3B 106 Final Report 121222

Health benefits of pork consumption
in the diets of Australian children

3B-106
Report prepared for the

Co-operative Research Centre for High Integrity Australian
Pork
By
Dr Deborah Nolan-Clark1, Dr Elizabeth Neale1 and Associate Professor Karen
Charlton2
1
Landmark Nutrition Pty Ltd. Suite 12/39 Market St, Wollongong, NSW 2500, Ph:
+61 2 42443547, Email: deborah@landmarknutrition.com
2
School of Health Science, University of Wollongong, NSW 2522, +61 2 4221
4754, Email: karen_charlton@uow.edu.au
December 2012
Established and supported under

the Australian Government’s
Cooperative Research Centres
Program
Executive Summary
Rationale for undertaking the Project
Dietary habits formed during childhood are highly influential on food consumption patterns
maintained during the lifespan. From a marketing perspective, exploring intakes of core
foods during childhood may identify important target groups for strategies to increase
intake of such foods during this period of growth and throughout the lifespan.
There is a lack of current research exploring the consumption of pork and its associated
health benefits in Australian children. The rapidly changing nature of the food supply and
consumer preferences requires the analysis of more recent and nationally representative
dietary surveys to gain a clear understanding of current pork consumption and related
health outcomes in Australian children.
The 2007 Australian National Children’s Nutrition and Physical Activity survey is the most
recent nationwide survey on the dietary intakes of Australian children. To date, no
analyses have been conducted to examine pork consumption using this survey. To address
this issue, this project aimed to explore the nutrition and health benefits of pork
consumption in the diets of Australian children based on data from the 2007 Australian
National Children’s Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey.
Outcomes of the project

This study identified that half of Australian children reported consuming pork during the
survey period, with the majority consuming processed pork such as ham and bacon. Pork
was most frequently consumed at home around lunchtime, with vegetable products/dishes
and cereals the most frequently reported accompaniments. Whilst pork consumers had
significantly greater intakes of energy and fat in comparison to non-consumers there were
no significant differences between pork consumers and non-consumers in terms of body
weight and waist circumference (after controlling for potential confounding variables).
Pork intake favourably influenced the nutrient intake of consumers, with individuals
reporting pork intake consuming a significantly greater amount of protein, phosphorous
and zinc than non-consumers. Similarly, a significantly higher proportion of pork consumers
met their individual nutrient requirements for protein, calcium, iron, thiamine, riboflavin,
phosphorous, zinc and iodine in comparison to non-consumers.
Relevance of the project’s outcomes to the Australian Pig Industry

This research will contribute substantially to inform the evidence base surrounding the
important contribution of pork to key nutrient requirements in the diets of Australian
children. In addition, the analysis of demographic, cuisine context and consumption
information of pork consumers and non-consumers will directly benefit the Australian Pig
Industry by helping to inform more targeted marketing approaches to increase pork intake
in Australian children. Specific opportunities identified include potential to increase fresh
pork consumption, particularly in individuals from non-Asian backgrounds, scope to market
pork as a key contributor to essential nutrients that assists Australian children to meet
requirements and potential dispelling of myths surrounding pork as a ‘weight inducing’
food, through provision of evidence whereby no adverse association was found between
pork intake, weight, waist circumference and level of obesity (by BMI category).
i
Table of Contents
Executive Summary .................................................................................................. i
1. Introduction .................................................................................................... 3
2. Methodology .................................................................................................... 4
3. Outcomes ....................................................................................................... 8
4. Application of Research .................................................................................. 442
5. Conclusion ................................................................................................... 442
6. Limitations/Risks ............................................................................................. 43
7. Recommendations ........................................................................................... 44
8. References..................................................................................................... 44
Appendices ........................................................................................................... 46
Appendix 1:........................................................................................................ 46
Appendix 2:........................................................................................................ 47
Appendix 3:........................................................................................................ 49
Appendix 4:........................................................................................................ 50
Appendix 5:........................................................................................................ 51
Appendix 6:........................................................................................................ 52
Appendix 7:........................................................................................................ 54
Appendix 8:........................................................................................................ 56
Appendix 9:........................................................................................................ 57
Appendix 10: ...................................................................................................... 59
Appendix 11: ...................................................................................................... 60
Appendix 12: ...................................................................................................... 61
Appendix 13: ...................................................................................................... 62
Appendix 14: ...................................................................................................... 63
ii
1. Introduction
Childhood is a period of intense growth and development and requires a number of
essential nutrients to facilitate this process (National Health and Medical Research
Council, 2006). Dietary habits formed during childhood are highly influential on food
consumption patterns maintained during the course of an individual’s life (Puhl et al.,
2003; Mikkila et al., 2004). Exploring dietary habits relating to the intake of core foods
during childhood may facilitate long term improvements in nutrient intakes and related
health outcomes. From a marketing perspective, exploring intakes of core foods during
childhood may identify important target groups for strategies to increase intake of such
foods during this period of growth and throughout the lifespan.
Pork represents a core food within many Australian cuisine contexts. Pork is a good source
of dietary protein and many essential vitamins and minerals, including thiamine, niacin,
pantothenic acid, pyridoxine (vitamin B6), cobalamin (vitamin B12), selenium, zinc and
phosphorous. It is also a source of riboflavin, biotin, and potassium (Food Standards
Australia and New Zealand, 2011). Secondary analyses of the National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey (NHANES) conducted in the United States found that fresh pork
accounted for 27 – 31% of the total protein, selenium and thiamine intake and 13 – 21% of
the total phosphorous, potassium, zinc, riboflavin, niacin, vitamin B6 and vitamin B12
intake (Murphy et al., 2011).
In comparison to other animal products such as beef or lamb, pork is richer in a number of
B vitamins, selenium, phosphorous and potassium, and has a comparable or lower fat
content than lamb (Food Standards Australia and New Zealand, 2011). The vitamins and
minerals present in pork play a range of important roles in growth and development,
including fatty acid, carbohydrate and protein metabolism, DNA synthesis and the
regulation of gene expression (National Health and Medical Research Council, 2006).
Pork consumption may also be associated with favourable effects on weight management.
There is some evidence that pork may be beneficial in the maintenance of healthy weight
through increased satiety and energy expenditure. Research in rat models showed that
intake of pork peptones significantly increased the release of cholecystokinin (CCK), a
hormone known to mediate appetite control (Wynne et al., 2005), and significantly
reduced food intake after treatment, compared to other protein sources (Sufian et al.,
2006). Similarly, consumption of a diet rich in pork protein for four days resulted in a
larger increase in the 24 hour energy expenditure of participants than diets rich in
carbohydrate or soy protein (Mikkelson et al, 2000). A Pork CRC-funded project in humans
found that a pork meal increased secretion of the gut hormone peptide YY (that increases
feelings of fullness) to a greater extent than either beef or chicken (Charlton et al., 2011).
Despite this emerging evidence, reports based on qualitative data from Belgium and
France suggest that pork may be perceived as more fatty (and thus potentially weight
inducing) than beef (Verbeke et al., 1999), veal and poultry (Ngapo et al., 2003).
Current estimates suggest that over 23% of Australian children are either overweight or
obese (Department of Health and Ageing, Australian Food and Grocery Council, &
Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry, 2008). Obesity in childhood is associated
with an increased risk of obesity and associated lifestyle diseases in adulthood, as well as
psychological and social issues during childhood (Daniels, 2006; Deckelbaum et al., 2001).
3
Given the important dietary contribution of pork to the nutrient requirements of children
and its inherent properties that may be advantageous in terms of metabolic health/weight
maintenance, it is extremely important to evaluate the positioning of this core food in the
diets of Australian children.
There is a lack of current research exploring the consumption of pork and its associated
health benefits in Australian children. Secondary analyses from Australian national surveys
of dietary intake conducted in 1985 and 1995 and regional surveys conducted in 1994 and
2003 reported that children’s consumption of pork ranged from an average of 7.4-
44.3g/day (Clayton et al., 2009). However, the rapidly changing nature of the food supply
and consumer preferences requires the analysis of more recent and nationally
representative dietary surveys to gain a clear understanding of current pork consumption
and related health outcomes in Australian children.
The 2007 Australian National Children’s Nutrition and Physical Activity survey is the most
recent nationwide survey on the dietary intakes and eating habits of Australian children. It
contains in-depth dietary intake information from a nationally representative sample of
4,487 children aged 2–16 years. To date, no analyses have been conducted to examine the
prevalence and health benefits of pork consumption using this survey. Such an approach
will be novel in that it provides key health and industry stakeholders with an important
platform to advocate increased intakes of this important core food in the diets of
Australian children.
The aim of this project was to explore the nutrition and health benefits of pork
consumption in the diets of Australian children aged 2-16 years based on data from the
2007 Australian National Children’s Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey.
Specific objectives were to:
 Describe the current intake of fresh pork and pork-containing products by children,
including a quantitative analysis of the types of pork products consumed and the
prevalence of pork consumption based on age and gender categories.
 Identify target groups for the promotion of fresh pork through an analysis of the
timing of meals containing pork, cuisine contexts in which pork is consumed and
demographic information relating to both high and low pork consumers.
 Compare the nutrient intake of pork consumers to non- pork consumers, using
current nutrient reference values (NRVs).
 Explore associations between pork intake and health outcomes such as body mass
index and waist circumference.
2. Methodology
This project involved a secondary analysis of the 2007 Australian National Children’s
Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey. This survey was conducted between February and
August 2007 and involved 4,487 children aged 2 – 16 years. Children were randomly
selected to participate in the survey from all Australian states and territories via random
digit dialling. Dietary data was collected via two standardised, computer-based; 24-hour
recalls which collected data on all dietary intakes over the 24 hours preceding the
assessment. For children aged 2 – 8 years, the 24-hour recall was completed by their
primary care-giver, whilst children aged 9 years and older completed the 24-hour recall
4
themselves. Dietary data was converted into nutrient intake using a specially developed
nutrient database, AUSNUT2007, which was developed by Food Standards Australia and
New Zealand (FSANZ) (2008). Information was also collected on the time and place of
consumption of food items (Department of Health and Ageing, Australian Food and Grocery
Council, & Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry, 2007).
Dietary data from this survey was used to explore the nutrition and health benefits
associated with pork consumption and to assist with the development of innovative
strategies to increase pork intake by Australian children.
Specific methods employed in the current study were as follows:
1. Comparison of nutrient content of fresh pork and other protein sources
The nutrients available in a range of cuts of fresh pork were identified, utilising analysed
data from an Australian reference food composition database, NUTTAB 2006 (Food
Standards Australia and New Zealand, 2006). This database was utilised as it formed the
basis for the original nutrient analysis of the 2007 National Children's Nutrition and
Physical Activity survey, and the development of the corresponding survey specific
database, AUSNUT2007. Thus using NUTTAB 2006 ensures that nutrient profiles used in this
study match previously published data, and are more indicative of the food supply
available at the time of the survey. A comprehensive comparison was conducted between
pork and other protein sources, including beef, chicken, lamb and fish, to identify the key
nutrients of interest for subsequent analyses.
Cuts of meat used for comparison were chosen based on common cuts reported in the
literature and those available in the NUTTAB 2006 database. The cuts of pork chosen for
comparison were: butterfly steak, fillets, leg steak, leg strips, loin chop, medallion steak
and mince (Muller et al., 2009). The cuts of the other protein sources used for comparison
are shown in Appendix 1.
Normality of data was checked using the Shapiro Wilks test. For parametric data, the
nutrient content of pork was compared to that of other protein sources via a one-way
analysis of variance (ANOVA), with Bonferroni post-hoc tests. Comparison of non-
parametric data was conducted using a Kruskal-Wallis test. Where significant differences
were identified, Mann-Whitney post-hoc tests with Bonferroni adjustment were conducted
to identify the source of the variation.
2. Classification of pork products in the 2007 Australian National Children’s

Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey
Pork and pork containing dishes were identified from the survey dataset using the FSANZ
food name (Food Standards Australia and New Zealand, 2008). Pork products were
classified as ‘fresh pork’ (including FSANZ five level code ‘Pork’), ‘processed pork’
(including FSANZ five level codes ‘Bacon’, ‘Ham’), and ‘ mixed dishes containing fresh or
processed pork’ (including FSANZ five level codes ‘Pork, Bacon, Ham Stew, Casserole, Stir
Fry With Gravy or Sauce Only’, ‘Pork, Bacon, Ham Stew, Casserole, Stir Fry With Cereal
Products’, ‘Pork, Bacon, Ham, Crumbed, Battered, Meatloaf Or Patty Type With Either
Cereal and/or Vegetable’). Where possible, mixed dishes containing pork were classified
as containing either fresh or processed pork, and additional products which might contain
5
pork (including FSANZ five level codes ‘Sausages’, ‘Frankfurts and Saveloys’, ‘Processed
Delicatessen Meat, Red’) were investigated to identify pork products.
For mixed dishes containing pork, or meat products which contained pork, the percentage
pork was calculated using the AUSNUT 2007 recipe file (Food Standards Australia and New
Zealand, 2007). As recipes were not available for a number of pork containing products
including spam and devon, these were assumed to be 100% pork. Products which contained
less than 5% pork were excluded from further analysis due to their minimal contribution to
pork intakes. This method has been utilised previously by Murphy et al., (2011) to avoid
incorrect measurement of pork intake.
Survey participants were then classified as pork consumers or non-consumers. Further

differentiations were made regarding consumption of fresh and processed pork, where
children consuming fresh and/or processed pork were identified. Due to some children
consuming both fresh and processed pork, it was not possible to define children as being
either a fresh or processed pork consumer.
3. Characteristics of pork consumers versus non-consumers
The proportion of children consuming pork of any kind was identified, as well as the
proportion of children consuming fresh and processed pork.
The mean + standard deviation, median and interquartile range of consumption of total
pork and categories of pork was then calculated. As all dietary data was taken from two
24 hour dietary recalls, pork consumption was calculated as grams per day.
The frequency and proportion of a range of demographic characteristics for pork

consumers and non-consumers were calculated including gender, age range, rurality,
Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander status of the primary carer, partner of the primary
carer, and study child, region of birth of the primary carer, partner of the primary carer,
and study child, highest level of education of the primary carer and their partner, and the
combined annual income before tax. Due to the unreliable nature of the data collected,
the employment status of primary carers or their partner was not used in this analysis,
with the combined annual income before tax used instead. Participants were excluded
from individual analyses if they had refused to answer or did not know the answer, and, in
the case of analyses involving the primary carer’s partner, did not have a partner.
Chi-squared analyses were conducted to assess whether significant differences in the

