food Standards Code outlines the regulations governing the use of health claims and nutrition content claims. There are three levels of permitted claims under this standard: nutrition content claims, general‐level health claims and high‐level health claims. 5 A food product is eligible to make a nutrition content claim if it meets qualifying criteria related to the specific nutrient. 6 For a food to be eligible to display a general‐ or high‐level health claim, it must first meet the Nutrient Profiling Scoring Criterion (NPSC) (corresponding to an NPSC score of less than four for most products). 6 The NPSC is based on energy, saturated fat, sugars and sodium content (which contribute baseline points), as well as fruit, vegetable, nut, legume, dietary fibre and protein content (which contribute modifying points). 7 Although products must adhere to the NPSC to make health claims, those making nutrition content claims are not required to meet this criterion. The difference in the way these claims are regulated conflicts with how claims are viewed by consumers, with previous research indicating that consumers often do not perceive a clear distinction between nutrition content claims and health claims. 8 , 9 As a result, it has been recommended that the NPSC should also be applied to nutrition content claims. 10 Previous research has found that nutrition content claims are the most common type of claim on food packages in the Australian food supply. 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 An observational survey conducted in 2016 on claims on non‐alcoholic beverages, breakfast cereals and cereal bars revealed that 26% of products carrying nutrition content claims did not meet the NPSC. 10 Since consumers perceive food products with claims as being healthier, 14 less healthy products displaying nutrition content claims may encourage unhealthy diets. Previous studies have assessed the use of both nutrition content and health claims on a range of products, including yoghurts, 12 breakfast cereals, 10 , 11 , 13 , 15 non‐alcoholic beverages, 10 , 13 cereal bars 10 , 13 and ultra‐processed foods. 16 This study sought to extend these analyses to consider claims on ready meal products. This category, which includes frozen, chilled and shelf‐stable ready meals, has undergone rapid growth in the Australian food supply, marked by an annual increase of approximately 13% in the number of available products between 2014 and 2020. 17 This trend reflects increases in ready meal sales globally. 18 Ready meal consumption has been linked to overweight and a deficiency in cooking skills. 19 Ready meals are also high in sodium, although small declines in the sodium content of ready meals in recent years have been reported. 17 Given their increasing use and nutritional composition, evaluation of claim use in this food category is needed. This study aimed to investigate the prevalence of nutrition content and health claims on Australian ready meals and evaluate the proportion of these products that met the NPSC and were aligned with Standard 1.2.7. Understanding the current use of these claims can support dietitians and nutrition professionals to guide consumers when making purchasing decisions. 2. METHODS This cross‐sectional study is reported in accordance with the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines. 20 The study contains no human or animal data and therefore no ethics approval was required. This study utilised the 2023 FoodSwitch database, a comprehensive repository of Australian food packaging images and label data developed by The George Institute for Global Health, which contains information on 28 517 food products. 21 , 22 The George Institute's FoodSwitch Program conducts annual store audits at major grocery chains in Australia, including Woolworths, Coles, Aldi and Independent Grocers of Australia (IGA). During data collection, images are taken of all available packaged food and drink products in‐store, capturing a range of on‐pack data including the Nutrition Information Panel (NIP), ingredients list and front‐of‐package details. Products that do not display a NIP are excluded from data collection. 