Set your location
ACT
NSW
NT
QLD
SA
TAS
VIC
WA
Clear Selection

Cancer Council recommends consumers discontinue using Cancer Council Sensitive Sunscreen SPF50+ 110ml batch number 1103178 and Cancer Council Sensitive Sunscreen SPF50+ 200ml batch number 1099751. Click here for more information or to apply for a refund.

A comprehensive, multi-sectoral approach

Weight gain is underpinned by a complex range of social, economic, educational and environmental factors.(1-4) Evidence suggests that strategies targeting individual behaviours relating to diet, energy intake and physical activity without changing the many determinants of these behaviours are unlikely to achieve significant or sustained outcomes. (1-4)

Central to this approach is the need to change a range of environmental elements to support people to eat well and be active. This approach requires action from all levels of society, including individuals and families, industry, schools, workplaces, communities, and health and other professionals, with a steering role for governments.(1) A comprehensive, multi-sectoral approach to improving physical activity levels and nutrition aimed at reducing overweight and obesity at the population level in Australia is needed. The National Obesity Strategy is intended to serve as a framework for this.

In Australia, some population groups, including Australians in lower socioeconomic groups(5), people living in rural and remote areas(6) and Indigenous Australians(7), have higher rates of obesity and overweight, poor nutrition and physical inactivity. Issues such as access to affordable healthy foods and opportunities to engage in physical activity are likely to be major contributing factors.(1) Therefore, an important part of a comprehensive, multi-sectoral approach to obesity prevention in Australia will be the development and implementation of specific, culturally sensitive interventions addressing the needs of these high risk groups.(1)

This chapter focuses on the evidence informing our policy positions, including the evidence for interventions for the prevention of overweight and obesity, improving diet and physical activity.


Environments that help the community eat well

Front of pack labelling

Front of pack labelling has been shown to be effective in assisting consumers to identify healthier food options at the point of sale,(8-11) and help guide their selection processes and in doing so may improve health outcomes. However, nutrition and health claims on food labels or in advertising can position unhealthy foods as delivering nutritional or health benefits and undermine purchase decisions. A number of front of pack labelling formats are in use globally, with different levels of effectiveness. Systems with an interpretive element to indicate the healthiness of a product generally perform better in assisting consumers to identify healthier foods.(12-15) A recent review conducted by IARC established that the Nutri-score was more effective at helping consumers identify a healthier option when compared to other nutrition labels.(16)

Labelling systems include:

Summary indicators:

These labels provide a food with an overall assessment of nutritional quality (for example- Health Star Rating, Nutri-score, an overall tick of approval).

Nutri-score(16): ranks the nutritional quality of food and beverages using five difference colours to classify food products into five categories from category A (dark green), indicating higher nutritional quality, to category E (dark orange), indicating lower nutritional quality.


Health Star Rating: provides a rating from ½ star (unhealthy) to 5 stars (healthy).


Nutrient specific systems:

a) Interpretive systems: provide guidance on a set of nutrients. For example, Chile’s system of black warning labels shaped like stop signs for food and drinks that exceed limits for sugar, salt, saturated fat and calorie.

b) Reductive systems: provide information on a specific nutrient only.

Nutrient warning labels:

These labels are applied to food and beverages where the product exceeds a specific threshold for various risk nutrients.

NOVA(17): classifies food according to the level of processing it has undergone. The classification system has four food categories: (1) unprocessed or minimally processed foods, (2) processed culinary ingredients, (3) processed foods, and (4) ultra-processed foods.

There is evidence that front of pack food labelling provides an incentive for food manufacturers to increase the availability of healthier products through product reformulation, including reducing sugar, fat and/or salt and increasing fibre intake in their products. For example, the adoption of the Choices logo in the Netherlands(18), mandatory trans-fat labelling in South Korea, Canada, and the US(19-21), and the Pick the Tick logo in New Zealand(22), led to reformulations that improved the nutrient profile of products in these markets. Current evidence (23, 24) has confirmed that the implementation of the Health Star Rating system is driving food manufactures to make positive changes to their products to ensure a more favorable Health Star Rating.