proportions of responses relating to demographic characteristics between pork consumers
and non-consumers were present. Where significant differences were identified, post-hoc
chi-squared analyses with Bonferroni adjustment were conducted to identify the source of
the variation.
The cuisine contexts of pork consumed was also assessed, with the location and timing of
pork consumption identified and the frequency and proportion of pork consumed in each
context calculated. Accompanying foods consumed with pork were classified as those
consumed at the same time as pork. Accompanying foods were then categorised based on
FSANZ major food group (Food Standards Australia and New Zealand, 2008), and the
frequency and proportion of accompanying food groups consumed with pork were
calculated.
6
In addition to this, the above analyses were also completed for consumers of fresh and
processed pork. As the purpose of this specific analysis was to investigate the demographic
characteristics and cuisine contexts of fresh and processed pork consumers, rather than all
survey participants as a whole, this analysis was restricted to only those individuals who
consumed some type of pork, and were subsequently categorised as fresh and/or
processed pork consumers and non-consumers.
4. Nutritional benefits associated with pork consumption
The mean + standard deviation, median and interquartile range of intake of a range of
nutrients, including those identified previously in the analysis, was calculated for pork
consumers and non-consumers. Nutrient intakes were adjusted for total energy using the
residuals method outlined by Willett et al., (1998). Energy adjusted nutrient intakes were
then compared between pork consumers and non-consumers using independent t-tests for
parametric variables. The Mann-Whitney U test was used for non-parametric variables.
The contribution of pork to intakes of key nutrients was then calculated as a proportion of
total nutrient intake. Nutrient intakes from pork were also compared to nutrient reference
values for key nutrients. Where available, nutrient intakes from pork were compared to
the Estimate Average Requirements (EAR), which is the most appropriate method of
assessing the adequacy of nutrient intakes in groups (National Health and Medical Council,
2006). Where an EAR did not exist, the Adequate Intake (AI) of the nutrient was used as a
reference value. For each survey participant, the appropriate EAR or AI was selected for
comparison based on their age and gender. Finally, the frequency and proportion of survey
participants meeting the EAR or AI for key nutrients was calculated. Chi-squared analyses
were conducted to assess whether significant differences in the proportions of individuals
meeting nutrient requirements existed between pork consumers and non-consumers.
The above statistical analyses were conducted on the sample as a whole, as well as
separately for males and females and for each age category. However, the proportion of
survey participants meeting the EAR or AI for key nutrients was not calculated for each
age range category due to the corresponding reduction in sample size, which substantially
reduced the statistical power of this analysis. As the EAR and AI are specific for each age
range category (National Health and Medical Research Council, 2006), and due to the
substantially reduced sample size when comparing age categories, particularly when
considering the low number of participants not meeting requirements, it was deemed
inappropriate to analyse this aspect separately for age category.
In addition to this, the analyses listed in (4) were also examined in the whole sample for
consumers of fresh and processed pork. As the purpose of this specific analysis was to
compare nutrient intakes of fresh and processed pork to those who did not consume pork,
the entire survey sample was used for comparison in this analysis.
5. Health benefits associated with pork consumption
One-way between-groups analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were conducted to determine

whether pork consumption was associated with several anthropometric measures,
including body weight, and waist circumference. The independent variable was pork
consumption status (was the child either a pork consumer or a non-pork consumer), and
7
the dependent variables consisted of the aforementioned anthropometric measures.
Survey participant’s age, gender, total kilojoule intake and physical activity level were
used as the covariates in this analysis.
Preliminary analyses of the data were conducted to ensure that there was no violation of
the assumptions of linearity, homogeneity of variances, homogeneity of regression slopes,
and reliable measurement of the covariate. As the only non-parametric data, body weight
was log transformed.
Given that physical activity levels in the survey were only assessed in children aged 9-16,
significantly reducing the sample size available for inclusion in the ANCOVA model, the
aforementioned analysis was also repeated excluding physical activity level as a covariate.
ANCOVA analyses using the previously defined covariates were then conducted to compare
the body weight and waist circumference measures of individuals that consumed
processed pork compared to the sample that were not consuming processed pork (inclusive
of those not consuming any pork). Because of the small number of fresh pork consumers it
was not considered statistically prudent to conduct the ANCOVA analyses given the large
variance between group sample sizes.
Given that body mass index (BMI) in children is categorized according to age group, the
use of BMI as a continuous variable in the ANCOVA models was considered to be
inappropriate. Instead, chi-squared analyses were utilised to determine whether the
proportion of individuals classified as ‘normal’, ‘overweight’, ‘obese’, ‘underweight’
and ‘very underweight’ was significantly different between pork consumers and non-
consumers.
All statistical analyses for this project were conducted using Statistical Package for Social
Sciences (SPSS) Version 17.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago II, USA). Data was considered significant
at the alpha <0.05 level.
3. Outcomes
Outcomes corresponding to each methodological component are outlined below.
1. Comparison of pork with other sources of meat protein
Following a comprehensive review of the most relevant food composition database,

NUTTAB 2006 (Food Standards Australia and New Zealand, 2006) the cuts of pork selected
were found to contain significantly more thiamin than beef (p<.001), lamb (p<.001) or
seafood (p<.001), significantly more pantothenic acid than beef (p=.01) and significantly
more riboflavin than seafood (p<.005). Pork also contained more potassium than beef,
chicken and lamb (p=.03, p=.02, p= .01 respectively), more niacin than seafood (p=.02),
more selenium than beef (p=.01) and less total fat and saturated fat than beef (p=.01,
p=.01 respectively) and lamb (p=.01, p=.01 respectively). However, differences observed
were no longer statistically significant following Bonferroni adjustment.
In contrast, pork contained significantly less total long chain omega-3 polyunsaturated
fatty acids than beef (p<.001), lamb (p<.001) and seafood (p<.005). Specifically, it
contained significantly less eicosapentaenoic acid than beef (p<.001) and lamb (p<.001)
and less docosapentaenoic acid than beef (p<.001), chicken (p<.001) or lamb (p<.001).
8
Pork also contained significantly less zinc than beef (p<.001) and less vitamin B12 than
beef (p<.005) and lamb (p<.001). Iron levels of pork were significantly lower than those of
beef (p<.001) and lamb (p<.001), whilst there was no significant difference between the
iron content of pork and seafood (p=.30). A comparison of the nutrient content of pork in
comparison to beef, chicken, lamb and seafood is shown in table 1.
9
Table 1: Comparison of mean nutrient content of pork in comparison to beef, chicken, lamb and seafood
Pork Beef Chicken Lamb Seafood P-value
Energy (kJ) 487.7 553.1 474.0 555.4 456.8 .03*
Protein (g) 23.0 22.9 19.5 21.7 20.5 .06*
Fat (g) 2.6 4.4 3.9 5.0 2.9 .01*
Saturated Fatty Acids (g) 0.96 1.6 1.2 1.8 0.83 .01*
Monounsaturated Fatty Acids (g) 1.1 1.7 1.9 2.0 0.98 .01*
Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids (g) 0.37 0.5 0.65 0.5 0.60 .02*
Long Chain Omega 3 Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids (mg) 15.7 105.7* 26.5 81.3* 412.8* <.005*
Eicosapentaenoic acid (mg) 0.0 38.1* 2.3 25.7* 253.5 <.005*
Docosapentaenoic acid (mg) 5.5 58.9* 13.3* 42.8* 125.0 <.005*
Docosahexaenoic acid (mg) 7.8 8.3 11.0 12.6 414.5 .01*
Cholesterol (mg) 68.6 56.5 75.3 67.4 103.7 .01^
Riboflavin (mg) 0.19 0.16 0.18 0.2 0.05* <.005*
Thiamin (mg) 0.81 0.04* 0.11 0.13* 0.05* <.005*
Pantothenic Acid (mg) 0.62 0.40* 1.0 0.78 0.35 <.005*
Vitamin B12 (ug) 0.33 1.1* N/A 1.1* 1.4 <.005*
Niacin Equivalents (mg) 10.3 8.7 12.0 10.8 7.3 .01*
Calcium (mg) 7.6 5.1 11.3 7.0 52.0 .01*
Iodine (ug) 0.95 0.3 0.0 N/A 22.6 <.005*
Selenium (ug) 19.3 10.2 21.3 13.6 38.2 <.005*
Phosphorus (mg) 232.5 216.4 217.5 241.6 262.5 .18*
Iron (mg) 0.96 1.9* 0.5 2.2* 0.65 <.005*
Manganese (mg) 0.0 0.0 0.02 0.01 0.02 <.005*
Magnesium (mg) 24.9 24.6 24.0 27.3 33.0 .01*
Potassium (mg) 399.3 356.2 267.5 330.9 321.2 <.005*
Sodium (mg) 57.6 54.6 60.0 62.1 152.8 .04*
Zinc (mg) 2.0 4.3^ 1.3 4.2 0.82 <.005^
Nutrient data taken from NUTTAB 2006
N/A = data not available
^One-way ANOVA with Bonferroni post-hoc tests
*Kruskal-Wallis with Mann-Whitney post-hoc tests with Bonferroni adjustment
10
2. Classification of pork products in the 2007 Australian National Children’s
Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey
Pork products and dishes containing pork were classified and categorised according to
FSANZ food name, into either fresh pork – including fresh pork, mixed dishes containing
fresh pork; or processed pork – including processed pork, mixed dishes containing
processed pork and contains/may contain processed pork (including delicatessen meats
which contained pork). A list of all pork products included in these classifications can be
found in Appendix 2.
Mixed dishes which contained less than 5% pork were excluded from further analysis, as
used in previous research examining pork consumption in populations (Murphy et al.,
2011). A list of foods excluded for this reason can be found in Appendix 3.
3. Characteristics of pork consumers versus non-consumers
Description of pork consumption
A total of 4487 were compliant with meeting the survey protocols. Of this number, 2245
children reported eating any type of pork during at least one of the two twenty four hour
dietary recall sessions (figure 1). As an additional analysis, the proportion of children
consuming either fresh or processed pork was calculated and can be seen in figures 2a and
2b respectively.
Consumer
50% 50%
(n=2242) (n=2245) Non-consumer
Figure 1. Proportion of pork consumers and non-consumers in the 2007 Australian

National Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey (n=4487).
11
7%
(n=310)
Consumer
Non-consumer
93%
(n=4177)
Figure 2a. Proportion of fresh pork consumers and non-consumers in the 2007 Australian
National Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey (n=4487).
46% Consumer
54% (n=2084)
(n=2403) Non-consumer
Figure 2b. Proportion of processed pork consumers and non-consumers in the 2007
Australian National Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey (n=4487).
Within the sample reporting consumption of pork (n=2245), 14% (n=310) of children
reported consuming fresh pork, whilst 93% (n=2084) reported consuming processed pork.
Please note- percentages do not add up to 100% as some children reported eating both
processed and fresh pork varieties.
Data was also further classified to determine mean intakes of all pork (including processed
and fresh), all fresh pork (including fresh pork contributed from mixed dishes), all
processed pork (including processed pork contributed from mixed dishes) and mixed dishes
12
containing either processed or fresh pork for both the total sample (n=4487) and the
sample reporting pork consumption (n=2245). Results for this analysis are displayed in
Table 2.
Table 2. Mean intakes of pork (grams/day) consumed by Australian children in the 2007
Australian National Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey by category of pork
Total sample (n=4487) Pork consumers (n=2245)
Pork Mean±SD* Median IQR** Mean±SD* Median IQR**

Category
All pork (g) 16.1±26.6 0.43 0.00 – 23.5 32.2±29.9 23.4 12.5 – 41.3
All fresh 3.2±15.7 0.00 0.00 – 0.00 6.4±21.8 0.00 0.00 – 0.00
pork (g)
All 12.9±21.0 0.00 0.00 – 20.0 25.8±23.5 20.0 10.0 – 35.0
processed
pork (g)
Mixed 0.33±5.3 0.00 0.00 – 0.00 0.7±7.5 0.00 0.00-0.00
dishes
containing
fresh pork
(g)
Mixed 1.1±4.7 0.00 0.00-0.00 2.1±6.4 0.00 0.00-0.00
dishes
containing
processed
pork (g)
*SD=standard deviation **Interquartile range
When pork consumption was analysed by gender, males were found to consume
significantly higher amounts of total pork and processed pork than females (p<0.005)
(Appendix 4). In the total sample of the survey, when data was analysed by age category,
children in the ‘4 – 8 years’ age group consumed significantly higher amounts of total pork
than all other categories (p<0.005) (Appendix 5a). In contrast, when intake was analysed
in pork consumers only, children in the ’14 – 16 years’ age group were found to consume
the highest amount of pork (p<0.005) (Appendix 5b).
A further additional quantitative analysis was conducted to determine which pork products
contributed the greatest amount to the total intake of pork reported for children in the
survey. The total amount of pork consumed by the study sample throughout the reporting
period was 73.1kg. This figure takes into account fresh pork, processed pork and pork
contributed from mixed dishes. Of all pork types, ham made up the greatest proportion of
the total amount of pork eaten, with 31.4kg reportedly consumed, contributing 42.9% of
all pork products eaten. The second greatest contributor to pork intake was bacon, with
11.9kg reportedly consumed, contributing 16.3% of all pork products eaten. Results from
this quantitative analysis are shown in figure 3.
13
Amount of pork eaten as (%) of all pork eaten 50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Type of pork eaten
Figure 3. Types of pork consumed by Australian children in the 2007 Australian National
Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey, displayed as a percentage of total pork eaten
*Excludes ham - includes salami, devon, brawn, cabanossi & mortadella, please note, accurate
recipes displaying true pork content of such meats not available, therefore over estimation of pork
intake in this category may be possible
**Includes pork crackling, picked pork, pork pie & pork varieties not further specified
Demographic characteristics of pork consumers and non-consumers
The demographic characteristics of pork consumers and non-consumers are shown in Table
3. There were no significant differences between consumers and non-consumers in terms
of gender, rurality, Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander background of the child, primary
carer or partner of the primary carer. There was also no significant difference observed
between the groups in terms of the highest level of education attained by the primary
carer or their partner. Demographic characteristics with significant differences between
pork consumers and non-consumers are shown below in Figures 4 – 7.
14
Table 3. Frequency (n) and proportion (%) of demographic characteristics of pork
consumers and non-consumers in the 2007 Australian National Nutrition and Physical
Activity Survey
Consumers (n = 2245) Non-consumers (n = Chi Squared