23 Foods classified as ‘Ready Meals’ in FoodSwitch, including ambient, chilled and frozen ready meal products, were included in this study. The NPSC score of all ready meal products was calculated using per 100 g values for energy, saturated fat, sugars, sodium, protein and fibre. Since fibre values were necessary to determine NPSC scores, missing values were estimated by calculating the average fibre value of the ‘subcategory minor descriptor’ categorisation to which the product belonged. As fruit, vegetable, nut and legume (FVNL) contents are not listed in the FoodSwitch database, the NPSC score was initially calculated using only baseline points, protein points and fibre points. For products that did not meet the NPSC criteria (i.e., those with an NPSC score of four or more), the FVNL content was manually estimated based on the ingredient lists displayed in the product images. In some cases, the proportion of an ingredient was available on the label (e.g., 38% corn). If not, FVNL content was estimated based on analogous products. The Health Star Rating (HSR), an interpretive front‐of‐pack labelling system that uses an algorithm based on the NPSC, 24 was determined for each product using product images and the FoodSwitch database. As the HSR is currently voluntary, in cases where a product did not display an HSR on its label, the estimated HSR in FoodSwitch was used. The following information was recorded for all claims from product images: claim subject (e.g., protein), claim type (nutrition content claim, general‐level health claim or high‐level health claim) and claim wording (e.g., ‘Excellent source of dietary fibre’). Claims were recorded each time they appeared on the package, including where there were multiple claims on a product. The inclusion and exclusion criteria for claim identification are detailed in Table S1 . Examples of included claims were nutrition content claims (e.g., ‘low sugar’), health claims (e.g., ‘iron for energy production’) and claims implying health benefits (e.g., ‘each bowl is loaded with mother nature's superfoods to help fuel your body and improve your wellbeing’). While whole grain claims (e.g., ‘very high in whole grains’) are self‐regulated under a voluntary code of practice rather than Standard 1.2.7, these claims were included due to their frequent use and to align with the approach used in previous research. 10 , 11 , 16 Excluded claims were those not covered in Standard 1.2.7, including vegetarian and vegan claims, religious claims (e.g., halal and kosher), statements about servings of vegetables, claims regarding artificial colours, flavours and preservatives and other claims such as ‘no nasties,’ ‘eat well, feel better’ and ‘supporting the healthy eating pyramid.’ Claims were then compared against all provisions of Standard 1.2.7 and were determined to be compliant if they met the NPSC (health claims only), met the conditions outlined in Schedule 4 of the Food Standards Code (e.g., minimum nutrient amounts), met other reporting requirements of Standard 1.2.7 (e.g., listing the nutrient referred to in the claim in the NIP), and featured appropriate claim wording (Figure S1 ). For general‐level health claims that were not listed in Schedule 4, the list of self‐substantiated claims notified to FSANZ 25 was checked. In the case of whole grain claims, the Grains & Legumes Nutrition Council Whole Grain Registered Products database was checked to determine if the product carrying the claim was registered. 26 Data extraction was conducted by EH, with a quality audit conducted by EN on a randomly selected 10% sample of eligible products. Claims were independently identified and checked for eligibility by EN, with any discrepancies discussed and resolved. Descriptive statistics were conducted using Microsoft Excel 2019 (Version 16). The proportion of products meeting the NPSC was first calculated (for all products and by‐product category), with the mean and range of points scored in each NPSC score category then determined. NPSC scores were initially calculated using baseline points only, with the impact of modifying points on NPSC scores then calculated. In addition, to examine the relative contribution of each nutrient to baseline points, the mean percentage contribution of each component of the baseline points (e.g., sodium) to total baseline points was calculated. The number of products displaying an HSR was determined, along with the mean and range of HSRs for all products, as well as the percentage of products with an HSR <3.5. The total number of claims across all eligible products and the proportions of nutrition content claims and health claims were then determined. The proportion of products displaying at least one claim and the mean and range of claims displayed per product were identified. Additionally, the five most common types of claims (based on the nutrient or component they referred to) were identified according to claim type. The percentage of claims made on products that met the NPSC was calculated. Finally, the proportion of claims that were compliant with Standard 1.2.7 was determined for both nutrition content claims and health claims. 