Nutrition content claims on food labels

Food companies use nutrition content claims to highlight positive aspects of products that may have negative attributes, such as marketing a high-sugar product as low-fat.(25) This is a problem as consumers perceive foods carrying claims as healthier than foods without claims, regardless of their nutrition composition (26, 27), and claims influence purchases.(28) Research in Australia has found that up to 79% of products carrying nutrition content claims in some food categories are not healthy enough to make a health claim.(29)


Food marketing to children

Children in Australia are exposed to a high number of advertisements for unhealthy food on television and through non-broadcast media. Between 54% and 82% of food advertising during television programs popular with children is for unhealthy foods and beverages that are high in fat, salt and sugar.(30-32) Substantial exposure also occurs through the internet (33, 34) and packaging promotions.(35-37)

These exposures to unhealthy food result in increased consumption of energy dense food in children.(38, 39) Reducing children’s exposure to unhealthy food marketing has been identified as one of the most cost-effective strategies to prevent obesity, in part because it has the potential to reach a large population of children, and therefore, is a key area for action.(40-42) Evidence indicates that food marketing to children generates positive beliefs about the advertised products, and influences food preferences, purchasing requests and consumption, as well as dietary habits and health status.(43-47) Evidence shows that children do not understand the persuasive intent of food marketing; that food marketing influences children’s food preferences and generates positive beliefs about the foods advertised.(45) Further, the high level of unhealthy food advertising may limit the effectiveness of social marketing campaigns promoting healthy foods and lifestyles.(48)

Current food marketing regulations are limited, and only apply to specific children’s programming on television.(49) The highest numbers of children watch prime time commercial television between 5:30pm and 9:30pm when the regulations do not apply.(50) Advertising industry codes are in place, but their effectiveness is limited as they are typically voluntary, permissive, and poorly monitored and enforced.(32, 51-54)

Community support for food marketing regulation

The Australian community supports government regulation of food and beverage advertising (55, 56). Studies have shown strong support for restricting unhealthy food advertising to children on television (79% support) and on digital media (76% support).(56, 57)


Food reformulation

Many processed foods are high in salt, sugar, fat and energy making them low in overall nutritional quality. Improving the nutritional quality of the food supply through product reformulation and innovation has enormous potential for improving population nutrition and health.(3) Reducing portion sizes of processed foods, which have increased substantially in recent years, also has the potential to decrease energy intake as evidence indicates that people tend to consume more kilojoules when they are presented with larger portions of food and beverages.(3)

Internationally, there has been some success with food reformulation having a positive health impact such as reducing intake of salt. A systematic review showed that salt could be reduced by 40% in breads and 70% in processed meats, without impacting consumer acceptability, suggesting there are opportunities for food manufacturers to make their products healthier.(58) In the UK, an analysis of salt reduction initiatives has shown that population salt intake has been reduced by 15% over 7 years, potentially avoiding 6,000 cardiovascular disease deaths and saving the economy £1.5 billion each year.(59)

In Australia, food reformulation could be a cost-effective preventive health measure. An evaluation of 123 Australian preventive health interventions found that limiting the salt content of three basic foods (bread, cereals and margarine) on a mandatory basis, would have a large impact on population health. This intervention was shown to not only be cost-effective, but cost saving.(60)


Economic interventions

Economic interventions, such as taxation, grants and subsidies can provide incentives and disincentives to help modify health behaviours relating to poor diet and physical activity.(1)

There are increasing calls for the Australian Government to follow the lead of other countries, including the UK, Mexico, and France, and develop a policy for taxing and subsidising food and drink to promote dietary change and reduce the burden of chronic disease.