Characteristic 2242) analysis
n % n %
Sex of child:
- Male 1140 50.8 1109 49.5 2 =0.78,
- Female 1105 49.2 1133 50.5 p=0.38
Age group:
- 2-3 years 493 22.0 578 25.8 2=10.9,
- 4-8 years 642 28.6 574 25.6 p=0.01
- 9-13 years 555 24.7 555 24.8
- 14-16 years 555 24.7 535 23.9
Rurality:
- Capital and metro 1493 66.5 1521 67.8 2=1.32,
- Rural 720 32.1 695 31.0 p=0.52
- Remote 32 1.4 26 1.2
Is primary carer of
Aboriginal or Torres Strait
Islander background1:
- No 2209 98.5 2202 98.3 2=0.23,
- Yes 34 1.5 38 1.7 p=0.63
Is partner of primary
carer of Aboriginal or
Torres Strait Islander
background2:
- No 1926 98.4 1879 98.7 2=0.50,
- Yes 31 1.6 25 1.3 p=0.48
Is child of Aboriginal or
background3:
- No 2183 97.3 2166 96.6 2=1.5, p=0.22
- Yes 60 2.7 74 3.3
Primary carer’s highest
education level4:
- Year 12 or above 1439 64.2 1420 63.4 2=0.26,
- Year 11 or below 804 35.8 819 36.6 p=0.61
Partner of primary carer’s
highest education level5:
- Year 12 or above 1067 54.9 1070 56.6 2=1.1, p=0.29
- Year 11 or below 875 45.1 819 43.4
15
Primary carer’s region of
birth
- Australia 1768 78.8 1779 79.4 2=19.4,
- Oceania and 79 3.5 78 3.5 p=0.00
Antarctica
- Europe and UK 241 10.7 188 8.4
- Asia 90 4.0 89 4.0
- North America 18 0.80 23 1.0
- South America 11 0.49 10 0.5
- Africa and Middle East 38 1.7 75 3.4
region of birth6
- Australia 1507 76.9 1466 77.0 2=12.2,
- Oceania and 61 3.1 64 3.4 p=0.06
Antarctica
- Europe and UK 248 12.7 209 11.0
- Asia 62 3.2 73 3.8
Child’s region of birth
- Australia 2122 94.5 2076 92.6 2=17.6,
- Oceania and 13 0.58 29 1.3 p= 0.01
Antarctica
- Europe and UK 61 2.7 58 2.6
- Asia 26 1.2 35 1.6
- South America 0 0 4 0.18
Family’s annual income
before tax7
- $78,000 and above 1064 50.0 959 45.2 2=10.1,
- $31,200 - $77,999 825 38.8 903 42.5 p= 0.02
- $1 - $31,199 229 10.8 252 11.9
- Nil or negative income 10 0.5 9 0.42
1 Excluded n=4 (did not answer)

2 Excluded n=626 (did not answer or no partner)
4 Excluded n=5 (did not answer or did not know)
5 Excluded n=656 (did not know, did not answer or no partner)
6 Excluded n= 622 (no partner)
7 Excluded n=316 (did not know or did not answer)
The proportion of pork consumers and non-consumers in each age group is shown in Figure
4. There was a significantly lower proportion of children consuming pork in the 2 – 3 years
age group than in the 4 – 8 years age group (2 = 10.4, p<.001).
16
Consumers (n=2245)
35
Non-consumers (n=2242)
30 28.6
25.8 25.6
24.7 24.8 24.7
25 23.9
22
Percentage (%)
20
15
10
0
2-3 years 4-8 years 9-13 years 14-16 years
Age group
Figure 4. Percentage (%) of pork consumers and non-consumers in each age group in the
2007 Australian National Children’s Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey
The region of birth of the primary carer of the pork consumers and non-consumers is
shown in Figure 5. A significantly lower proportion of children who consumed pork had a
primary carer born in Africa or the Middle East, in comparison to Australia (2 =11.5,
2
p<.001), or Europe and the United Kingdom ( =18.2, p<.001).
17
90
79.4
78.8 Consumers (n=2245)
80
70
60
Percentage (%)
50
40
30
20
10.7
8.4
10 3.5 3.5 4.0 4.0
0.8 1.0 0.49 0.45 1.7 3.4
0
Australia Oceania and Europe and Asia North South Africa and
Antarctica UK America America Middle East
Primary carer's region of birth
Figure 5. Percentage (%) of pork consumers and non-consumers by primary carer’s region
of birth in the 2007 Australian National Children’s Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey
The child’s region of birth is shown in Figure 6. A lower proportion of children who
consumed pork were born in Africa or the Middle East, in comparison to Australia ( 2 =5.9
p=.02), or Europe and the United Kingdom (2 = 6.4, p=.01). However, following Bonferroni
correction adjustment, these relationships were no longer significant.
100 94.5
92.6
90 Consumers (n=2245)
80
70
Percentage (%)
60
50
40
30
20
10 2.7
0.58 1.3 2.6 1.2 1.6 0.36 0.4 0.0 0.18 0.67 1.4
0
Study child's region of birth
Figure 6. Percentage (%) of pork consumers and non-consumers by study child’s region of
birth in the 2007 Australian National Children’s Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey
18
The proportion of pork consumers and non-consumers in each bracket of their family’s
combined annual income before tax is shown in Figure 7. A significantly higher proportion
of children who consumed pork had a combined family income before tax of $78,000 and
above than non-consumers, compared to the $31,200 - $77,999 bracket (2 = 8.8, p<.001).
60 Consumer
50
50 45.2 Non-consumer
42.5
38.8
40
Percentage (%)
30
20
10.8 11.9
10
0.47 0.42
0
$78,000 and above $31,200 - $77,999 $1 - $31,199 Nil or negative income
Family of study child's combined annual income before tax
Figure 7. Percentage (%) of pork consumers and non-consumers by family of study child’s
combined annual income before tax in the 2007 Australian National Children’s Nutrition
and Physical Activity Survey
Demographic characteristics of fresh pork consumers and non-consumers
A quantitative analysis of the demographic characteristics of fresh pork consumers and

non-consumers can be found in Appendix 6. Overall, there were no significant differences
between consumers and non-consumers in gender, age group, rurality, Aboriginal or Torres
Strait Islander background of the child, primary carer or partner of the primary carer,
education level of the primary carer or their partner, or the family’s annual income before
tax. In contrast, a higher proportion of children who consumed fresh pork had a primary
2
carer born in Asia, in comparison to Australia (  =66.7, p<.001), Oceania and Antarctica
(2=12.8, p<0.01), or Europe and the UK (2=49.2, p<.001). The region of birth of the
primary carer of the pork consumers and non-consumers is shown in Figure 8.
19
90
80
71.9 Non-consumers (n=1935)
70
60
Percentage (%)
50
40
30
20
11.3 12.6
7.4
10 4.5 3.4 2.6 1.7
1.6 0.67 0.32 0.52 1.6
0
Australia Oceania and Europe and Asia North AmericaSouth America Africa and
Antarctica UK Middle East
Figure 8. Percentage (%) of fresh pork consumers and non-consumers by primary carer’s
region of birth in the 2007 Australian National Children’s Nutrition and Physical Activity
Survey
A higher proportion of children who consumed fresh pork had a primary carer born in Asia,
in comparison to Australia (2 =71.0, p<.001), Oceania and Antarctica (2 = 12.2, p<.001)
or Europe and the UK (2=51.7, p<.001), North America (2 =11.5, p<.001), South America
(2=8.5, p<.001), Africa and the Middle East (2=25.3, p<.001). The region of birth of the
partner of the primary carer of the pork consumers and non-consumers is shown in Figure
9.
20
90
Consumers (n=310)
77.8
80
71.4
70
60
Percentage (%)
50
40
30
20 13.1
11.6
10.2
10 4.7 2.9 2.9
1.8 1.1 0 0.53
0.73 1.5
0
Partner of primary carer's region of birth
Figure 9. Percentage (%) of fresh pork consumers and non-consumers by partner primary
carer’s region of birth in the 2007 Australian National Children’s Nutrition and Physical
Activity Survey
The study child’s region of birth is shown in Figure 10. There was a trend for a higher
proportion of children who consumed fresh pork to be born in Asia, in comparison to
Europe and the UK (2 =11.0, p<.005), however this was no longer significant after
Bonferroni correction.
21
100 94.5 94.5
Consumers (n=310)
90
80 Non-consumers (n=1935)
70
Percentage (%)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0.97 0.52 0.97 3 2.6 0.93 0 0.41 0 0 0.65 0.67
0
Study child's region of birth
Figure 10. Percentage (%) of fresh pork consumers and non-consumers by study child’s
region of birth in the 2007 Australian National Children’s Nutrition and Physical Activity
Survey
Demographic characteristics of processed pork consumers and non-consumers
A quantitative analysis of the demographic characteristics of processed pork consumers

and non-consumers can be found in Appendix 7. There were no significant differences
between processed pork consumers and non-consumers in terms of gender, age group,
rurality, Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander background of the child, primary carer or
partner of the primary carer, education level of the primary carer or their partner, region
of birth of the study child or the family’s annual income before tax.
The region of birth of primary carers and their partners are shown in Figures 11 and 12. A
lower proportion of children who consumed processed pork had a primary carer, or
primary carer’s partner born in Asia, compared to those with a primary carer or primary
carer’s partner born in Australia (2 =27.3, p<.001) and Europe and the United Kingdom (2
=21.8, p<.001).
22
90
80
70
60
Percentage (%)
50
40
30
20
11.0 11.8
10 6.2 6.8
3.3 3.4 1.2 0.62 1.9
0.77 0.48 1.7
0
Figure 11. Percentage (%) of processed pork consumers and non-consumers by primary
carer’s region of birth in the 2007 Australian National Children’s Nutrition and Physical
Activity Survey
90
Consumers (n=2084)
80 77.2
70
60
Percentage (%)
50
40
30
20
13.1 11.8
10 5.6 7.6
2.9 1.2 2.7 2.1
0 0.5 0
0
Partner of primary carer's region of birth
Figure 12. Percentage (%) of processed pork consumers and non-consumers by partner of
primary carer’s region of birth in the 2007 Australian National Children’s Nutrition and
Physical Activity Survey
23
Cuisine contexts of pork consumption – all pork
The most frequently reported location for pork consumption was at home (60.4% of all
pork consumed), followed by at an institution such as a school or pre-school (26.8% of all
pork consumed) (Figure 13). The most frequently reported time that pork was consumed
was between 12:00PM and 2:59PM (46.9% of all pork consumed), followed by 6:00PM –
8:59PM (23.2% of all pork consumed) (Figure 14). The items most frequently consumed
with pork were vegetable products and dishes, cereals and cereal products (including
bread and rice products), and non-alcoholic beverages (Figure 15).
70
60.4
60
50
Percentage (%)
40
30 26.8
20
10
4.7 3.8
2.5 1.1 0.71
0
Home Institution Lesiure Any other During Place of Other
activity residence transport purchase
Location of pork consumption
Figure 13. Reported location of pork consumption in the 2007 Australian National
Children’s Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey
24
50 46.9
45
40
35
Percentage (%)
30
25 23.2
20
13.7
15
9.2
10 6.2
5
0.06 0.77
0
Before 6:00AM – 9:00AM – 12:00PM – 3:00PM – 6:00PM – 9:00PM and
5:59AM 8:59AM 11:59AM 2:59PM 5:59PM 8:59PM after
Time of pork consumption
Figure 14. Timing of pork consumption in the 2007 Australian National Children’s Nutrition
and Physical Activity Survey
25
22.0
20 17.4
Percentage (%)
15 13.6 12.8
9.7
10
6.5
3.4 3.3 4.2
5 2.6 2.4 2.2
Accompanying foods consumed with pork

Figure 15. Accompanying foods consumed with pork in the 2007 Australian National
*note – cereal based products/dishes include biscuits, cakes, pastries whilst cereal/cereal products
refers to core grain products such as bread, rice and pasta
25
Cuisine contexts of pork consumption – fresh and processed pork
The most frequently reported location for consumption of both fresh and processed pork
was at home (84.1% of fresh pork, 57.8% of processed pork), followed by at an institution
(5.9% of fresh pork, 29.2% of processed pork) (Figure 16). Fresh pork was more frequently
reported to be consumed at home than processed pork, whereas processed pork was more
frequently reported to be consumed at an institution.
Fresh pork was most frequently consumed between the times of 6:00PM and 8:59PM (72.5%
of all fresh pork consumed), whereas processed pork was most frequently consumed
between 12:00PM and 2:59PM (50.9% of all processed pork consumed) (Figure 17).
Fresh pork were predominantly consumed with vegetables (Figure 18), whereas processed
pork was accompanied by a number of food types, including vegetable products and
dishes, cereal and cereals products, milk products and dishes and non-alcoholic beverages
(Figure 19).
90 84.1
Fresh pork
80
Processed pork
70
57.8
Percentage (%)
60
50
40
29.2
30
20
10 5.9 4.8 4.7 4.5 3.7
2.8 1.2 0.6 0.7
0 0
0
Home Institution Lesiure Any other During Place of Other
activity residence transport purchase
Location of pork consumption
Figure 16. Location of fresh and processed pork consumption in the 2007 Australian
National Children’s Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey
26
80
Fresh pork 72.5
70 Processed pork
60
50.9
Percentage (%)
50
40
30
20 17.7
14.7
10.8 11.6
6.9 8.9
10 4.2
0 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.8
0
Before 6:00AM – 9:00AM – 12:00PM – 3:00PM – 6:00PM – 9:00PM and
5:59AM 8:59AM 11:59AM 2:59PM 5:59PM 8:59PM after
Time of pork consumption
Figure 17. Timing of fresh and processed pork consumption in the 2007 Australian National
50 44.1
45
40
Percentage (%)
35
30
25
20
15 12.2
9.9 9.1
10 4.6 4.0 4.0 4.4
3.0 2.3 1.3 1.1
5
0
Accompanying foods consumed with fresh pork
Figure 18. Accompanying foods consumed with fresh pork in the 2007 Australian National
27
20 18.8 18.6
18
16 14.1 13.8
14
Percentage (%)
12 10.6
10
8 6.0
6
3.6 3.1 3.2
4 2.6 2.6 2.1
2 1.0
0
Accompanying foods consumed with processed pork
Figure 19. Accompanying foods consumed with processed pork in the 2007 Australian
National Children’s Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey
4. Nutritional benefits associated with pork consumption
A comparison of nutrient consumption between pork consumers and non-consumers, after