3. RESULTS Data were available for 777 ready meal products, categorised into chilled meals (e.g., meat and vegetables, n = 391), frozen meals (e.g., frozen lasagne, n = 266) and ambient meals (e.g., canned soup, n = 120). Of these, 682 products (88%) met the NPSC, allowing them to make health claims. Chilled ready meals and frozen ready meals had the highest proportion of products meeting the NPSC (89% and 88%, respectively), with 83% of ambient ready meals meeting the NPSC (Table S2 ). The average NPSC score for all 777 products was 0.8, with scores ranging from −7 to 23 (Table 1 ). A lower NPSC score is indicative of a healthier food. When explored by‐product category, chilled ready meals were found to have the lowest average NPSC score (Table 1 ). A total of 557 (72%) products did not initially pass the NPSC based on baseline points; of these products, 462 (83%) passed once modifying points were taken into account. Similar patterns were observed when ready meals were explored according to product category (Table S2 ). When examined according to NPSC component, sodium was found to make the greatest contribution to overall baseline points (mean contribution to baseline points: 51%), followed by kJ (25%), saturated fat (23%) and sugar (1%). HSRs were displayed on the labels of 444 products (57%), with the HSRs allocated in FoodSwitch used for the remaining 333 products. The average HSR was 3.5, with ratings ranging from 0.5 stars to 5 stars. A total of 163 products (21%) had a HSR below 3.5. TABLE 1. Average (minimum, maximum) points scored from each nutrient category contributing to the Nutrient Profiling Scoring Criterion (NPSC) score. Ambient ready meals ( n = 120) Chilled ready meals ( n = 391) Frozen ready meals ( n = 266) Total products ( n = 777) Total NPSC score a 1.9 (−5, 19) 0.5 (−7, 23) 0.8 (−7, 14) 0.8 (−7, 23) Baseline points (energy, saturated fat, sugar and sodium) 5.9 (0, 21) 5.5 (0, 24) 5.3 (1, 16) 5.5 (0, 24) Protein points b 2.5 (0, 5) 3.5 (0, 5) 3.2 (0, 5) 3.2 (0, 5) Fibre points b 1.5 (0, 4) 1.4 (0, 5) 1.3 (0, 5) 1.4 (0, 5) FVNL points b , c 0.4 (0, 2) 0.6 (0, 5) 0.3 (0, 2) 0.5 (0, 5) Open in a new tab Abbreviation: FVNL, fruit, vegetable, nut and legume. a Total NPSC score is calculated as baseline points minus modifying points. A lower NPSC score is indicative of a healthier food. b The highest score a product can receive for each of protein, fibre and FVNL is 5 points. c FVNL points were only calculated for products which did not meet the NPSC after calculating baseline, protein and fibre points (ambient ready meals: n = 23, chilled ready meals: n = 49, frozen ready meals: n = 37, total products: n =109). In total, 2051 nutrition content and health claims were identified across the 777 ready meal products. Of these claims, 1909 (93%) were categorised as nutrition content claims and 142 (7%) as general‐level health claims (Table 2 ). No high‐level health claims were identified. In total, 508 (65%) products displayed at least one claim, and the mean number of claims per product was 2.6, ranging from 0 to 28 claims per product. TABLE 2. Claim categorisation by claim type by ready meal category. Ready meal category Type of claim Nutrition content claims ( n [%]) General‐level health claims ( n [%]) Total claims ( n ) Ambient 202 (94%) 13 (6%) 215 Chilled 969 (95%) 53 (5%) 1022 Frozen 738 (91%) 76 (9%) 814 Total 1909 (93%) 142 (7%) 2051 Open in a new tab The five most common nutrition content claims related to protein, ‘other’ (indicating claims regarding nutrient content not specifically listed in Schedule 4 of Standard 1.2.7 such as ‘high in vitamins’), fibre, energy and gluten (Table 3 ). In comparison, the most common general‐level health claims related to ‘other’ (e.g., ‘gut‐friendly’), protein (e.g., ‘protein … for everyday strength’), magnesium (e.g., ‘magnesium for muscle function’ and ‘magnesium for nerves and muscle’), energy (e.g., ‘meals for energy’ and ‘supercharge your energy stores’), iron (e.g., ‘iron for energy and focus’ and ‘iron for energy production’) and vitamin B12 (e.g., ‘vitamin B12 for immunity’ and ‘B12 for energy production and metabolism’). Other less frequently made claims included nutrition content claims such as: ‘low sugar,’ ‘% fat free’, ‘low fat,’ ‘low saturated fat’ and ‘low cholesterol,’ and general‐level health claims such as: ‘beta‐carotene … great news for your eyes and skin,’ ‘calcium for healthy bones,’ ‘complex carbohydrates that help maintain blood sugar levels,’ ‘phosphorus to support normal cell structure,’ ‘vitamin B1, B6 … for energy production and metabolism,’ and ‘vitamin E for antioxidant action.’ TABLE 3. Equal five most common claims by claim type. Number of claims ( n ) Percentage of claim type (%) Nutrition content claims Protein 693 36% ‘Other’ a 376 20% Fibre 214 11% Energy content 201 11% Gluten free 94 5% ‘Less Common Claims’ b 331 17% Total 1909 100% General‐level health claims ‘Other’ a 64 45% Protein 16 11% Energy 10 7% Magnesium 7 5% Iron 6 4% Vitamin B12 6 4% ‘Less Common Claims’ b 33 23% Total 142 100% Open in a new tab a ‘Other’ claims include eligible claims not explicitly listed in Standard 1.2.7 (e.g., ‘Rich source of essential nutrients’). b ‘Less common claims’ refers to all other eligible claim categories that appeared on products. In total, 98% of all claims ( n = 1999) were made on products that met the NPSC. Almost all nutrition content claims ( n = 1857, 97%) and all general‐level health claims ( n = 142, 100%) were displayed on products that met the NPSC. Overall, 1818 claims (89% of all claims) were considered compliant with Standard 1.2.7. When examined according to type of claim, 92% of nutrition content claims (1762 out of 1909 nutrition content claims) were compliant, whereas only 39% of general‐level health claims (56 out of 142 general‐level health claims) were compliant. 4. DISCUSSION This study appears to be one of the first in the world to examine the prevalence of nutrition content claims and health claims in ready meal products, a food category increasing in sales globally. Approximately two‐thirds of the assessed products displayed at least one claim, with most identified claims being nutrition content claims. This frequent use of nutrition content claims aligns with previous studies on other food categories both in Australia 10 , 11 , 12 , 16 and internationally. 27 , 28 While most evaluated products met the NPSC, many general‐level health claims were found to be potentially in breach of Standard 1.2.7. This study provides valuable insights for dietitians and nutrition professionals when supporting consumers to select products when shopping. The NPSC is based on a nutrient profiling model developed in the United Kingdom. 29 Under Standard 1.2.7, products making health claims must meet the NPSC; however, this requirement does not apply to nutrition content claims. This regulation has been criticised in the literature, 9 , 10 particularly given that health claims and nutrition content claims have been shown to have similar effects on perceptions of the healthiness of foods and food choice. 2 In the present study, most products (88%) passed the NPSC, which was a higher proportion than observed for other product categories in the Australian food supply. 11 , 12 Further exploration of individual NPSC components found that while most baseline points were accrued for sodium content, it was typically the favourable components of protein, fibre and FVNL content that were responsible for sufficiently improving the NPSC scores to achieve the NPSC threshold to make a health claim. That is, many foods contained relatively high levels of sodium, but this was offset by the presence of positive nutrients or ingredients. Careful appraisal of the NPSC is required to examine the logic behind the algorithm. For example, it should be considered whether it is appropriate for the presence of positive nutrients and ingredients to negate the presence of negative nutrients. The NPSC algorithm does currently limit points for protein if a food exceeds a threshold for high baseline points, but no such criteria exist for FVNL or fibre, which can result in products with a high vegetable content, such as potato chips, scoring well. Further modifications to the NPSC algorithm would ensure that only healthy products are able to make claims. Given that we observed the majority of products met the NPSC only when modifying points were taken into account, it is important to consider the need for an NPSC algorithm calculated using baseline points (energy, sugars, saturated fats and sodium) only. Implementation of a model that does not consider modifying points would also overcome a challenge observed with the current NPSC, whereby manufacturers may add components such as protein or fibre, inflating the modifying points. 30 This approach also aligns with that used for front‐of‐pack warning labels in countries such as Chile, with decreases in the amount of negative nutrients in the food supply observed after the implementation of these labels. 31 While we did not examine the use of added protein or fibre ingredients in the present study, content claims relating to protein and fibre were among the most frequently used, highlighting the need to explore the use of these added ingredients further across food groups. Further, in the case of ready meals that are packaged as a single portion, NPSC scores based on 100 g can be misleading. For example, one product that passed the NPSC contained 359 mg sodium per 100 g, resulting in three baseline points for sodium. When the product's portion size was considered (i.e., the weight of the package), however, it contained 1723 mg of sodium per portion (86% of the daily sodium recommendation to prevent chronic disease in healthy adults 32 ). While using a reference amount of per 100 g/mL allows direct comparisons of foods with different serving sizes, it may be prudent to also consider additional per serve or per portion criteria for the ready meal category to ensure only healthier products can make health claims. A recent review of nutrient profiling systems 33 found the NPSC to have intermediate predictive concurrent validity on the basis of its relationship with anthropometric outcomes. However, the NPSC's broad approach in applying consistent criteria across most foods has been questioned, with a more differentiated system based on food groups suggested to improve accuracy in food classification. 