A systematic review has shown that taxes and subsidies are likely to be effective in improving consumption patterns contributing to obesity.(61) Soft drink taxes and healthy food subsidies have been shown to be effective in promoting changes in dietary habits.(62)

An Australian study examined the cost-effectiveness of combining taxes on unhealthy foods and subsidies on healthy foods.(63) The combination of the taxes and subsidies could avoid the loss of as many as 470,000 disability-adjusted life years in the Australian population, at a net cost-saving of AU$3.4 billion to the health sector. The largest gains in health were achieved by a sugar tax. A fruit and vegetable subsidy is cost-effective when added to a package of taxes.(63, 64)

In Australia, there are a lack of financial incentives and disincentives to support increased physical activity. The fringe benefits tax for private motor vehicle use promotes the use of private cars rather than active transport (such as walking, cycling and public transport), encouraging inactivity.(1) The NSW government has introduced the Active Kids program that encourages kids to be more active by subsidising participation fees of recreational activities.(65)


Public education

Public education campaigns utilise commercial marketing principles and mass media to distribute and promote public health messages. Increasingly, social marketing has been used as a public education strategy. The value of social marketing as a public education tool – as seen in tobacco control – is its role in influencing attitudes and shifting cultural norms regarding health behaviours.

Evidence increasingly shows that well designed and executed social marketing campaigns on health issues that are sustained over time can be effective in changing health knowledge, beliefs, attitudes and behaviours across large populations.(48, 66, 67) While the bulk of current evidence relates to tobacco control, social marketing interventions have also been shown to be effective in increasing physical activity and improving nutrition.(48, 68-71)

More recently, studies have highlighted the characteristics of effective obesity prevention mass media campaigns(72, 73), showing that presenting hard-hitting information about the health consequences of overweight and obesity appear most effective. These findings are consistent with the literature on anti-smoking mass media campaigns.(72, 73)

In a public health setting, public education mass media campaigns are often supported by complementary messaging through other channels including healthcare providers and community programs.(74) This allows for integrated universal and targeted approaches, so that social marketing campaigns are supported by local level initiatives tailored to the needs of specific communities. The LiveLighter® public education campaign to address overweight and obesity includes mass media, advocacy initiatives and education and support tools. The first campaign phase highlighted that overweight and obesity was a risk factor for chronic disease. Evaluation showed it successfully raised awareness of the issue as well as increasing intention to change behaviour.(73) The second phase of the campaign highlighted the link between sugary drink consumption and weight gain. Evaluation showed that overweight respondents reduced their intake of sugar sweetened beverages.(75, 76)

The effectiveness of social marketing interventions is improved when they are one component of a comprehensive approach targeting population health behaviours; outcomes of these interventions are generally better when they are supported by complementary policies and programs to support behavioural change, and competing marketing messages are restricted.(77)


The physical environment

A range of components of the physical environment have been shown to have a significant impact on the physical activity levels and obesity rates of individuals and communities.(1, 2, 78)

Evidence suggests that 'walkable' environments are associated with decreased rates of obesity and higher levels of physical activity.(79-81) Key characteristics of a walkable environment include mixed land use, higher residential density, street connectivity and design, availability of footpaths, attractive surrounds and perceptions that the environment is safe.(1, 3, 82, 83) Positive associations have been shown between walkability, street connectivity and residential density/urbanisation, and total walking for transport in adults aged 65 years and older.(84)

Physical environments designed to facilitate active transport such as cycling, walking and public transport are associated with increased physical activity.(81, 83) Infrastructure enabling active transport between residential, commercial and business areas, and access to recreational facilities and sporting infrastructure are key components of such environments.(81, 83)

There is some evidence that the physical environment can influence diet - improved access to healthy foods may increase consumption of healthy food.(83) There is evidence from the US to suggest that neighbourhoods with better access to supermarkets and fewer fast food outlets tend to have healthier diets and lower levels of obesity.(3, 85, 86) A Canadian study has shown that having grocery stores within close proximity to place of residence is associated with a lower likelihood of regular sugar-sweetened beverage consumption (a probable risk factor for weight gain and obesity), among pre-school children.(87)