adjusting for total energy intake, is shown in table 4. Whilst individuals that reported
eating pork consumed significantly greater amounts of energy, total fat, saturated fat,
cholesterol and sodium, they also consumed significantly greater amounts of protein,
phosphorous and zinc, than non-consumers. Pork consumers also consumed significantly
lower amounts of carbohydrate, sugar, fibre, iron, monounsaturated fat and riboflavin
than non-consumers. Similar trends were found when data was categorized by gender and
age category. Full results of these analyses can be found in Appendix 8 and 9.
28
Table 4. Mean + standard deviation and median (interquartile range) nutrient intakes in pork consumers and non-consumers (adjusted for
energy intake
Consumer (n = 2245) Non-consumer (n=2242)
Mean + SD Median (IQR) Mean + SD Median (IQR) p-value
Energy (kJ) 8169.6 + 2611.9 7677.9 (6304.8 – 9523.7) 7850.2 + 2622.1 7380.9 (6062.1 – 9181.7) <.005*
Protein (g) 80.6 + 17.7 78.7 (69.5 – 89.3) 76.9 + 17.1 75.4 (66.4 – 85.9) <.005*
Total fat (g) 68.5 + 12.3 68.2 (60.7 – 75.7) 66.1 + 11.7 66.6 (59.1 – 73.2) <.005*
Sugar (g) 116.1 + 31.5 116.2 (96.4 – 135.2) 120.2 + 30.5 119.9 (101.3 – 138.6) <.005*
Carbohydrate (g) 236.9 + 31.9 237.6 (217.9 – 256.3) 246.1 + 29.8 245.6 (227.9 – 264.8) <.005*
Fibre (g) 19.8 + 5.9 19.2 (16.0 – 23.0) 20.5 + 6.5 19.8 (16.3 – 23.8) <.005*
Iron (mg) 10.8 + 3.9 10.4 (8.8 – 12.4) 11.4 + 5.5 10.7 (9.0 – 12.8) <.005*
Thiamin (mg) 2.1 + 2.7 1.7 (1.3 – 2.3) 2.2 + 5.1 1.7 (1.3 – 2.4) .74^
Saturated fat (g) 30.9 + 7.3 30.7 (26.2 – 35.4) 29.6 + 7.4 29.5 (25.1 – 34.0) <.005*
MUFA (g)▫ 23.9 + 5.6 23.5 (20.4 – 26.8) 22.9 + 5.1 22.6 (19.7 – 25.7) <.005*
PUFA (g)▫▫ 8.6 + 3.1 8.0 (6.6 – 10.0) 8.7 + 3.2 8.3 (6.7 – 10.2) .07*
LC n-3 PUFA (mg)▫▫▫ 141.9 + 221.6 84.5 (50.6 – 141.5) 139.3 + 207.9 83.7 (47.2 – 145.9) .58^
Cholesterol (mg) 233.8 + 101.2 213.1 (170.3 – 278.8) 207.6 + 94.7 192.2 (151.7 – 243.3) <.005*
Riboflavin (mg) 2.7 + 2.0 2.41 (1.8 – 3.1) 2.9 + 3.2 2.5 (1.9 – 3.3) <.005^
Niacin (mg) 43.3 + 14.0 41.6 (35.5 – 48.9) 43.7 + 27.5 41.5 (34.8 – 49.1) .36^
Phosphorous (mg) 1358.9 + 252.9 1350.5 (1203.4 – 1501.4) 1325.0 + 255.0 1314.8 (1166.3 – 1477.6) <.005*
Magnesium (mg) 275.5 + 61.9 268.2 (237.2 – 305.5) 279.3 + 64.1 271.1 (238.7 – 308.5) .05*
Zinc (mg) 10.4 + 3.3 9.9 (8.6 – 11.6) 10.1 + 3.7 9.7 (8.2 – 11.4) <.005^
Potassium (mg) 2636.6 + 613.8 2573.6 (2247.3 – 2980.0) 2670.7 + 604.7 2643.5 (2272.5 – 3027.5) .06*
Iodine (ug) 128.0+ 50.8 122.2 (93.7 – 154.4) 130.9 + 51.4 123.8 (94.4 – 160.0) .06*
Sodium (mg) 2552.7 + 714.9 2456.1 (2124.5 – 2885.7) 2239.9 + 672.9 2174.3 (1851.6 – 2546.4) <.005*
*Independent t-test
^Mann-Whitney U test
▫▫Monounsaturated fat ▫▫Polyunsaturated fat ▫▫▫Long chain omega 3 polyunsaturated fatty acids
29
A comparison of nutrient consumption between fresh pork consumers and non-consumers,
after adjusting for total energy intake, is shown in table 5. Fresh pork consumers had
significantly higher intakes of protein, zinc, LC n-3 PUFA and potassium, and significantly
lower intakes of saturated fat than non-consumers, with trends for lower intakes of
energy, total fat, carbohydrate and sugar. Fresh pork consumers also had significantly
higher intakes of cholesterol and lower intakes of thiamine and riboflavin.
30
Table 5. Mean + standard deviation and median (interquartile range) nutrient intakes in fresh pork consumers and non-consumers (adjusted
for energy intake)
Nutrients Consumer (n = 310) Non-consumer (n=4177)

Energy (kJ) 7867.7 + 2385.8 7518.6 (6184.5 – 9269.6) 8020.6 + 2638.2 7578.3 (6193.2 – 9390.4) .32*
Protein (g) 83.7 + 18.3 82.1 (70.7 – 93.9) 78.4 + 17.4 76.8 (67.9 – 87.4) <.005*
Total fat (g) 66.0 + 11.4 65.7 (59.4 – 73.0) 67.4 + 12.1 67.4 (60.0 – 74.6) .06*
Sugar (g) 116.6 + 31.9 116.6 (94.5 – 135.5) 118.3 + 31.0 118.2 (99.1 – 137.1) .36*
Carbohydrate (g) 239.2 + 31.8 240.7 (218.1 – 258.9) 241.7 + 31.2 241.8 (223.5 – 260.5) .17*
Fibre (g) 20.1 + 6.1 19.1 (16.1 – 23.2) 20.2 + 6.2 19.50 (16.15 – 23.40) .82*
Iron (mg) 10.91+ 3.1 10.6 (9.1 – 12.4) 11.2 + 4.8 10.6 (8.90 – 12.6) .08^
Thiamin (mg) 2.0 + 0.9 1.9 (1.5 – 2.4) 2.2 + 4.2 1.7 (1.3 – 2.3) <.005^
Saturated fat (g) 28.9 + 6.5 28.8 (25.2 – 33.0) 30.4 + 7.4 30.3 (25.7 – 34.9) <.005*
MUFA (g)▫ 23.6 + 5.7 23.1 (19.7 – 26.7) 23.4 + 5.4 23.1 (20.0 – 26.2) .50*
PUFA (g)▫▫ 8.7 + 2.9 8.2 (7.0 – 10.2) 8.7 + 3.2 8.2 (6.6 – 10.1) .85*
LC n-3 PUFA (mg)▫▫▫ 145.4 + 220.1 91.8 (59.0 – 144.2) 140.2 + 214.5 83.7 (48.4 – 142.7) .04^
Cholesterol (mg) 243.1 + 101.2 217.2 (175.9 – 297.4) 219.1 + 98.5 200.8 (157.9 – 260.3) <.005*
Riboflavin (mg) 2.4 + 1.0 2.3 (1.8 – 3.00) 2.8 + 2.7 2.5 (1.8 – 3.2) .01^
Niacin (mg) 43.7 + 10.6 42.7 (36.7 – 49.4) 43.5 + 22.4 41.5 (35.0– 41.5) .08^
Phosphorous (mg) 1357.9 + 234.3 1361.6 (1212.9 – 1480.2) 1340.8 + 255.9 1331.2 (1179.5 – 1491.1) .25*
Magnesium (mg) 278.3 + 57.3 272.5 (242.9 – 306.6) 277.4 + 63.5 269.7 (237.6 – 307.3) .79*
Zinc (mg) 10.6 + 3.4 10.1 (8.9 – 11.6) 10.3 + 3.5 9.8 (8.4 – 11.5) .03^
Potassium (mg) 2764.4 + 656.6 2687.7 (2329.4 – 3103.3) 2645.4 + 605.1 2607.0 (2253.9 – 2999.0) <.005*
Iodine (ug) 125.4 + 47.8 122.6 (90.3 – 152.7) 129.8 + 51.4 123.1 (94.2 – 157.6) .15*
Sodium (mg) 2372.3 + 689.4 2309.4 (1966.3– 2698.3) 2398.2 + 713.2 2311.0 (1977.6 – 2723.0) .54*
*Independent t-test
31
A comparison of nutrient consumption between processed pork consumers and non-
consumers, after adjusting for total energy intake, is shown in table 6. Whilst individuals
that reported eating processed pork consumed significantly greater amounts of energy,
total fat, saturated fat, monounsaturated fat, cholesterol and sodium, they also consumed
significantly greater amounts of protein, phosphorous and zinc, than non-consumers.
Individuals that reported eating processed pork also consumed significantly lower amounts
of carbohydrate, sugar, fibre, iron, riboflavin, magnesium and potassium than non-
consumers.
32
Table 6. Mean + standard deviation and median (interquartile range) nutrient intakes in processed pork consumers and non-consumers
(adjusted for energy intake)
Nutrients Consumer (n = 2084) Non-consumer (n= 2403)
Energy (kJ) 8190.4 + 2642.0 7717.8 (6307.5 – 9546.6) 7853.6 + 2610.0 7390.7 (6068.7 – 9182.7) <.005*
Protein (g) 80.6 + 17.5 78.8 (69.7 – 89.2) 77.2 + 17.3 75.5 (66.5 – 86.3) <.005*
Total fat (g) 68.8 + 12.3 68.6 (61.0 – 76.2) 66.0 + 11.7 66.3 (59.0 – 73.0) <.005*
Sugar (g) 115.8 + 31.6 115.8 (96.2 – 134.9) 120.3 + 30.5 120.0 (101.3 – 138.8) <.005*
Carbohydrate (g) 236.2+ 31.9 237.2(217.5 – 255.5) 246.1 + 29.9 245.9 (227.7 – 264.7) <.005*
Fibre (g) 19.8 + 5.9 19.1 (16.0 – 23.0) 20.5 + 6.5 19.8 (16.3 – 23.8) <.005*
Iron (mg) 10.8 + 3.9 10.4 (8.8 – 12.4) 11.4 + 5.3 10.8 (9.1 – 12.8) <.005^
Thiamin (mg) 2.1 + 2.8 1.74 (1.33 – 2.30) 2.2 + 4.9 1.7 (1.3 – 2.4) .85^
Saturated fat (g) 31.2 + 7.3 31.0 (26.5 – 35.7) 29.5 + 7.3 29.4 (25.0 – 33.8) <.005*
MUFA (g)▫ 24.0 + 5.6 23.5 (20.5 – 26.8) 22.9 + 5.2 22.6 (19.7 – 25.8) <.005*
PUFA (g)▫▫ 8.6 + 3.2 8.0 (6.6 – 10.0) 8.8 + 3.2 8.2 (6.7 – 10.3) .05*
LC n-3 PUFA (mg)▫▫▫ 142.5 + 222.3 84.4 (50.3 – 141.1) 138.9 + 208.2 84.0 (50.3 – 141.1) .76^
Cholesterol (mg) 234.3 + 101.5 213.4 (171.2 – 279.2) 208.9 + 95.0 193.4 (151.9 – 245.7) <.005*
Riboflavin (mg) 2.7 + 2.1 2.4 (1.8 – 3.2) 2.8 + 3.1 2.5(1.9 – 3.3) .01^
Niacin (mg) 43.4 + 14.2 41.7 (35.4 – 48.9) 43.7 + 26.7 41.5 (34.9 – 49.1) .34^
Phosphorous (mg) 1361.0 + 253.4 1350.3 (1206.9 – 1504.8) 1325.4 + 254.3 1315.9 (1166.7 – 1474.6) <.005*
Magnesium (mg) 275.2 + 62.1 267.8 (236.4 – 305.4) 279.3 + 63.9 271.2 (239.1 – 308.5) .03*
Zinc (mg) 10.4 + 3.4 10.0 (8.6 – 11.6) 10.1 + 3.7 9.7 (8.2 – 11.4) <.005^
Potassium (mg) 2625.0 + 608.6 2567.2 (2238.7 – 2965.9) 2678.4 + 609.2 2646.1 (2274.0 – 3036.8) <.005*
Iodine (ug) 128.3 + 51.1 122.1 (93.7 – 154.5) 130.4 + 51.2 123.8 (94.2 – 159.3) .17*
Sodium (mg) 2578.0 + 713.2 2483.2 (2143.9 – 2900.6) 2239.0 + 671.7 2174.4 (1848.2 – 2546.4) <.005*
*Independent t-test
33
Total, fresh and processed pork contributed substantially to the intakes of a number of
nutrients in consumers (Table 7). For total pork consumers, pork contributed to intakes of
protein (median: 7.2% of total protein), thiamin (6.2%), zinc (6.0%) and niacin (5.8%). In
fresh pork consumers, fresh pork contributed substantially to intakes of thiamin (15.0%),
protein (13.0%), LC n-3 PUFA (12.4%), niacin (10.0%), zinc (9.3%), phosphorous (6.7%) and
potassium (5.6%). For processed pork consumers, processed pork contributed to intakes of
protein (6.3%), zinc (5.4%) and niacin (5.2%). Pork also contributed to sodium intakes in
total pork consumers (12.2%) and processed pork consumers (13.0%) and cholesterol in
total pork consumers (7.4%), fresh pork consumers (13.1%) and processed pork consumers
(6.5%).
When the total pork analysis was conducted separately for gender and age categories,
similar results were found. Specifically, the contribution of pork to intakes of key
nutrients was higher for males than females, with the exception of saturated fat, long
chain omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids, cholesterol and zinc (Appendix 10). In regards
to age categories, the contribution of pork to intakes of a number of key nutrients was
highest for the ‘4 – 8 years’ age group, with the exception of calcium, thiamin, riboflavin,
niacin, phosphorous, magnesium and potassium, which were highest in the ’14 – 16 years’
age category (Appendix 11).
34
Table 7. Mean + standard deviation and median (interquartile range) percentage contribution (%) of total, fresh and processed pork to total
nutrient intake of consumers
(% contribution) (% contribution) (% contribution)