34 Since many ready meal packages are designed to be consumed in their entirety, evaluating their nutritional content based on portion size as well as per 100 g would provide a more realistic reflection of the product's overall nutritional quality. Packages that are intended to be consumed by one person in one sitting, such as single‐serve ready meals or single‐serve beverages or savoury snacks, should be designated as one portion. For packages that comprise multiple portions of a food (to be consumed across multiple occasions or by multiple people), per serve criteria could be used. Of course, requirements for standardising serving sizes, not currently in place in Australia, are also needed to prevent manipulation of nutritional contents by shrinking reported serving sizes. While nutrition content claims are not subject to the same regulatory requirements as general‐level health claims, they have been shown to have a significant impact on consumer perceptions of food healthfulness and food choices, 2 and their role in the food regulatory landscape should not be underestimated. Claims relating to protein were the most common, which may reflect increased consumer interest in protein consumption. 35 ‘Other’ claims, which related to components not specifically referred to in Standard 1.2.7, were also frequently used. While Standard 1.2.7 allows claims about food components not specifically listed in Schedule 4, the high use of these claims suggests that further investigation into their use and interpretation is needed to ensure consumers are not being misled. Strengthening regulations on nutrition content and health claims would provide greater transparency and enhance consumers’ ability to make informed choices. This aligns with previous research emphasising the importance of clear and context‐appropriate claim wording to prevent consumer deception. 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 Mandatory guidelines for claim wording may reduce the risk of misleading consumers and ensure that all claims are accurate, clear and easily understood. Standard 1.2.7 lists provisions for making claims, including nutrient amounts and reporting requirements. While the majority of nutrition content claims were judged to comply with Standard 1.2.7, it is concerning that 61% of general‐level health claims were non‐compliant, a higher rate compared to previously examined food categories. 10 , 11 , 12 Common reasons for judging these claims to be non‐compliant included the use of generic statements that did not refer to specific nutrients (e.g., ‘Loaded with nutrients to energise your body, fuel your brain, fight infection and help you stay lean for longer’), and referring to nutrients within individual ingredients without listing the nutrients in the NIP (e.g., ‘Pepita seeds are super‐rich in Vitamin K and zinc, vital ingredients for healthy bones, hair and skin,’ when the product did not include Vitamin K or zinc in the NIP). Given the low rates of consumer trust in health‐related claims, 40 such vague and potentially misleading claims may further undermine consumer confidence. There is a clear need for greater transparency in Standard 1.2.7, and further enforcement of potential breaches to ensure information displayed on packages is accurate and can be trusted by consumers to support healthy choices. This study was strengthened by the use of the FoodSwitch database, which features data collected from large national grocery chains. However, the exclusive focus on ready meal products limits the generalisability of the findings to other food categories within the Australian food supply. The analysis relied on nutritional data from the FoodSwitch database, with missing fibre and FVNL values estimated for calculation of the NPSC scores when necessary, which may have affected accuracy. Claims included in this analysis were restricted to those regulated under Standard 1.2.7 and whole grain claims, meaning the present results are an underestimation of the volume of claims featured and their potential impact on consumers' perceptions of product healthiness. Another limitation relates to the subjective nature of assessing claim compliance, as Standard 1.2.7 does not specify guidelines for claim wording. This