References

  1. National Preventative Health Taskforce. Australia: the healthiest country by 2020. National preventative health strategy - the roadmap for action. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia 2009.
  2. Butland B, Jebb S, Kopelman P, McPherson K, Thomas S, Mardell J, et al. Foresight. Tackling Obesities: Future Choices - Project Report. UK: Government Office for Science; 2007.
  3. World Cancer Research Fund/ American Institute for Cancer Research. Food, nutrition, physical activity, and the prevention of cancer: A global perspective. Washington, DC: AICR; 2007.
  4. World Health Organisation. Global strategy on diet, physical activity and health. Geneva: WHO; 2004.
  5. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Australia's Health 2014. Canberra: AIHW; 2014.
  6. Australian Bureau of Statistics. National Health Survey: First Results - Australia, 2014-15. Canberra, Australia: Australian Bureau of Statistics; 2015.
  7. 7. Parker G, Frith R. Health Star Rating System: Campaign Evaluation Report. Sydney: Pollinate Research; 2016.
  8. Cowburn G, Stockley L. Consumer understanding and use of nutrition labelling: a systematic review. Public Health Nutrition. 2005;8(1):21-8.
  9. Cecchini M, Warin L. Impact of food labelling systems on food choices and eating behaviours: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised studies. Obesity Reviews. 2016;17(3):201-10.
  10. Becker MW, Bello NM, Sundar RP, Peltier C, Bix L. Front of pack labels enhance attention to nutrition information in novel and commercial brands. Food Policy. 2015;56:76-86.
  11. Campos S, Doxey J, Hammond D. Nutrition labels on pre-packaged foods: a systematic review. Public Health Nutrition. 2011;14(8):1496-506.
  12. Gorton D, Ni Mhurchu C, Chen M-H, Dixon R. Nutrition labels: a survey of use, understanding and preferences among ethnically diverse shoppers in New Zealand. Public Health Nutrition. 2009;12(9):1359-65.
  13. Kelly B, Hughes C, Chapman K, Louie JCY, Dixon H, Crawford J, et al. Consumer testing of the acceptability and effectiveness of front-of-pack food labelling systems for the Australian grocery market. Health Promotion International. 2009;24(2):120-9.
  14. Maubach N, Hoek J. The effect of alternative nutrition information formats on consumers' evaluations of a children's breakfast cereral. Wollongong: University of Wollongong. Partnerships, proof and practice - International Nonproft and Social Marketing Conference; 2008.
  15. US Food and Drug Administration. Calories count: report of the working group on obesity USA: US FDA; 2004.
  16. International Agency for Research on Cancer. The Nutri-Score: A Science-Based Front-of-Pack Nutrition Label. IARC, WHO; 2021.
  17. Food Standards Australia New Zealand. Diet quality and processed foods: Foods Standards Australia & New Zealand; 2020.
  18. Vyth EL, Steenhuis IH, Roodenburg AJ, Brug J, Seidell JC. Front-of-pack nutrition label stimulates healthier product development: a quantitative analysis. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity. 2010;7(1):65.
  19. Lee J, Adhikari P, Kim S, Yoon T, Kim I, Lee K. Trans fatty acids content and fatty acid profiles in the selected food products from Korea between 2005 and 2008. Journal of Food Science. 2010;75(7):647-52.
  20. 20. Unnevehr L, Jagmanaite E. Getting rid of trans fats in the US diet: policies, incentives and progress. Food Policy. 2008;33:497-503.
  21. Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Labelling of Trans Fatty Acids: Government of Canada; 2012
  22. Young L. Impact of the Pick the Tick food information programme on the salt content of food in New Zealand. Health Promotion International. 2002;17(1):13-9.
  23. Mantilla Herrera A, Crino M, Erskine H, Sacks G, Ananthapavan J, Mhurchu C, et al. Cost-Effectiveness of Product Reformulation in Response to the Health Star Rating Food Labelling System in Australia. Nutrients. 2018;10(5):614.