Nutrients Pork consumers (n = 2245) Fresh pork consumers (n = 310) Processed pork consumers (n = 2084)
Mean + SD Median (IQR) Mean+SD Median (IQR) Mean + SD Median (IQR)
Energy 3.6 + 3.3 2.5 (1.4 – 4.6) 4.2 + 3.4 3.3 (2.0 – 5.2) 3.2 + 2.9 2.3 (1.3 – 4.2)
Protein 9.5 + 8.1 7.2 (3.9 – 12.7) 14.7 + 10.1 13.0 (7.8 – 19.0) 8.1 + 6.2 6.3 (3.6 – 10.9)
Total fat 5.8 + 6.1 3.8 (1.8 – 7.6) 5.0 + 5.0 3.5 (1.7 – 6.7) 5.5 + 5.8 3.5 (1.7 – 7.2)
Sugar 0.1 + 0.3 0.0 (0.0 – 0.1) 0.0 + 0.0 0.0 (0.0 -0.0) 0.1 + 0.3 0.0 (0.0 – 0.1)
Carbohydrate 0.2 + 0.5 0.0 (0.0 -0.1) 0.0 + 0.0 0.0 (0.0 – 0.0) 0.2 + 0.6 0.0 (0.0 – 0.1)
Fibre 0.3 + 1.1 0.0 (0.0 – 0.0) 0.0 + 0.0 0.0 (0.0 – 0.0) 0.4 + 1.2 0.0 (0.0 – 0.0)
Calcium 0.6 + 1.1 0.3 (0.2 – 0.7) 0.8 + 1.0 0.5 (0.2 – 1.0) 0.5 + 1.0 0.3 (0.2 – 0.6)
Iron 3.8 + 3.9 2.6 (1.3 – 5.0) 3.8 + 3.5 2.7 (1.5 – 4.9) 3.6 + 3.7 2.4 (1.2 – 4.6)
Thiamin 9.3 + 10.1 6.2 (2.8 – 12.2) 18.4 + 14.7 15.0 (8.8 – 24.0) 7.3 + 6.9 5.3 (2.5 – 9.9)
Saturated fat 4.9 + 5.7 3.1 (1.4 – 6.4) 4.4 + 4.4 3.1 (1.5 – 6.1) 4.7 + 5.6 2.8 (1.3 – 6.0)
MUFA▫ 7.8 + 7.8 5.1 (2.5 – 10.5) 6.1 + 6.0 4.1 (2.0 – 7.9) 7.5 + 7.6 4.8 (2.3 –10.0)
PUFA ▫▫ 4.2 + 4.6 2.6 (1.3 – 5.5) 5.2 + 5.4 3.7 (1.8 – 7.2) 3.7 + 4.0 2.3 (1.2 – 4.8)
LC n-3 PUFA ▫▫▫ 5.5 + 13.0 1.3 (0.1 – 5.0) 19.6 + 25.0 12.4 (5.3 – 26.4) 3.0 + 7.0 0.8 (0.0 – 2.9)
Cholesterol 10.4 + 10.0 7.4 (3.9 – 13.4) 16.9 + 13.8 13.1 (7.6 – 22.1) 8.7 + 7.8 6.5 (3.7 – 11.1)
Riboflavin 4.0 + 4.5 2.5 (1.2 – 5.1) 5.2 + 5.1 3.5 (1.9 – 6.7) 3.5 + 3.9 2.2 (1.1 – 4.6)
Niacin 8.0 + 7.1 5.8 (3.2 – 10.5) 12.1 + 8.9 10.0 (6.1 – 15.8) 6.8 + 5.5 5.2 (3.0 – 9.0)
Phosphorous 6.6 + 5.4 5.0 (2.9 – 8.7) 8.2 + 6.5 6.7 (3.9 – 10.2) 5.8 + 4.5 4.6 (2.7 – 7.6)
Magnesium 3.1 + 2.9 2.3 (1.2 – 4.2) 4.4 + 3.9 3.5 (2.0 – 5.6) 2.7 + 2.4 2.0 (1.1 – 3.6)
Zinc 8.1 + 7.1 6.0 (3.3 – 10.7) 11.6 + 8.7 9.3 (5.6 – 14.7) 7.0 + 5.8 5.4 (3.1 – 9.4)
Potassium 4.1 + 4.1 2.9 (1.6 – 5.2) 7.0 + 6.1 5.6 (3.9 – 8.7) 3.4 + 2.9 2.5 (1.4 – 4.4)
Iodine 1.5 + 2.0 0.9 (0.3 – 2.0) 0.5 + 0.5 0.3 (0.2 – 0.6) 1.5 + 2.0 1.0 (0.3 – 2.0)
Sodium 14.4 + 10.2 12.2 (6.9 – 19.8) 1.8 + 3.0 1.1 (0.6 – 1.7) 15.2 + 9.9 13.0 (7.7 – 20.4)
▫Monounsaturated fat ▫▫Polyunsaturated fat ▫▫▫Long chain omega 3 polyunsaturated fatty acids
35
Total, fresh and processed pork contributed substantially to the intakes of a number of
nutrients in consumers, in comparison to the Estimated Average Requirement (EAR) or
Adequate Intake (AI) (Table 5). For total pork consumers, pork contributed substantially to
intakes of niacin in comparison to the EAR (median: 31.9% of EAR), protein (24.8%),
thiamin (17.2%), zinc (13.7%) and phosphorous (10.1%). In fresh pork consumers, fresh pork
contributed substantially to intakes of niacin (52.6% of EAR), protein (44.7%), thiamin
(41.3%), zinc (21.0%), LC n-3 PUFA (14.4%), phosphorous (13.0%) and riboflavin (12.2%).
For processed pork consumers, processed pork contributed to intakes of niacin (28.7%),
protein (22.5%) and thiamin (15.2%).
When the total pork analysis was conducted separately for gender and age categories,
similar results were found. Specifically, the contribution of pork to the EAR or AI was
higher for all nutrients for males than for females (Appendix 12). In regards to age
categories, the contribution of pork to the EAR or AI was highest for the ‘4 – 8 years’ age
group, with the exception of long chain omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids, magnesium
and potassium, which were highest for the ‘2-3 years’ age group (Appendix 13).
36
Table 8. Mean + standard deviation and median (interquartile range) percentage contribution of total, fresh and processed pork to
Estimated Average Requirements (EAR) or Adequate Intakes (AI) of consumers
Nutrients (% contribution) (% contribution) (% contribution)

Consumer (n = 2245) Fresh pork consumers (n = 310) Processed pork consumers (n = 2084)
Mean + SD Median (IQR) Mean + SD Median (IQR) Mean + SD Median (IQR)
Protein 36.1 + 36.3 24.8 (13.1 – 45.8) 54.9 + 48.9 44.7 (25.2 – 68.8) 30.8 + 28.1 22.5 (12.3 – 39.4)
Fibre 0.3 + 1.0 0.0 (0.0 – 0.0) 0.0 + 0.0 0.0 (0.0 – 0.0) 0.3 + 1.0 0.0 (0.0 – 0.0)
Calcium 0.7 + 0.8 0.4 (0.2 – 0.9) 0.8 + 0.8 0.56 (0.3 – 1.0) 0.6 + 0.7 0.4 (0.2 – 0.8)
Iron 7.5 + 7.8 4.9 (2.6 – 9.7) 7.1 + 7.0 4.7 (2.8 – 8.9) 7.0 + 7.3 4.5 (2.5– 8.8)
Thiamin 26.2 + 30.6 17.2 (8.4 – 32.3) 54.2 + 50.6 41.3 (22.4 – 67.3) 20.1 + 18.9 15.2 (7.4 – 26.5)
LC n-3 PUFA▫▫▫ 5.4 + 11.5 1.6 (0.2 – 5.1) 21.2 + 20.8 14.4 (8.2 – 26.5) 2.7 + 4.9 1.2 (0.0 – 3.1)
Riboflavin 13.4 + 13.2 9.4 (4.3 – 18.0) 15.9 + 14.6 12.2 (7.2 – 19.8) 12.1 + 11.7 8.5 (4.0 – 15.9)
Niacin 44.7 + 42.5 31.9 (16.9 – 58.4) 66.5 + 55.6 52.6 (31.6 – 81.5) 38.3 + 33.3 28.7 (16.0 – 49.7)
Phosphorous 14.3 + 13.6 10.1 (5.4 – 18.6) 16.1 + 14.9 13.0 (7.4 – 20.5) 13.0 + 12.0 9.0 (5.1 – 16.6)
Magnesium 6.0 + 6.2 4.0 (2.0 – 7.6) 7.7 + 7.6 5.8 (3.4 – 10.2) 5.3 + 5.3 3.6 (1.8 – 6.8)
Zinc 19.8 + 19.5 13.7 (7.6 – 25.2) 27.1 + 24.5 21.0 (12.1 – 34.5) 7.0 + 5.8 5.4 (3.1 – 9.4)
Potassium 4.1 + 4.0 2.9 (1.6 – 5.2) 7.2 + 6.1 5.5 (3.3 – 9.1) 3.3 + 2.7 2.6 (1.5 – 4.4)
Iodine 2.2 + 2.2 1.5 (0.5 – 3.0) 0.6 + 0.6 0.5 (0.3 – 0.8) 2.2 + 2.2 1.6 (0.6 – 3.1)
▫▫▫Long chain omega 3 polyunsaturated fatty acids
37
The proportion of pork consumers and non-consumers meeting the EAR or AI for key
nutrients is shown in Figure 20. Whilst a large proportion of children met the requirements
for a number of nutrients, a significantly higher proportion of pork consumers met the
requirements for protein (2=9.93, p<.005), calcium (2=5.77, p=.02), iron (2=4.05,
p=.04), thiamin (2=11.43,p<.005), riboflavin (2=4.39, p=.04), phosphorous (2=18.50,
p<.005), zinc (2=9.32, p<.005) and iodine (2=10.00, p<.005).
When data was analysed separately by gender, similar results were found. Specifically, for
both genders a higher proportion of pork consumers met requirements for protein (males:
2=7.22, p=.01, females: 2=4.08, p=.04 ), calcium (males: 2=.85, p=.36, females:
2=5.17, p=.02), iron (males: 2=1.66, p=.20, females: 2=2.14, p=.14), thiamin (males:
2=8.73, p<.005, females: 2=4.15, p=.04), riboflavin (males: 2=5.32, p=.02, females:
2=.58, p=.44), phosphorous (males: 2=3.88, p=.05, females: 2=14.03, p<.005), zinc
(males: 2=3.23, p=.07, females: 2=8.03, p<.005) and iodine (males: 2=4.24, p=.04,
females: 2=5.23, p=.02).
Pork consumers (n=2245)

100
Percentage meeting EAR or AI (%)
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Nutrient
Figure 20. Percentage pork consumers and non-consumers meeting Estimated Average
Requirements (EAR) or Adequate Intakes (AI) for key nutrients
The proportion of fresh pork consumers and non-consumers meeting the EAR or AI for key
nutrients is shown in Figure 21. Whilst there was a tendency for more fresh pork
consumers to meet the requirements for a number of nutrients, including thiamin, niacin,
LC n-3 PUFA, zinc and potassium, it was not statistically significant. There was a
significantly lower proportion of fresh pork consumers meeting the requirements for fibre
(2=6.7, p=.01) and calcium (2=5.5, p=.02). However the relevance of this is
questionable, as pork is not significant source of either of these nutrients (Food Standards
Australia and New Zealand, 2006).
38
Fresh pork consumers (n=310)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Nutrient
Figure 21. Percentage fresh pork consumers and non-consumers meeting Estimated
Average Requirements (EAR) or Adequate Intakes (AI) for key nutrients
The proportion of processed pork consumers and non-consumers meeting the EAR or AI for
key nutrients is shown in Figure 22. A significantly higher proportion of processed pork
consumers met the requirements for protein (2=7.8, p=.01), calcium (2=13.4, p<.005),
iron (2=4.2, p=.04), thiamin (2=13.2, p<.005), riboflavin (2=5.2, p=.02), phosphorous
(2=20.2, p<.005), zinc (2=8.5, p<.005) and iodine (2=15.5, p<.005).
39
Processed pork consumers (n=2084)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Nutrient
Figure 22. Percentage processed pork consumers and non-consumers meeting Estimated
Average Requirements (EAR) or Adequate Intakes (AI) for key nutrients.
40
5. Exploration of potential health benefits associated with pork consumption
After adjusting for age, gender, total kilojoule intake and physical activity level, there
were no significant differences between pork consumers and non–consumers for body
weight ((F (1, 2191) =.30 p=.58, eta squared =.00) and waist circumference ((F1, 2191) =
.10 p=.75, eta squared = .00).
As previously mentioned, physical activity levels in the survey were only assessed in
children aged 9-16, significantly reducing the sample size available for inclusion in the
ANCOVA model. Thus the analysis was repeated excluding physical activity level as a
covariate. This model, now adjusting for age, gender and total kilojoule intake also found
were no significant differences between pork consumers and non –consumers for body
weight ((F1,4482)=.30, p=.58, eta squared =.58) and waist circumference ((F1, 4482) =.01
p=.93, eta squared=.00).
When data was further then analysed to compare individuals that consumed processed
pork compared to the sample that were not consuming processed pork, there were no
significant differences between processed pork consumers and non-consumers for body
weight and waist circumference when adjusting for age, gender, total kilojoule intake and
physical activity level ((F1, 2191) =1.47, p=.23, eta squared= .00) and ((F1, 2191) = .74,
p=.39, eta squared =.00) respectively). When this analysis was repeated removing physical
activity level from the model, once again no significant differences were observed for
either body weight or waist circumference ((F1,4482) =.74, p=.39, eta squared .00) and
(F1,4482)=.04, p=.85, eta squared=.00) respectively.
Anthropometric characteristics between pork consumers and non-consumers are listed in

table 9.
Table 9. Anthropometric characteristics of children participating in the 2007 Australian

