Tazman Davies

The journal’s Editorial Office and Editorial Board are jointly issuing a resolution and removal of the Journal Notice linked to this article

High intakes of red and processed meat, trans fats, sodium and low intakes of fibre and minimally processed plant foods such as wholegrains, fruits, nuts,

Introduction: With some exceptions, alcohol cannot be sold in Australian supermarkets. The emerging availability of zero alcohol products (ZAP) in supermarkets is therefore introducing alcohol brands into this previously protected domain. The aims of the present study were to examine the prevalence of ZAPs in supermarkets, compare this to the prevalence of ZAPs in alcohol stores, and assess the extent to which ZAPs available in supermarkets share branding with alcohol products. Methods: ZAPs available for sale in large supermarket and alcohol chain stores in Australia were assessed in 2022 and 2024. Analyses examined: (i) ZAPs available in each store type; (ii) alcohol brand extension ZAPs available in supermarkets; (iii) overlap in ZAP brands between supermarkets and alcohol stores; and (iv) changes in (i)–(iii) over time. Results: The number of unique ZAPs available for sale in supermarkets remained roughly stable between 2022 ( n = 70) and 2024 ( n = 66). A substantial increase in ZAPs prevalence was observed in alcohol stores ( n = 110 in 2022 to n = 261 in 2024). By 2024, ZAPs with alcohol brands dominated supermarkets, representing 59% of available ZAPs, up from 37% in 2022. The percentage of unique ZAPs that were available in both supermarkets and alcohol stores remained stable over the period at 18%. Discussion and Conclusions: The new dominance of alcohol branded ZAPs in supermarkets demonstrates how alcohol branding is increasingly permeating the supermarket environment in Australia. The resulting increased exposure of children and adolescents to alcohol‐related stimuli should be considered in ZAPs policies to minimise adverse outcomes.

Policy makers lack guidance on effective ways to introduce alcohol warnings, making it important to document the experiences of early adopter countries. Aims of this study were to (i) assess uptake of a mandated pregnancy warning label in Australia, (ii) identify the placement of the warning on products (i.e. front, back, side, top, or bottom), and (iii) compare the results for (i) and (ii) between 2023 and 2024 to provide insights into industry willingness to engage with the policy. In-store visits and web-scraping were used to capture product images that were coded for presence and location of the mandatory pregnancy warning (2023: n = 5923; 2024: n = 6666). Four years after the initial introduction of the policy, corresponding to 1 year after the end of the implementation transition period, 22% of assessed products did not display the mandatory pregnancy warning. In both 2023 and 2024, prevalence was lowest in the spirits category and among single unit and imported products. In most instances, warnings were located on the back of products, although a substantial proportion of multi-packs displayed the warning on the underneath panel of the packaging. The Australian experience offers important insights for other jurisdictions introducing health warnings on alcohol products. Clearly specified compliance deadlines and requirements for warning location could overcome the identified implementation issues.

Introduction: Minimum unit pricing (MUP), which involves setting a floor price for alcoholic beverages based on their alcohol content, has been shown to reduce alcohol‐related harms. This study identified alcoholic beverages in Western Australia that may be affected by three minimum unit price thresholds. Methods: In September 2024, we web‐scraped product information for 16,645 alcoholic beverages listed on the online stores of two major alcohol retail chains in Perth, Australia. We identified the proportion of products that were priced below three floor price thresholds ($1.30, $1.50 and $1.75 per standard drink), both overall and across six alcohol categories. We further identified the proportion of all products with a promoted price (e.g., ‘was $10, now $8’) that fell below each threshold. Results: A small proportion of alcohol products were priced below the $1.30, $1.50 and $1.75 floor price thresholds (4%, 5% and 7%, respectively). The majority of cask wine products were priced below each threshold (86%, 88% and 89%, respectively), whereas only a small fraction of cider (9%, 12% and 28%), bottled wine (6%, 8% and 12%), beer (1%, 1% and 4%), spirits (0%, 0% and 1%) and premix drinks (0% for each) fell below these levels. Few products were promoted at a price below the corresponding thresholds (3%, 4% and 5%). Discussion and Conclusions: Most alcohol prices would be unaffected by MUP thresholds ranging from $1.30 to $1.75. Communicating this finding could increase the general acceptability of the policy.

Fiscal food policies can be used, among others, to minimize the burden of diet-related diseases. To inform the design of such policies in Australia, we used the large grocery-purchasing dataset NielsenIQ Homescan to estimate own-price elasticities and cross-price elasticities for 18 food categories. We found that households were most responsive to changes in price for non-sugar-sweetened beverages and sugar-sweetened beverages: a 10% increase in price was associated with reductions in demand of 15% and 12%, respectively. Additionally, an increase in the price of one category was associated with relatively small changes in the quantity demanded for other categories (that is, 92% of cross-price elasticities had an absolute value <0.2). There were small differences in own-price and cross-price elasticities across socioeconomic quintiles. These price elasticity estimates can be used to model the health and equity impacts of fiscal food policies in Australia.