  24. Mhurchu C, Eyles H, Choi Y-H. Effects of a Voluntary Front-of-Pack Nutrition Labelling System on Packaged Food Reformulation: The Health Star Rating System in New Zealand. Nutrients. 2017;9(8):918.
  25. Harris JL, Thompson JM, Schwartz MB, Brownell KD. Nutrition-related claims on children's cereals: what do they mean to parents and do they influence willingness to buy? Public Health Nutrition. 2011;14(12):2207-12.
  26. Kozup JC, Creyer EH, Burton S. Making Healthful Food Choices: The Influence of Health Claims and Nutrition Information on Consumers' Evaluationns of Packaged Food Products and Restaurant Menu Items Journal of Marketing. 2003;67(2):19-34.
  27. Chan C, Patch C, Williams P. Australian consumers are sceptical abuot but influenced by claims about fat on food labels. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2005;59(1):148-51.
  28. Kaur A, Scarborough P, Rayner M. A systematic review, and meta-analyses, of the impact of health-related claims on dietary choices. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity. 2017;14(1).
  29. 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 Nutrition. 2013;16(12):2154-61.
  30. Kelly B, Chapman K, King L, Hebden L. Trends in food advertising to children on free-to-air television in Australia. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health. 2011;35(2):131-4.
  31. Hebden L, King L, Chau J, Kelly B. Food advertising on children's popular subscription television channels in Australia. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health. 2011;35(2):127-30.
  32. Watson WL, Lau V, Wellard L, Hughes C, Chapman K. Advertising to children initiatives have not reduced unhealthy food advertising on Australian television. Journal of Public Health. 2017;39(4):787-92.
  33. Kervin L, Jones SC, Mantei J. Online Advertising: Examining the Content and Messages within Websites Targeted at Children. E-Learning and Digital Media. 2012;9(1):69-82.
  34. Freeman B, Kelly B, Baur L, Chapman K, Chapman S, Gill T, et al. Digital Junk: Food and Beverage Marketing on Facebook. American Journal of Public Health. 2014;104(12):e56-e64.
  35. CHOICE. Food marketing: Child's play? : Australian Consumers Association; 2006.
  36. Chapman K, Nicholas P, Banovic D, Supramaniam R. The extent and nature of food promotion directed to children in Australian supermarkets. Health Promotion International. 2006;21(4):331-9.
  37. Hebden L, King L, Kelly B, Chapman K, Innes-Hughes C. A menagerie of promotional characters: promoting food to children through food packaging. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2011;43(5):349-55.
  38. Russell SJ, Croker H, Viner RM. The effect of screen advertising on children's dietary intake: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Obesity Reviews. 2019;20(4):554-68.
  39. Norman J, Kelly B, McMahon A-T, Boyland E, Baur LA, Chapman K, et al. Sustained impact of energy-dense TV and online food advertising on children’s dietary intake: a within-subject, randomised, crossover, counter-balanced trial. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity. 2018;15(1).
  40. World Health Organisation. 'Best Buys' and Other Recommended Interventions for the Prevention and Control of Noncommunicable Diseases -Updated (2017) appendix 3 of the Global Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of Noncommunicable Diseases 2013-2020. Geneva: WHO; 2017.
  41. World Health Organisation. Set of recommendations on the marketing of foods and non-alcoholic beverages to children. Geneva: WHO; 2010.
  42. World Health Organisation. Report of the commission on ending childhood obesity. Geneva: WHO; 2016.
  43. McGinnis J, Gootman J, Kraak V. Food marketing to children and youth: threat or opportunity? Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2005.
  44. Dalmeny K, Hanna E, Lobstein T. Broadcasting bad health: why food marketing to children needs to be controlled. International Association of Consumer Food Organisations; 2003.
  45. Cairns G, Angus K, Hastings G, Caraher M. Systematic reviews of the evidence on the nature, extent and effects of food marketing to children. A retrospective summary. Appetite. 2013;62:209-15.