National Children’s Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey according to pork consumption
(n=4487)
Pork consumption Body Body weight Waist Waist
type weight (kg) (kg) circumference circumference
(cm) (cm)
(Mean±SD) [Median(IQR)]
(Mean±SD) [Median (IQR)]
Pork consumer 37.1±20.8 30.9(18.7- 62.6±12.5 60.0(52.7-70.8)
53.0)
Non-consumer 36.2±20.6 30.0(17.7- 62.2±12.5 59.1(52.2-70.6)
52.5)
Fresh pork 38.9±22.3 32.8(20.4- 63.5±13.6 60.5(53.5-71.0)
consumer 56.5)
Fresh pork non- 36.5±20.6 30.4(18.1- 62.3±12.5 59.4(52.4-70.7)

consumer 52.8)
Processed pork 36.9±20.8 30.8(18.5- 62.5±12.5 59.8(52.6-70.8)
consumer 52.9)
Processed pork 36.4±20.6 30.3(17.8- 62.3±12.5 59.2(52.3-70.6)
non-consumer 52.8)
41
There were no differences in the proportion of individuals in the BMI categories ‘normal’,
‘overweight’, ‘obese’, ‘underweight’ and ‘very underweight’ between pork
consumers and non-consumers (2=.44, p=.98). Similarly, there were no significant
differences in the proportion of individuals in the aforementioned BMI categories
between either fresh pork or processed pork consumers and non-consumers
(2=3.5, p=.48 and 2=.44, p=.98).
4. Application of Research
Opportunities uncovered by the research
This research has identified a wide variety of information that will be directly beneficial
to the pork industry. In particular, the comprehensive analysis of demographic
information, cuisine context of pork intake and the contribution of pork to key nutrients in
the diet of Australian children will assist the industry in creating more targeted marketing
approaches to increase intake of pork in this important market sector.
Opportunities identified were as follows:
 There is significant scope to increase fresh pork intake in children, particularly
individuals from non-Asian backgrounds.
 There is also scope to increase marketing efforts to promote all pork products to
carers for children aged 2-3 years.
 Identified cuisine contexts suggest that most pork is consumed at lunch time either
at home or at an institution (school or pre-school). Thus strategies to promote pork
as either a convenient lunch food or alternatively as a component of dinner meals
may increase intake of this core food.
 Scope to market pork as a key contributor to essential nutrients that assists
Australian children to meet requirements
 Potential dispelling of myths surrounding pork as a ‘weight inducing’ food, through
provision of evidence whereby no adverse association was found between pork
intake, weight, waist circumference and level of obesity (by BMI category).
Impact of the research

It is anticipated that this research will contribute substantially to inform the evidence
base surrounding the important contribution of pork to key nutrient requirements in the
diets of Australian children. Such evidence in conjunction with the analysis of
demographic, cuisine context and consumption information of pork consumers and non-
consumers will ensure that this information can be disseminated strategically, so that
marketing efforts can be targeted for the greatest impact to the industry.
5. Conclusion
Following a comprehensive quantitative analysis of pork consumption in the diets of
Australian children, several key findings were made:
1. Approximately half of Australian children reported consuming any type of pork
during the survey period. Of children consuming pork, the vast majority reported
consuming processed pork rather than fresh pork, with ham making up the greatest
42
proportion of total pork consumed, followed by bacon and processed meats
containing pork.
2. A significantly lower proportion of children who consumed pork had a primary
carer born in Africa or the Middle East in comparison to Australia, Europe and the
United Kingdom. When analysed according to type of pork consumed, a higher
proportion of children who consumed fresh pork had a primary carer born in Asia,
compared to Australia, Europe and the United Kingdom, whilst a higher proportion
of children who consumed processed pork had a primary carer born in Australia,
Europe and the United Kingdom in comparison to Asia.
3. Analysis of the cuisine context of pork consumption revealed that pork was most
frequently consumed at home between 12:00pm-2:59pm, with vegetable
products/dishes and cereals (including bread and rice products) the most
frequently reported accompaniments.
4. Pork consumers had significantly greater intakes of energy, total fat, saturated fat,
cholesterol and sodium in comparison to non-consumers after adjusting for total
energy intake. However, despite this there were no significant differences between
pork consumers and non-consumers in terms of body weight and waist
circumference (after controlling for age, gender, total kilojoule intake and physical
activity level) or body mass index.
5. Pork intake favourably influenced the nutrient intake of consumers, with
individuals reporting pork intake consuming a significantly greater amount of
protein, phosphorous and zinc than non-consumers. Similarly, a significantly higher
proportion of pork consumers met their individual nutrient requirements (based on
age and gender) for protein, calcium, iron, thiamine, riboflavin, phosphorous, zinc
and iodine in comparison to non-consumers.
Results from this analysis suggest that pork is a widely consumed food that appears to be
favourably contributing to the intake of many important nutrients by Australian children.
Despite pork consumers having a greater intake of energy and fat than non-consumers, no
differences in anthropometric measurements and level of obesity were observed.
Results from this analysis suggest that pork is an important core food playing a key role in
the delivery of essential nutrients in the diets of Australian children.
6. Limitations/Risks
Several limitations should be considered when evaluating this research:
 As this was a secondary analysis of a national nutrition survey, some of the
inherent limitations of the larger survey may influence the reliability of results
presented in the current report. Such limitations include the use of a 24 hour
dietary recall to collect dietary data which may be prone to memory recall bias
and may not reflect habitual dietary intakes. In addition, physical activity levels
(used as a covariate in the report) were only collected for children aged 9-16,
potentially influencing anthropometric associations explored.
 The total intake of pork included the food category ‘processed meats including
pork’. It was not possible to determine the percentage of pork contained within
this product category due to a lack of reliable recipes from Food Standards
Australia and New Zealand. Thus it is possible that actual pork consumption in this
category may have been over estimated.
43
 Finally, whilst statistically significant differences in key nutrient intakes were
identified between pork consumers and non-consumers, the clinical relevance of
this difference should be considered in addition to the statistical finding.
7. Recommendations
As a result of the outcomes in this study the following recommendations have been made:
 Pork may be promoted as an important core food that contributes key nutrients to
the diet of Australian children with no associations with adverse anthropometric
outcomes observed
 Further research is required to explore consumer perceptions of pork, to further
explain observed intake patterns and drivers of pork consumption behaviours in this
important demographic
 Research employing a similar comprehensive quantitative analysis of pork
consumption and health benefits in a representative sample of Australian adults
will complement the current research to provide a more complete understanding of
pork intake across the life span.
8. References
Charlton KE, Tapsell LC, Batterham MJ, Thorne R, O'Shea J, Zhang Q & Beck EJ (2011)
‘Pork, beef and chicken have similar effects on acute satiety and hormonal markers of
appetite’, Appetite, 56(1), 1-8.
Clayton EH, Hanstock TL & Watson JF (2009) ‘Estimated intakes of meat and fish by
children and adolescents in Australia and comparison with recommendations’, British
Journal of Nutrition, 101, 1731-1735.
Daniels SR (2006) ‘The consequences of childhood overweight and obesity’, The Future of
Children, 16(1), 47-67.
Deckelbaum RJ & Williams CL (2001) ‘Childhood obesity: the health issue’, Obesity,
9(11S), 239S-243S.
Department of Health and Ageing, Australian Food and Grocery Council & Department of
Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry (2008), 2007 Australian national children's nutrition and
physical activity survey: main findings. Canberra.
Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (2006), Retail sale and consumption of
seafood - Melbourne, Australian Government.
Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (2006) NUTTAB 2006 – Online Version from
Canberra, available from
http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumerinformation/novelfoods/nuttab2006/onlineve
rsionintroduction/
Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (2007) AUSNUT2007 – Recipe File from
Canberra, available upon request from Food Standards Australia and New Zealand.
44
Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (2008) AUSNUT2007 Explanatory Notes from
Canberra, available from
http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/_srcfiles/AUSNUT%202007%20-
%20Explanatory%20Notes.pdf
Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (2011) NUTTAB, Available from
http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumerinformation/nuttab2010/
Mikkelsen PB, Toubro S & Astrup A (2000) ‘Effect of fat-reduced diets on 24-h energy
expenditure: comparisons between animal protein, vegetable protein, and carbohydrate’
The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 72(5), 1135-1141.
Mikkila V, Rasanen L, Raitakari OT, Pietinen, P & Viikari J (2004) ‘Longitudinal changes in
diet from childhood into adulthood with respect to risk of cardiovascular diseases: The
Cardiovascular Risk in Young Finns Study’, European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 58(7),
1038-1045.
Muller WJ, Bruce HL, Tume RK, Beilken SL, Barnes JA. & Greenfield H (2009), ‘National
sampling and gross composition of Australian retail pork cuts’, Meat Science, 81 (4), 626 –
631.
Murphy MM, Spungen JH, Bi X & Barraj LM (2011), ‘Fresh and fresh lean pork are
substantial sources of key nutrients when these products are consumed by adults in the
United States’, Nutrition Research, 31(10), 776-783.
National Health and Medical Research Council (2006) Nutrient Reference Values for
Australia and New Zealand including Recommended Dietary Intakes.
Ngapo TM, Dransﬁeld E, Martin JF, Magnusson M, Bredahl L & Nute GR (2003), ‘Consumer
perceptions: pork and pig production. Insights from France, England, Sweden and
Denmark’, Meat Science, 66, 125-134.
Puhl R M & Schwartz MB (2003), ‘If you are good you can have a cookie: How memories of
childhood food rules link to adult eating behaviors’, Eating Behaviors, 4(3), 283-293.
Sufian M, Hira T, Miyashita K, Nishi T, Asano K, & Hara H (2006), ‘Pork peptone stimulates
cholecystokinin secretion from enteroendocrine cells and suppresses appetite in rats,
Bioscience, Biotechnology, Biochemistry, 70, 1869-1874.
Verbeke W, Van Oeckel MJ, Warnants N, Viaene J & Boucque´ CV (1999), ‘Consumer
perceptions, facts and possibilities to improve acceptability of health and sensory
characteristics of pork’, Meat Science, 53(2), 77–99.
Willett W (1998), Nutritional Epidemiology, 2nd edition, Oxford University Press, New York
Wynne K, Stanley S, McGowan B & Bloom S (2005), ‘Appetite control’, Journal of

Endocrinology, 184(2), 291-318.
Williams, PG, Droulez V, Levy G & Stobaus T (2006), ‘Composition of Australian red meat
2002.1.gross composition’, Food Australia, 58(4), 173-181.
45
9. Appendices
Appendix 1. Cuts of beef, chicken, lamb and seafood used for nutrient comparison in
section (1).
Beef (from Williams et al., 2006):

 Stir-fry strips, diced beef, rump steak, round steak, topside roast, silverside roast,
sirloin steak, fillet steak, T-bone steak, Scotch fillet, blade steak, chuck steak,
regular mince
Lamb (from Williams et al., 2006):

 stir-fry strips, diced lamb, cutlet (Frenched), forequarter chop, chump chop, loin
chop, leg (bone-in) roast, Easy carve leg (boneless) roast, Easy carve shoulder
roast, lamb mini roast, lamb mince
Chicken [based on cuts available in NUTTAB2006 (Food Standards Australia and New
Zealand, 2006)]:
 breast, drumstick, thigh, wing
Seafood (from Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, 2006)

 salmon, flake, prawns, snapper, squid, whiting
46
Appendix 2. Categorisation of pork products and dishes reported in the 2007 Australian
National Children’s Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey into pork categories
Pork category Pork products and dishes included in category [FSANZ

