It is unknown how well menu labelling schemes that enforce the display of kilojoule (kJ) labelling at point-of-sale have been implemented on online food delivery (OFD) services in Australia. This study aimed to examine the prevalence of kJ labelling on the online menus of large food outlets with more than twenty locations in the state or fifty locations nationally. A secondary aim was to evaluate the nutritional quality of menu items on OFD from mid-sized outlets that have fewer locations than what is specified in the current scheme.

Cross-sectional analysis. Prevalence of kJ labelling by large food outlets on OFD from August to September 2022 was examined. Proportion of discretionary (‘junk food’) items on menus from mid-sized outlets was assessed.

Forty-three unique large food outlets on company (e.g. MyMacca’s) and third party OFD (Uber Eats, Menulog, Deliveroo) within Sydney, Australia. Ninety-two mid-sized food outlets were analysed.

N/A.

On company OFD apps, 35 % (7/23) had complete kJ labelling for each menu item. In comparison, only 4·8 % (2/42), 5·3 % (2/38) and 3·6 % (1/28) of large outlets on Uber Eats, Menulog and Deliveroo had complete kJ labelling at all locations, respectively. Over three-quarters, 76·3 % (345/452) of menu items from mid-sized outlets were classified as discretionary.

Kilojoule labelling was absent or incomplete on a high proportion of online menus. Mid-sized outlets have abundant discretionary choices and yet escape criteria for mandatory menu labelling laws. Our findings show the need to further monitor the implementation of nutrition policies on OFD.

Federal law requires calorie information on chain restaurant menus. We sought to assess the prevalence of calorie disclosures on online menus and determine if the menus are controlled by restaurants subject to US labelling requirements.

Cross-sectional

Restaurant websites and mobile apps for restaurant located in New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Houston

US chain restaurants (top seventy-five by number of outlets) and third-party platforms (TPP): Grubhub, Uber Eats, DoorDash

There was at least one calorie disclosure (for at least one food or beverage, in at least one location) on sixty-eight of seventy-two (94 %) menus on restaurant websites or apps, thirty-two of fifty-five (58 %) menus on DoorDash, six of forty-nine (12 %) menus on Grubhub and thirty of fifty-nine (51 %) menus on Uber Eats. There was consistent calorie labelling (all foods and beverages, all locations) on forty-three of seventy-two (60 %) menus on restaurant websites or apps, fifteen of fifty-five (27 %) menus on DoorDash, three of forty-nine (6 %) menus on Grubhub and eleven of fifty-nine (19 %) menus on Uber Eats. Only four restaurant chains consistently labelled calories for all items, in all locations, on all platforms where their menus were found. All three TPP provided restaurants the ability to enter and modify menu items, making the menus subject to US labelling requirements. Only Uber Eats provided guidance to restaurants on entering calorie information.

As consumers increasingly rely on TPP for restaurant ordering, menus on these platforms should include calories in order to promote transparency and nutrition.

To explore the promotion of discretionary foods/beverages and marketing strategies employed by the top three online food delivery services’ (OFDS) Instagram accounts in three countries before and during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

Publicly available data were extracted for the top three OFDS Instagram accounts for Australia, United Kingdom (UK) and the United States of America (USA) from March to May 2019 and 2020. Food/beverage items from posts were classified as ‘discretionary’ or from the five food groups (FFG) according to the Australian Dietary Guidelines. Marketing strategies were coded using an existing framework. Posts referring to COVID-19 were coded under four marketing strategies: (i) appropriating frontline workers; (ii) combatting the pandemic; (iii) selling social distancing; and (iv) accelerating digitalisation.

From 581 posts, 618 food/beverage items were shown, of which 69 % (427/618) were classified as discretionary. In 2019, the most used marketing strategies were product imagery (unbranded) (137/195, 70 %), links (111/195, 57 %) and sponsorships/partnerships (58/195, 30 %). In 2020, the most used were links (252/386, 68 %), product imagery (unbranded) (179/386, 49 %) and branding elements (175/386, 45 %). The most common COVID-19 marketing strategy was combatting the pandemic (76/123, 62 %) followed by selling social distancing (53/123, 43 %), appropriating frontline workers (34/123, 28 %) and accelerating digitalisation (32/123, 26 %).

Following the COVID-19 pandemic, OFDS adapted their marketing, creating content with the theme of ‘combatting the pandemic’. Due to the growing number of discretionary foods/beverages promoted on Instagram, this highlights the need for policy action to counter the potential influence social media platforms have on dietary behaviours.

Online food delivery (OFD) platforms offer consumers a convenient and fast delivery service of foods and drinks sourced from foodservice partners (e.g. restaurants, quick service restaurants). There is a need to assess the impact of this emergent segment of the foodservice sector on diet and diet-related health. The aim of this narrative review was to describe the OFD sector in Australia, its use and identify potential ways to include OFD platforms in existing public health nutrition policy.

A search was conducted in peer-reviewed and grey literature. Sources were analysed and synthesised to report the characteristics of OFD platforms, delivery process, users and potential drivers of usage. The aim and scope of public health nutrition policies were analysed to identify ways of including OFD platforms.

Australia.

General population.

There are three main operators with 9000–16 000 foodservice partners based predominantly in the main cities of Australia. OFD revenue has grown by 72 % in the last 5 years and is predicted to increase driven by usage by working adults with high disposable income who demand convenience. Current policies and initiatives aimed at manufacturers, retailers and foodservice outlets do not specifically regulate OFD platforms, although there is scope for these to be extended to such platforms.

OFD platforms are disruptors of the foodservice sector. Innovative and consistent health policy options that target the unique challenges and opportunities posed by OFD platforms are required to limit the potentially negative impact of OFD platforms on diet and diet-related health.