  46. Boyland EJ, Nolan S, Kelly B, Tudur-Smith C, Jones A, Halford JC, et al. Advertising as a cue to consume: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of acute exposure to unhealthy food and nonalcoholic beverage advertising on intake in children and adults. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2016;103(2):519-33.
  47. Kelly B, King ML, Chapman Mnd K, Boyland E, Bauman AE, Baur LA. A hierarchy of unhealthy food promotion effects: identifying methodological approaches and knowledge gaps. Am J Public Health. 2015;105(4):e86-95.
  48. Wakefield MA, Loken B, Hornik RC. Use of mass media campaigns to change health behaviour. The Lancet. 2010;376(9748):1261-71.
  49. Commonwealth of Australia: Attorney General's Department. Children's television standards 2009. Canberra: Office of Legislative Drafting and Publishing 2009.
  50. Australian Communications and Media Authority. Children's television standards review. Issues paper. ACMA; 2007.
  51. Hebden L, King L, Kelly B, Chapman K, Innes-Hughes C. Industry self-regulation of food marketing to children: Reading the fine print. Health Promotion Journal of Australia. 2010;21(3):229-35.
  52. Hebden LA, King L, Grunseit A, Kelly B, Chapman K. Advertising of fast food to children on Australian television: the impact of industry self-regulation. Med J Aust. 2011;195(1):20-4.
  53. King L, Hebden L, Grunseit A, Kelly B, Chapman K, Venugopal K. Industry self regulation of television food advertising: responsible or responsive? Int J Pediatr Obes. 2011;6(2-2):e390-8.
  54. Ronit K, Jensen JD. Obesity and industry self-regulation of food and beverage marketing: a literature review. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2014;68(7):753-9.
  55. Watson W, Weber M, Hughes C, Wellard L, Chapman K. Support for food policy initiatives is associated with knowledge of obesity-related cancer risk factors. Public Health Research & Practice. 2017;27(5).
  56. Sainsbury E, Hendy C, Magnusson R, Colagiuri S. Public support for government regulatory interventions for overweight and obesity in Australia. BMC Public Health. 2018;18(1).
  57. Miller CL, Dono J, Wakefield MA, Pettigrew S, Coveney J, Roder D, et al. Are Australians ready for warning labels, marketing bans and sugary drink taxes? Two cross-sectional surveys measuring support for policy responses to sugar-sweetened beverages. BMJ Open. 2019;9(6):e027962.
  58. Jaenke R, Barzi F, McMahon E, Webster J, Brimblecombe J. Consumer acceptance of reformulated food products: A systematic review and meta-analysis of salt-reduced foods. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2017;57(16):3357-72.
  59. He FJ, Brinsden HC, MacGregor GA. Salt reduction in the United Kingdom: a successful experiment in public health. Journal of Human Hypertension. 2014;28(6):345-52.
  60. Vos T, Carter R, Barendregt J, Mihalopoulos C, Veerman L, Magnus A, et al. Assessing cost-effectiveness in prevention: ACE-prevention September 2010 final report. Brisbane, QLD: University of Queensland & Deakin University 2010.
  61. Thow AM, Downs S, Jan S. A systematic review of the effectiveness of food taxes and subsidies to improve diets: Understanding the recent evidence. Nutrition Reviews. 2014;72(9):551-65.
  62. Obesity Evidence Hub. Prevention 2020.
  63. Cobiac LJ, Tam K, Veerman L, Blakely T. Taxes and Subsidies for Improving Diet and Population Health in Australia: A Cost-Effectiveness Modelling Study. PLOS Medicine. 2017;14(2):e1002232.
  64. Lal A, Mantilla-Herrera AM, Veerman L, Backholer K, Sacks G, Moodie M, et al. Modelled health benefits of a sugar-sweetened beverage tax across different socioeconomic groups in Australia: A cost-effectiveness and equity analysis. PLOS Medicine. 2017;14(6):e1002326.
  65. NSW Government Office of Sport. Active Kids Sydney, Australia: NSW Government; 2018.
  66. Abroms LC, Maibach EW. The Effectiveness of Mass Communication to Change Public Behavior. Annual Review of Public Health. 2008;29(1):219-34.