food code]
Fresh pork  Pork, butterfly steak, all cooking methods [08A30290,
08A30214]
 Pork, fillets, all cooking methods [08A30218, 08A30270,
08A30219, 08A30269]
 Pork, forequarter chop, all cooking methods [08A30284,
08A30296, 08A30285, 08A30297, 08A30222, 08A30272,
08A30223]
 Pork, forequarter shoulder, all cooking methods [08A30226,
08A30264, 08A30227]
 Pork, leg, all cooking methods [08A30230, 08A30300, 08A30299,
08A30234, 08A30265, 08A30235, 08A30237]
 Pork, leg strips, all cooking methods [08A30288, 08A30287,
08A30286, 08A30289]
 Pork, leg steak, all cooking methods [08A30303, 08A30304,
08E10096, 08E10022, 08E10062, 08E10063, 08E10097,
08E10108]
 Pork, loin chop, all cooking methods [08A30279, 08A30278,
08A30281, 08A30280, 08A30301, 08A30246, 08A30266,
08A30295, 08A30282, 08A30283, 08A30298, 08A30247]
 Pork, medallion steak, all cooking methods [08A30261,
08A30291, 08A30292]
 Pork, mince, all cooking methods [08A30259]
 Pork, spare ribs, all cooking methods [08A30275, 08A30276]
 Pork (cut not specified), all cooking methods [08A30306,
08A30308, 08A30307, 08A30309, 08A30277, 08A30305,
08A30310]
 Pork, pickled [08A30311]
 Pork, crackling, all cooking methods [08A30268]
 Pork, liver, all cooking methods [08D10129]
 Pork, kebab, all cooking methods [08A30274]
Mixed dishes containing  Pork meatball or patty, cooked [08A30302]
fresh pork  Pork stew or casserole, all cooking methods [08F10769]
 Pork, stir fry (includes sweet and sour sauce, plum and oyster
sauce, soy sauce) [08F10731, 08F10716, 08F10657, 08F10734,
08F10767, 08F10764, 08F10706, 08F10715]
 Pork pie [02E60239]
Processed pork  Sausage, pork, all cooking methods [08E20097, 08E20077,
08E20078, 08E20112, 08E20081, 08E30165]
 Bacon, all cooking methods [08E30165, 08E30252, 08E30253,
08E30254, 08E30167, 08E30169, 08E30213, 08E30172,
08E30216, 08E30215, 08E30230, 08E30219, 08E30231,
08E30260, 08E30174, 08E30263, 08E30273, 08E30221,
08E30217, 08E30220, 08E30225, 08E30239, 08E30240,
08E30211, 08E30264, 08E30229, 08E30265, 08E30234,
08E30272, 08E30233, 08E30232, 08E30269]
 Ham, all cuts/cooking methods [08E30189, 08E30190,
08E30258, 08E30188]
Mixed dishes containing  Soup, pea and ham, all cooking methods (with the exception of
processed pork canned, reconstituted with milk due to a pork content of less
than 5%) [10C10333, 10C10390]
 Bread/bread roll, mixed with ham [02B10449]
 Muffin, savoury, with cheese, ham, and/or zucchini [02E10332,
47
02E10358]
 Scone, with cheese and bacon [02E20055]
 Croissant, cheese and ham filled [02E40077]
 Quiche, bacon and leek/ham and cheese/ham and tomato, all
cooking methods [02E60227, 02E60197, 02E60224, 02E60225]
 Pie, egg and bacon [02E60231]
 Sandwich/wrap containing pork or ham, all varieties [02B10434,
02B10339, 02B10416, 02F20031, 02F20036, 02B10390,
02F20026, 02F20030, 02B10466, 02F20033, 02B10426,
02B10394, 02B10396, 02B10401, 02B10403, 02B10469,
02B10415, 02F20043, 02B10414, 02B10345, 02B10470,
02F30154]
 Chickenburger, with bacon, all varieties [02F30156, 02F30161]
 Hamburger, with bacon, all varieties [02F30158, 02F30153,
02F30160]
 Muffin, English, with cheese, egg and bacon [02F30144]
 Macaroni cheese, with bacon [02F40143]
 Pasta salad, with bacon [02F40177, 02F40176]
 Risotto, with bacon [02F40160]
 Egg, scrambled, with bacon [03B10054, 03B10057]
 Omelette, with bacon [03B10056, 03B10058]
 Chicken breast, topped with cheese and ham [08E10025]
 Sauce, pasta, cream based, added ham [10A10369]
 Mushroom, stuffed with bacon [13B10219]
 Bread/bread roll, topped with cheese and bacon [02B10278,
02B10282]
Contains/may contain  Salami (Danish, Hungarian, Polish, milano, pepperoni, variety
processed pork not specified) [08E30198, 08E30199, 08E30202, 08E30203,
08E20082
 Ham and chicken roll, luncheon meat [08E30195]
 Devon/fritz [08E30186]
 Kabana/cabanossi [08E30196]
 Mortadella [08E30197]
 Mettwurst [08E30200]
 Brawn [08E30183]
 Spam [08E30204]
48
Appendix 3. List of foods containing less than 5% of pork that were excluded from
classification
 Soup, pea & ham, condensed, canned, reconstituted with milk (FSANZ 5 level code:
10C10373) – pork content: 3.5% (based on AUSNUT2007 recipe file)
 Pizza, bacon & egg topping, tomato sauce, thick base, chain style (02F10106) – pork
content: 2%
 Pizza, chicken & vegetable topping, BBQ sauce, extra cheese & bacon in base, chain
style (02F10111) – pork content: 2%
 Pizza, ham & pineapple topping, tomato sauce, homemade (02F10091) – pork content:
2.5%
 Pizza, ham & pineapple topping, tomato sauce, frozen & baked (02F10078) – pork
content: 2.5% (based on homemade variety as no recipe available)
 Pizza, ham & pineapple topping, tomato sauce, take away style (02F10079) – pork
content: 2.5% (based on homemade variety as no recipe available)
 Pizza, ham & pineapple topping, tomato sauce, thick base, chain style (02F10077) –
pork content: 2.5% (based on homemade variety as no recipe available)
 Pizza, ham & pineapple topping, tomato sauce, thin base, chain style (02F10076) –
pork content: 2.5% (based on homemade variety as no recipe available)
 Pizza, meat & veg topping -incl olives & sundr tom-, tom sauce, extra cheese & bacon
in base, chain style (02F10104) – pork content: 2%
 Pizza, extra meat with vegetable topping, BBQ sauce, extra cheese & bacon in base,
chain style (02F10102) – pork content: 4%
 Dip, cream cheese based, flavoured -e.g. gherkin, herb/garlic, onion/bacon
(09B30012) – no recipe, however pork content assumed to be negligible due to low
content and other options
 Sushi, meat -beef, pork, lamb (02F40169) – no recipe, however excluded due to low
likelihood would actually contain pork
 Meat -beef, pork, chicken, lamb-, mince, fried, unspecified oil, not further specified
(08A10707) – pork content: 3%
 Meat -beef, pork, chicken, lamb-, mince, stewed, not further specified (08A10699) –
pork content: 3%
 Soup, meat -beef/lamb/pork-, with pasta, prepared with water (10C10386), Soup,
meat -beef/lamb/pork-, with vegetables, prepared with water (10C10384), Soup, meat
-beef/lamb/pork-, with vegetables & legumes, prepared with water (10C10362), Soup,
meat -beef/lamb/pork, with vegetables & legumes, prepared with milk & water
(10C10376), Soup, meat -beef/lamb/pork-, with vegetables & pasta, prepared with
water (10C10385) – pork content: 4%
49
Appendix 4: Median (interquartile range) intakes of pork (grams/day) consumed by Australian children in the 2007 Australian National
Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey by category of pork, according to gender
Total sample (n=4487) Pork consumers (n=2245)
Pork Category Males (n=2249) Females p-value Males (n=1140) Females (n=1105) p-value
(n=2238)
All pork 2.5 (0.0 – 26.0) 0.0 (0.0 – 20.3) .01 25.0 (13.6 – 44.5) 20.9 (11.7 – 38.0) <.005
All fresh pork 0.0 (0.0 – 0.0) 0.0 (0.0 -0.0) .81 0.0 (0.0– 0.0) 0.0 (0.0 -0.0) .97
All processed pork 0.0 (0.0 – 22.1) 0.0 (0.0 – 17.3 .01 21.8 (11.5 – 39.0) 17.5 (10.0 – 30.0) <.005
Mixed dishes 0.0 (0.0 – 0.0) 0.0 (0.0 – 0.0) .69 0.0 (0.0 – 0.0) 0.0 (0.0 – 0.0) .64
containing fresh pork
Mixed dishes 0.0 (0.0 – 0.0) 0.0 (0.0 – 0.0) .97 0.0 (0.0 – 0.0) 0.0 (0.0 – 0.0) .88
containing processed
pork
Please note: as all data is non-parametric, only median (interquartile range) is shown
50
Appendix 5a: Median (interquartile range) intakes of pork (grams/day) consumed by Australian children in the 2007 Australian National
Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey by category of pork, according to age range
Total sample (n=4487)
Pork Category 2 – 3 years (n=1071) 4 – 8 years (n=1216) 9 – 13 years (n=1110) 14 – 16 years p-value
(n=1090)
All pork 0.0 (0.0 – 14.8) 6.1 (0.0 – 25.0) 0.5 (0.0 – 23.7) 4.0 (0.0 – 30.0) <.005
All fresh pork 0.0 (0.0 – 0.0) 0.0 (0.0 -0.0) 0.0 (0.0 – 0.0) 0.0 (0.0 – 0.0) .17
All processed pork 0.0 (0.0 – 12.5) 0.0 (0.0 – 22.5) 0.0 (0.0 – 20.0) 0.0 (0.0 – 25.0) <.005
Mixed dishes containing 0.0 (0.0 -0.0) 0.0 (0.0 – 0.0) 0.0 (0.0 – 0.0) 0.0 (0.0 – 0.0) .07
fresh pork
Mixed dishes containing 0.0 (0.0 – 0.0) 0.0 (0.0 – 0.0) 0.0 (0.0 – 0.0) 0.0 (0.0 – 0.0) .01
processed pork
Appendix 5b: Median (interquartile range) intakes of pork (grams/day) consumed by pork consumers in the 2007 Australian National
Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey by category of pork, according to age range
Pork consumers (n=2245)

Pork Category 2 -3 years (n=493) 4 – 8 years (n=642) 9 – 13 years (n=555) 14 – 16 years (n=555) p-value
All pork 16.4 (10.0 – 31.9) 24.2 (13.4 – 41.5) 23.7 (12.5 – 40.1) 29.7 (15.0 – 52.5) <.005
All fresh pork 0.0 (0.0 – 0.0) 0.0 (0.0 – 0.0) 0.0 (0.0 – 0.0) 0.0 (0.0 – 0.0) .10
All processed pork 14.0 (9.1 – 26.5) 21.0 (10.5 – 38.7) 20.0 (10.0 – 31.4) 25.0 (12.5 – 42.6) <.005
Mixed dishes containing 0.0 (0.0 – 0.0) 0.0 (0.0 – 0.0) 0.0 (0.0 – 0.0) 0.0 (0.0 – 0.0) .07
fresh pork
Mixed dishes containing 0.0 (0.0 – 0.0) 0.0 (0.0 – 0.0) 0.0 (0.0 – 0.0) 0.0 (0.0 – 0.0) <.005
processed pork
51
Appendix 6. Frequency (n) and proportion (%) of demographic characteristics of fresh
pork consumers and non-consumers
Characteristic Consumers (n = Non-consumers (n = Chi

310) 1935) squared
n % n % analysis
Sex of child:
- Male 157 50.7 983 50.8 2=.00,
- Female 153 49.4 952 49.2 p=.96
Age group:
- 2-3 years 65 21.0 428 22.1 2=4.3,
- 4-8 years 76 24.5 566 29.2 p=.24
- 9-13 years 86 27.7 469 24.2
- 14-16 years 83 26.8 472 24.4
Rurality:
- Capital or metro 192 61.9 1301 67.2 2=3.7,
- Rural 114 36.8 606 31.3 p=.16
- Remote 4 1.3 28 1.5
Is primary carer of Aboriginal
or Torres Strait Islander
background1:
- No 309 99.7 1900 98.3 2=3.4,
- Yes 1 0.32 33 1.7 p=.06
Is partner of primary carer
of Aboriginal or Torres Strait
- No 273 98.9 1653 98.3 2=1.5,
- Yes 3 1.1 28 1.7 p=.47
Is study child of Aboriginal or
background3:
- No 303 97.7 1880 97.3 2=.24,
- Yes 7 2.3 53 2.7 p=.62
education level4:
- Year 12 or above 208 67.1 1231 63.7 2=1.4,
- Year 11 or below 102 32.9 702 36.3 p=.25
- Year 12 or above 149 54.0 918 55.1 2=.12,
- Year 11 or below 127 46.0 748 44.9 p=.73
52
birth 223 71.9 1545 79.9 2=75.9,
- Australia 14 4.5 65 3.4 p<.005
- Oceania and Antarctica 23 7.4 218 11.3
- Europe and UK 39 12.6 51 2.6
- Asia 5 1.6 13 0.7
- Africa and Middle East
region of birth6
- Australia 197 71.4 1310 77.8 2=81.3,
- Oceania and Antarctica 13 4.7 48 2.9 p<.005
- Europe and UK 28 10.2 220 13.1
- Asia 32 11.6 30 1.8
Study child’s region of birth

- Australia 294 94.8 1828 94.5 2=12.6,
- Oceania and Antarctica 3 0.97 10 0.52 p=.03
- Europe and UK 3 0.97 58 3.0
- Asia 8 2.6 18 0.93
Family’s annual income

before tax7
- $78,000 and above 141 48.0 923 50.3 2=2.9,
- $31,200 - $77,999 115 39.1 710 38.7 p=.41
- $1 - $31,199 35 11.9 194 10.6
6 Excluded n=285 (no partner)
53
Appendix 7. Frequency (n) and proportion (%) of demographic characteristics of processed
pork consumers and non-consumers
Characteristic Consumers (n = 2084) Non-consumers (n = Chi

161) Squared
n % n % analysis
Sex of child:
- Males 1060 50.9 80 49.7 2=.08,
- Females 1024 49.1 81 50.3 p=.77
Age group:
- 2-3 years 463 22.2 30 18.6 2=3.5,
- 4-8 years 602 28.9 40 24.8 p=.32
- 9-13 years 510 24.5 45 27.9
- 14-16 years 509 24.4 46 28.6
Rurality:
- Capital or metro 1395 66.9 98 60.9 2=2.7,
- Rural 659 31.6 61 37.9 p=.26
- Remote 30 1.4 2 1.2
Is the primary carer of
- No 2049 98.4 160 99.4 2=.93,
- Yes 33 1.6 1 0.62 p=.34
Is the partner of primary

carer of Aboriginal or Torres
Strait Islander background2:
- No 1785 98.4 141 97.9 2=.98,
- Yes 28 1.5 3 2.1 p=.61
Is the study child of
- No 2027 97.4 156 96.9 2=.12,
- Yes 55 2.6 5 3.1 p=.73
education level4:
- Year 12 or above 1334 64.1 105 65.2 2=.09,
- Year 11 or below 748 35.9 56 34.8 p=.77
- Year 12 or above 993 55.2 74 51.4 2=.79,
- Year 11 or below 805 44.8 70 48.6 p=.37
birth
- Australia 1653 79.3 115 71.4 2=34.0,
- Europe and UK 230 11.0 11 6.8
- Asia 71 3.4 19 11.8
54
region of birth6:
- Australia 1402 77.2 105 72.9 2=45.7,
- Europe and UK 237 13.1 11 7.6
- Asia 45 2.5 17 11.8
Study child’s region of birth

- Australia 1970 94.5 152 94.4 2=4.9,
- Oceania and Antarctica 11 0.53 2 1.2 p=.43
- Europe and UK 59 2.8 2 1.2
- Asia 23 1.1 3 1.9
Family’s combined annual
income before tax7:
- $78,000 and above 987 50.0 77 50.3 2=.57,
- $31,200 - $77,999 764 38.7 61 39.9 p=.90
- $1 - $31,199 215 10.9 14 9.2
6 Excluded n=285 (no partner)
55
Appendix 8: Mean + standard deviation/median (interquartile range) nutrient intakes in pork consumers and non-consumers according to
gender (adjusted for energy intake)
Nutrients Males (n=2249) Females (n=2238)
Consumer (n=1140) Non-consumer p-value Consumer Non-consumer p-value