subjective interpretation complicates the process of assessing the compliance of claims, 16 and allows for variation in how claim compliance is judged across studies. Reforming Standard 1.2.7 to include specific wording requirements for claims would help standardise assessments and reduce inconsistencies across foods and in future research. This research provides insights into the prevalence and potential compliance of claims on ready meal products in the Australian food supply, providing valuable information for dietitians and nutrition professionals when supporting consumers choosing ready meal products. Claim usage was highly prevalent, with nutrition content claims the most prominent. While most nutrition content claims in the ready meal category were made on products meeting the NPSC, this does not eliminate the need for further regulatory refinement of nutrition content claims given the impact of these claims on consumer choice. Additionally, the high proportion of ready meals meeting the NPSC suggests the need for further research to evaluate whether the NPSC accurately assesses the nutritional quality of these food products. High rates of potential non‐compliance among general‐level health claims highlight the need for stricter legal enforcement of food claims. Reform of Standard 1.2.7 is encouraged to adopt tighter regulations on claim wording to ensure clearer and more relevant messaging for consumers. In the interim, research into the impact of claim wording and the use of claims not regulated under Standard 1.2.7 is recommended given their prevalence and potential to mislead consumers. Stronger regulation of claims is essential to protect consumers from inaccurate and deceptive nutrition information. Finally, further studies are encouraged to assess claim prevalence and compliance across other food categories to gain a more comprehensive understanding of claims on food products. AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS Conceptualisation: EH , LW‐C , CH , SP , BK , AM , EN . Methodology: EH , EN . Formal analysis: EH , EN . Writing—original draft: EH . Writing—review and editing: LW‐C , CH , SP , BK , AM , EN . All authors were involved in reviewing the manuscript and approve this version. FUNDING INFORMATION Simone Pettigrew is supported by an National Health and Medical Research Council Investigator Grant (#2034602). CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT Elizabeth Neale is an Editorial Board member of Nutrition & Dietetics . She was excluded from the peer‐review process and all decision making regarding this article. This manuscript has been managed throughout the review process by the Journal's Editor‐in‐Chief. The Journal operates a blinded peer review process and the peer reviewers for this manuscript were unaware of the authors of the manuscript. This process prevents authors who also hold an editorial role to influence the editorial decisions made. All other authors have no conflict of interest to disclose. Supporting information Figure S1. Process of classifying claims as compliant or non‐compliant. NDI-83-241-s001.pdf (114.1KB, pdf) Table S1. Inclusion and exclusion list of claims. Table S2. Number (%) of products which met the NPSC overall; and which did not meet the NPSC without modifying points and which did meet the NPSC with the inclusion of modifying points. NDI-83-241-s002.docx (17.6KB, docx) Hol E, Wellard‐Cole L, Hughes C, et al. Use of nutrition content and health claims on ready meals in Australia. Nutrition & Dietetics. 2026;83(2):241‐248. doi: 10.1111/1747-0080.70069 Open access publishing facilitated by University of Wollongong, as part of the Wiley ‐ University of Wollongong agreement via the Council of Australian University Librarians. DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT The research data are not shared. REFERENCES 1. Neale EP, Tapsell LC. Nutrition and health claims: consumer use and evolving regulation. Curr Nutr Rep. 2022;11:431‐436. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 2. Kelly B, Ng SH, Carrad A, Pettigrew S. The potential effectiveness of nutrient declarations and nutrition and health claims for improving population diets. Annu Rev Nutr. 2024;44:441‐470. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 3. Kelly B, Hattersley L, King L, Flood V. Smoke and mirrors: nutrition content claims used to market unhealthy food. Nutr Diet. 2009;66:62‐64. [ Google Scholar ] 4. Pivk Kupirovič U, Miklavec K, Hribar M, Kušar A, Žmitek K, Pravst I. Nutrient profiling is needed to improve the nutritional quality of the foods labelled with health‐related claims. Nutrients. 2019;11:287. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 5. Food Standards Australia New Zealand . Australia and New Zealand Food Standards Code – Standard 1.2.7 – nutrition, health and related claims. Food Standards Australia New Zealand; 2024. [ Google Scholar ] 6. Food Standards Australia New Zealand . Australia and New Zealand Food Standards Code – schedule 4 – nutrition, health and related claims. Food Standards Australia New Zealand; 2024. [ Google Scholar ] 7. Food Standards Australia New Zealand . Australia and New Zealand Food Standards Code – Schedule 5 – Nutrient Profiling Scoring Method. Food Standards Australia New Zealand; 2022. [ Google Scholar ] 8. Williams P. Consumer understanding and use of health claims for foods. Nutr Rev. 2005;63:256‐264. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 9. Thompson B, McMahon A‐T, Watson WL, Riesenberg D, Hughes C, Neale EP. Consumer perceptions of nutrient content claims in Australia: a qualitative study. J Hum Nutr Diet. 2024;37:168‐181. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 10. Wellard‐Cole L, Li R, Tse C, Watson WL, Hughes C. Changes in nutrition content and health claims post‐implementation of regulation in Australia. Public Health Nutr. 2020;23:2221‐2227. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 11. Sussman RL, McMahon AT, Neale EP. An audit of the nutrition and health claims on breakfast cereals in supermarkets in the Illawarra region of Australia. Nutrients. 2019;11:1604. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 12. Wadhwa S‐RS, McMahon AT, Neale EP. A cross‐sectional audit of nutrition and health claims on dairy yoghurts in supermarkets of the Illawarra region of New South Wales, Australia. Nutrients. 2021;13:1835. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 13. Hughes C, Wellard L, Lin J, Suen KL, Chapman K. Regulating health claims on food labels using nutrient profiling: what will the proposed standard mean in the Australian supermarket? Public Health Nutr. 2013;16:2154‐2161. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 14. Kaur A, Scarborough P, Rayner M. A systematic review, and meta‐analyses, of the impact of health‐related claims on dietary choices. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2017;14:93. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 15. Tong T, Rangan A, Gemming L. Evaluating the nutritional content of children's breakfast cereals in Australia. Children. 2018;5:84. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 16. Pulker CE, Scott JA, Pollard CM. Ultra‐processed family foods in Australia: nutrition claims, health claims and marketing techniques. Public Health Nutr. 2018;21:38‐48. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 17. Wooldridge K, Riley MD, Hendrie GA. Growth of ready meals in Australian supermarkets: nutrient composition, price and serving size. Foods. 2021;10:1667. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 18. Baker P, Machado P, Santos T, et al. Ultra‐processed foods and the nutrition transition: global, regional and national trends, food systems transformations and political economy drivers. Obes Rev. 2020;21:e13126. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 19. van der Horst K, Brunner TA, Siegrist M. Ready‐meal consumption: associations with weight status and cooking skills. Public Health Nutr. 2011;14:239‐245. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 20. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. The Strengthening The Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet. 2007;370:1453‐1457. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 21. Dunford E, Trevena H, Goodsell C, et al. FoodSwitch: a mobile phone app to enable consumers to make healthier food choices and crowdsourcing of national food composition data. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2014;2:e37. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 22. Dunford EK, Neal B. FoodSwitch and use of crowdsourcing to inform nutrient databases. J Food Compos Anal. 2017;64:13‐17. [ Google Scholar ] 23. Laznik N, Dunford E, Jones A, Howes K, Taylor F. FoodSwitch‐State of the Food Supply. A Five‐Year Review Australia. The George Institute for Global Health; 2023. [ Google Scholar ] 24. Department of Health, Disability and Ageing . Health Star Rating System Implementation Guide. 2025. Accessed January 22 2026. https://www.healthstarrating.gov.au/industry/health-star-rating-system-implementation-guide 25. Food Standards Australia New Zealand . Notified food‐health relationships. 2023. Accessed March 17, 2025. https://www.foodstandards.gov.au/business/labelling/nutrition-health-and-related-claims/notified-food-health-relationships 26. Grains and Legumes Nutrition Council . Whole grain registered products search AUS. 2025. Accessed March 17, 2025. https://www.glnc.org.au/whole-grain-registered-products-search-aus/ 27. Hieke S, Kuljanic N, Pravst I, et al. Prevalence of nutrition and health‐related claims on pre‐packaged foods: a five‐country study in Europe. Nutrients. 