  67. Noar SM. A 10-Year Retrospective of Research in Health Mass Media Campaigns: Where Do We Go From Here? Journal of Health Communication. 2006;11(1):21-42.
  68. Gordon R, McDermott L, Stead M, Angus K. The effectiveness of social marketing interventions for health improvement: What's the evidence? Public Health. 2006;120(12):1133-9.
  69. Huhman ME, Potter LD, Duke JC, Judkins DR, Heitzler CD, Wong FL. Evaluation of a national physical activity intervention for children: VERB campaign, 2002-2004. Am J Prev Med. 2007;32(1):38-43.
  70. Pomerleau J, Lock K, Knai CC, McKee M. Interventions Designed to Increase Adult Fruit and Vegetable Intake Can Be Effective: A Systematic Review of the Literature. The Journal of Nutrition. 2005;135(10):2486-95.
  71. Xia Y, Deshpande S, Bonates T. Effectiveness of Social Marketing Interventions to Promote Physical Activity Among Adults: A Systematic Review. J Phys Act Health. 2016;13(11):1263-74.
  72. Dixon H, Scully M, Durkin S, Brennan E, Cotter T, Maloney S, et al. Finding the keys to successful adult-targeted advertisements on obesity prevention: an experimental audience testing study. BMC Public Health. 2015;15(1).
  73. Morley B, Niven P, Dixon H, Swanson M, Szybiak M, Shilton T, et al. Population-based evaluation of theLiveLighter’ healthy weight and lifestyle mass media campaign. Health Education Research. 2016;31(2):121-35.
  74. Evans WD. How social marketing works in health care. BMJ. 2006;332(7551):1207-10.
  75. Morley B, Niven P, Dixon H, Wakefield M, Swanson M, Szybiak M, et al. Evaluation of the LiveLighter “Sugary Drinks” mass media campaign. Obesity Research & Clinical Practice. 2014;8:70.
  76. Morley B, Niven P, Dixon H, Wakefield M, Swanson M, Szybiak M, et al., editors. Social marketing in obesity prevention: The example of 'livelighter' 2017.
  77. 77.Kelly B, Bochynska K, Kornman K, Chapman K. Internet food marketing on popular children’s websites and food product websites in Australia. Public Health Nutrition. 2008;11(11):1180-7.
  78. Raine K, Spence JC, Church J, Boule N, Slater L, Marko J, et al. State of the Evidence Review on Urban Health and Healthy Weights Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Institute for Health Information 2008.
  79. Frank LD, Andresen MA, Schmid TL. Obesity relationships with community design, physical activity, and time spent in cars. Am J Prev Med. 2004;27(2):87-96.
  80. Giles-Corti B, Macintyre S, Clarkson JP, Pikora T, Donovan RJ. Environmental and Lifestyle Factors Associated with Overweight and Obesity in Perth, Australia. American Journal of Health Promotion. 2003;18(1):93-102.
  81. Schoeppe S, Braubach M. Tackling Obesity by Creating Healthy Residential Environments. Copenhagen, Denmark: World Health Organisation Regional Office for Europe 2007.
  82. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Health and the environment: a compliation of evidence. Canberra: AIHW; 2011. Report No.: PHE 136.
  83. Gebel K, King L, Bauman A, Vita P, Gill T, Rigby A, et al. Creating healthy environments: A review of links between the physical environment, physical activity and obesity. Sydney, Australia: NSW Health Department and NSW Centre for Overweight and Obesity; 2005.
  84. Brown V, Moodie M, Mantilla Herrera AM, Veerman JL, Carter R. Active transport and obesity prevention – A transportation sector obesity impact scoping review and assessment for Melbourne, Australia. Preventive Medicine. 2017;96:49-66.
  85. Larson NI, Story MT, Nelson MC. Neighborhood environments: disparities in access to healthy foods in the U.S. Am J Prev Med. 2009;36(1):74-81.
  86. Morland K, Diez Roux AV, Wing S. Supermarkets, Other Food Stores, and Obesity. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2006;30(4):333-9.
  87. Pabayo R, Spence JC, Cutumisu N, Casey L, Storey K. Sociodemographic, behavioural and environmental correlates of sweetened beverage consumption among pre-school children. Public Health Nutrition. 2012;15(8):1338-46.