2016;8:137. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 28. Franco‐Arellano B, Bernstein JT, Norsen S, Schermel A, L'Abbé MR. Assessing nutrition and other claims on food labels: a repeated cross‐sectional analysis of the Canadian food supply. BMC Nutr. 2017;3:74. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 29. Rayner M, Scarborough P, Boxer A, Stockley L. Nutrient profiles: development of final model (final report – December 2005). British Heart Foundation Health Promotion Research Group, Department of Public Health, University of Oxford. 2005. 30. Barrett EM, Gaines A, Coyle DH, et al. Comparing product healthiness according to the health star rating and the NOVA classification system and implications for food labelling systems: an analysis of 25 486 products in Australia. Nutr Bull. 2023;48:523‐534. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 31. Rebolledo N, Ferrer‐Rosende P, Reyes M, Smith Taillie L, Corvalán C. Changes in the critical nutrient content of packaged foods and beverages after the full implementation of the Chilean food labelling and advertising law: a repeated cross‐sectional study. BMC Med. 2025;23:46. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 32. National Health and Medical Research Council, Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing, New Zealand Ministry of Health . Nutrient Reference Values for Australia and New Zealand. National Health and Medical Research Council; 2006. [ Google Scholar ] 33. Barrett EM, Afrin H, Rayner M, et al. Criterion validation of nutrient profiling systems: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Am J Clin Nutr. 2024;119:145‐163. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 34. Dunford EK, Huang L, Peters SAE, Crino M, Neal BC, Ni Mhurchu C. Evaluation of alignment between the health claims nutrient profiling scoring criterion (NPSC) and the health star rating (HSR) nutrient profiling models. Nutrients. 2018;10:1065. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 35. Banovic M, Arvola A, Pennanen K, et al. Foods with increased protein content: a qualitative study on European consumer preferences and perceptions. Appetite. 2018;125:233‐243. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 36. McMahon A‐T, Williams P, Tapsell L. Reviewing the meanings of wellness and well‐being and their implications for food choice. Perspect Public Health. 2010;130:282‐286. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 37. Marinangeli CPF, Harding SV. Health claims using the term ‘sustained energy’ are trending but glycaemic response data are being used to support: is this misleading without context? J Hum Nutr Diet. 2016;29:401‐404. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 38. Riley MD, Bowen J, Krause D, Jones D, Stonehouse W. A survey of consumer attitude towards nutrition and health statements on food labels in South Australia. Funct Foods Health Dis. 2016;6:809‐821. [ Google Scholar ] 39. Leathwood PD, Richardson DP, Sträter P, Todd PM, van Trijp HC. Consumer understanding of nutrition and health claims: sources of evidence. Br J Nutr. 2007;98:474‐484. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 40. Food Standards Australia New Zealand . FSANZ Consumer Insights Tracker 2023: Technical Report. Food Standards Australia New Zealand; 2024. [ Google Scholar ] Associated Data This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article. Supplementary Materials Figure S1. Process of classifying claims as compliant or non‐compliant. NDI-83-241-s001.pdf (114.1KB, pdf) Table S1. Inclusion and exclusion list of claims. Table S2. Number (%) of products which met the NPSC overall; and which did not meet the NPSC without modifying points and which did meet the NPSC with the inclusion of modifying points. NDI-83-241-s002.docx (17.6KB, docx) Data Availability Statement The research data are not shared. Articles from Nutrition & Dietetics are provided here courtesy of Wiley ACTIONS View on publisher site PDF (810.0 KB) Cite Collections Permalink PERMALINK Copy RESOURCES Similar articles Cited by other articles Links to NCBI Databases Cite Copy Download .nbib .nbib Format: AMA APA MLA NLM Add to Collections Create a new collection Add to an existing collection Name your collection * Choose a collection Unable to load your collection due to an error Please try again Add Cancel Follow NCBI NCBI on X (formerly known as Twitter) NCBI on Facebook NCBI on LinkedIn NCBI on GitHub NCBI RSS feed Connect with NLM NLM on X (formerly known as Twitter) NLM on Facebook NLM on YouTube National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894 Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure Help Accessibility Careers NLM NIH HHS USA.gov Back to Top