(n=1109) (n=1105) (n=1133)
Energy (kJ) 8798.6 + 2878.4 8474.9 + 2937.6 .01# 7520.8 + 2118.6 7238.0 + 2099.7 <0.005#
Protein (g) 82.1 + 19.3 77.4 + 18.3 <0.005# 79.0 + 15.7 76.5 + 15.9 <0.005#
Total fat (g) 68.1 + 13.4 65.3 + 12.4 <0.005# 68.9 + 11.1 67.0 + 10.9 <0.005#
Sugar (g) 116.4 + 33.7 119.9 + 33.1 .01# 115.9 + 29.2 120.5 + 27.7 <0.005#
Carbohydrate (g) 236.2 + 34.3 247.5 + 32.0 <0.005# 237.6 + 29.3 244.7 + 27.4 <0.005#
Fibre (g) 19.8 + 6.2 20.4 + 6.8 .03# 19.9 + 5.6 20.6 + 6.2 <0.005#
Iron (mg) 10.5 (8.8 – 12.7) 10.9 (9.1 – 13.1) <0.005# 10.3 (8.8 – 12.2) 10.6 (9.0 – 12.5) .01#
Thiamin (mg) 1.8 (1.3 – 2.3) 1.7 (1.2 – 2.4) .50^ 1.7 (1.3 – 2.3) 1.7(1.3 – 2.4) .82^
Saturated fat (g) 30.9 + 8.1 29.3 + 7.8 <0.005# 31.1 + 6.5 30.0 + 7.0 <0.005#
MUFA (g)▫ 23.8 + 6.0 22.6 + 5.4 <0.005# 24.1 + 5.1 23.3 + 4.9 <0.005#
PUFA (g)▫▫ 8.5 + 3.4 8.61 + 3.39 .28# 8.7 + 2.84 8.9 + 3.1 .16#
LC n-3 PUFA (mg)▫▫▫ 80.4 (45.7 – 142.7) 79.0 (39.0 – 143.7) .26^ 86.7 (54.6 – 140.0) 87.5 (54.2 – 150.0) .77^
Cholesterol (mg) 237.3 + 108.4 205.3 + 99.4 <0.005# 230.3 + 93.1 209.9 + 89.8 <0.005#
Riboflavin (mg) 2.5 (1.8 – 3.3) 2.5 (1.9 – 3.3) .08^ 2.4 (1.8 – 3.1) 2.5 (1.9 – 3.2) <0.005^
Niacin (mg) 42.7 (35.9 – 50.6) 41.6 (34.7 – 49.9) .03^ 40.9 (35.1 – 47.5) 41.3 (35.0 – 48.7) .38^
Phosphorous (mg) 1376.4 + 264.4 1326.9 + 275.2 <0.005# 1340.8 + 239.1 1323.1 + 233.7 .08#
Magnesium (mg) 276.9 + 63.5 278.5 + 65.8 .56# 274.2 + 60.2 280.1 + 62.5 .02#
Zinc (mg) 10.0 (8.62–11.8) 9.8 (8.2 – 11.6) .01^ 9.9 (8.6 – 11.5) 9.6 (8.2 – 11.1) <0.005^
Potassium (mg) 2656.3 + 647.3 2655.3 + 632.7 .97# 2616.4 + 576.8 2685.7 + 576.0 <0.005#
Iodine (ug) 131.6 + 54.3 133.9 + 52.7 .32# 124.3 + 46.6 128.0 + 50.0 .08#
Sodium (mg) 2579.5 + 751.5 2222.2 + 706.3 <0.005# 2525.1 + 674.4 2257.4 + 638.4 <0.005#
#
Independent t-test
▫Monounsaturated fat ▫▫Polyunsaturated fat ▫▫▫Long chain omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid
Please note: mean + standard deviation given for parametric data, median (interquartile range) given for non-parametric data
56
Appendix 9a: Mean + standard deviation/median (interquartile range) nutrient intakes in pork consumers and non-consumers, for age
ranges ‘2 - 3 years’ and ‘4 – 8 years’ (adjusted for energy intake)
Nutrients 2 -3 years (n=1071) 4-8 years (n=1216)

(n=578) (n=642) (n=574)
Energy (kJ) 6201.8 + 1376.3 6199.2 + 1550.6 .98# 7535.9 + 1719.7 7338.9 + 1828.2 .05#
Protein (g) 80.2 + 11.5 76.4 + 12.1 <0.005# 77.8 + 14.5 75.7 + 14.6 .01#
Total fat (g) 69.2 + 9.3 67.0 + 8.0 <0.005# 68.3 + 10.9 66.4 + 10.6 <0.005#
Sugar (g) 119.4 + 22.8 124.4 + 21.2 <0.005# 119.6 + 26.8 121.9 + 28.2 .13#
Carbohydrate (g) 235.8 + 21.8 244.9 + 21.7 <0.005# 240.5 + 28.1 246.7 + 27.7 <0.005#
Fibre (g) 19.5 + 5.0 20.4 + 5.7 .01# 19.9 + 5.2 20.5 + 5.8 .09#
Iron (mg) 10.3 (9.0 – 11.9) 10.7 (9.3 – 12.4) .03# 10.5 (8.9 – 12.3) 10.7 (9.2 – 12.5) .06#
Thiamin (mg) 1.9 (1.5 – 2.4) 1.9 (1.4 – 2.4) .94^ 1.8 (1.4 – 2.3) 1.8 (1.4 – 2.5) .48^
Saturated fat (g) 32.2 + 5.8 30.8 + 5.8 <0.005# 31.2 + 6.6 30.0 + 6.7 <0.005#
MUFA (g)▫ 23.6 + 4.1 22.7 + 3.7 <0.005# 23.7 + 4.9 22.8+ 4.4 <0.005#
PUFA (g)▫▫ 8.3 + 2.5 8.6 + 2.7 .10# 8.5 + 2.7 8.8 + 3.2 .15#
LC n-3 PUFA (mg)▫▫▫ 93.5 (68.8 – 142.1) 86.3 (60.7 – 128.8) <0.005^ 77.3 (48.1 – 131.2) 85.9 (54.2 – 142.0) .05^
Cholesterol (mg) 234.4 + 70.7 209.8 + 72.4 <0.005# 224.4 + 96.9 211.2 + 94.7 .02#
Riboflavin (mg) 2.8 (2.3 – 3.4) 2.9 (2.3 – 3.5) .46^ 2.5 (1.9 – 3.2) 2.6 (2.0 – 3.4) .01^
Niacin (mg) 42.1 (37.0 – 47.2) 41.7 (36.1 – 47.7) .65^ 41.3 (35.6 – 47.4) 41.8 (35.7 – 48.7) .31^
Phosphorous (mg) 1430.2 + 207.9 1386.5 + 205.4 <0.005# 1338.8 + 225.3 1324.1 + 221.1 .25#
Magnesium (mg) 282.3 + 48.6 283.2 + 51.6 .78# 272.2 + 54.3 278.5 + 52.8 .04#
Zinc (mg) 10.1 (9.2 – 11.5) 9.9 (8.8 – 11.0) <0.005^ 9.8 (8.5 – 11.3) 9.6 (8.3 – 11.0) .16^
Potassium (mg) 2732.2 + 469.9 2762.7 + 500.1 .31# 2580.5 + 536.9 2660.8 + 512.6 .01#
Iodine (ug) 148.9 + 48.4 148.4 + 48.3 .88# 126.1 + 42.9 130.3 + 46.8 .10#
Sodium (mg) 2357.2 + 458.9 2127.8 + 467.3 <0.005# 2512.8 + 547.9 2216.7 + 671.9 <0.005#
#Independent t-test
57
Appendix 9b: Mean + standard deviation/median (interquartile range) nutrient intakes in pork consumers and non-consumers, for age
ranges ‘9 - 13 years’ and ‘14 – 16 years’ (adjusted for energy intake)
Nutrients 9 – 13 years (n=1110) 14 – 16 years (n=1090)

(n=555) (n=555) (n=535)
Energy (kJ) 8935.0 + 2377.5 8566.9 + 2321.6 .01# 9885.4 + 3070.7 9439.01 + 3283.8 .02#
Protein (g) 80.2 + 19.1 76.3 + 18.3 <0.005# 84.5 + 22.7 79.4 + 22.0 <0.005#
Total fat (g) 67.7 + 13.0 65.7 + 12.2 .01# 68.8 + 15.2 65.4 + 14.9 <0.005#
Sugar (g) 117.1 + 34.0 118.7 + 32.7 .44# 108.3 + 38.8 115.6 + 37.4 <0.005#
Carbohydrate (g) 239.0+ 34.3 247.8 + 32.0 <0.005# 231.5 + 39.7 244.9 + 36.4 <0.005#
Fibre (g) 20.0 + 6.2 20.5 + 6.9 .17# 19.9 + 7.1 20.6 + 7.5 .10#
Iron (mg) 10.5 (8.8 – 12.6) 10.7 (9.0 – 12.9) .13# 10.2 (8.2 – 13.0) 10.8 (8.5 – 13.7) .02#
Thiamin (mg) 1.7 (1.2 – 2.2) 1.6 (1.2 – 2.2) .15^ 1.6 (1.1 – 2.3) 1.7 (1.1 – 2.4) .93^
Saturated fat (g) 30.7 + 7.6 29.3+ 7.7 <0.005# 29.9 + 8.7 28.4 + 9.0 <0.005#
MUFA (g)▫ 23.6 + 5.7 23.1 + 5.4 .09# 24.8 + 7.2 23.01 + 6.7 <0.005#
PUFA (g)▫▫ 8.5 + 3.3 8.6 + 3.1 .52# 9.0+ 3.9 9.1 + 3.9 .72#
LC n-3 PUFA (mg)▫▫▫ 83.7 (43.6 – 149.7) 79.8 (39.0 – 158.7) .66^ 78.4 (37.0 – 144.2) 78.6 (27.8 – 157.6) .56^
Cholesterol (mg) 235.7 + 111.0 205.5 + 104.0 <0.005# 242.4 + 117.0 203.5+ 105.3 <0.005#
Riboflavin (mg) 2.2 (1.7 – 2.9) 2.2 (1.6 – 3.0) .67^ 2.1 (1.5 – 3.0) 2.2 (1.6 – 3.1) .05^
Niacin (mg) 41.1 (34.6 – 49.8) 40.2 (33.4 – 48.6) .12^ 43.3 (34.0 – 52.8) 42.5 (33.3 – 52.6) .44^
Phosphorous (mg) 1325.4 + 268.3 1281.6 + 260.2 .01# 1352.1 + 289.3 1304.4 + 313.4 .01#
Magnesium (mg) 274.6 + 61.3 271.6 + 65.7 .44# 274.4 + 78.9 284.0 + 82.5 .05#
Zinc (mg) 9.9 (8.2 – 11.7) 9.6 (7.9 – 11.5) .05# 10.0 (8.4 – 12.4) 9.6 (7.6 – 12.2) .01#
Potassium (mg) 2627.9 + 644.2 2588.7 + 650.7 .31^ 2625.4 + 754.7 2667.0 + 726.0 .35^
Iodine (ug) 123.4 + 50.5 122.4 + 49.3 .73# 116.5 + 56.1 121.4 + 56.7 .15#
Sodium (mg) 2564.7 + 790.5 2259.6 + 659.1 <0.005# 2760.6 + 912.1 2365.7 + 836.0 <0.005#
*Independent t-test
58
Appendix 10: Median (interquartile range) percentage contribution (%) of total pork to total nutrient intake of consumers, according to
gender
% contribution
Nutrients
Males (n=1140) Females (n=1105)
Energy 2.6 (1.4 – 4.8) 2.5 (1.4 – 4.6)

Protein 7.4 (4.0 – 13.0) 6.9 (3.9 – 12.5)
Total fat 3.8 (1.9 – 7.7) 3.7 (1.7 – 7.6)
Sugar 0.0 (0.0 – 0.1) 0.0 (0.0 – 0.09)
Carbohydrate 0.01 (0.0 – 0.08) 0.0 (0.0 – 0.07)
Fibre 0.00 (0.0 – 0.0) 0.0 (0.0 – 0.0)
Calcium 0.34 (0.17 – 0.66) 0.33 (0.16 – 0.69)
Iron 2.5 (1.3 – 5.0) 2.6 (1.3 – 4.9)
Thiamin 6.6 (3.0 – 12.4) 6.0 (2.6 – 11.9)
Saturated fat 3.0 (1.5 – 6.4) 3.1 (1.4 – 6.2)
MUFA▫ 5.2 (2.5 – 10.6) 5.0 (2.4 – 10.4)
PUFA▫▫ 2.7 (1.3 – 5.5) 2.5 (1.2 – 5.3)
LC n-3 PUFA▫▫▫ 1.2 (0.1 – 4.7) 1.4 (0.08 – 5.1)
Cholesterol 7.4 (4.1 – 13.0) 7.4 (3.8 – 13.8)
Riboflavin 2.6 (1.2 – 5.1) 2.4(1.2 – 5.1)
Niacin 5.9 (3.2 – 10.4) 5.8 (3.1 – 10.6)
Phosphorous 5.1 (2.9 – 8.7) 4.8(2.8– 8.7)
Magnesium 2.4 (1.3 – 4.2) 2.2 (1.1 – 4.1)
Zinc 6.0 (3.4 – 10.9) 6.0 (3.2 – 10.5)
Potassium 2.9 (1.7 – 5.2) 2.7 (1.5 – 5.1)
Iodine 0.94 (0.31 – 1.9) 0.93 (0.31 – 2.0)
Sodium 12.6 (7.0 – 20.6) 11.7 (6.7 – 19.0)
59
Appendix11: Median (interquartile range) percentage contribution (%) of total pork to total nutrient intake of consumers, according to age
range
% contribution
Nutrients
2 -3 years (n=493) 4 – 8 years (n=642) 9 – 13 years (n=555) 14 – 16 years (n=555)
Energy 2.3 (1.3- 4.4) 2.7 (1.5 – 4.9) 2.4 (1.2 – 4.3) 2.6 (1.5 – 5.1)
Protein 6.4 (3.7 - 12.1) 7.8 (4.4 – 13.2) 6.7 (3.6– 11.8) 7.6 (4.0 – 13.5)
Total fat 3.2 (1.7 – 7.2) 4.1 (2.2 – 8.2) 3.5 (1.6 – 7.0) 3.9 (1.8 – 8.1)
Sugar 0.0 (0.0 – 0.08) 0.0 (0.0 – 0.10) 0.01 (0.0 – 0.10) 0.0 (0.0 – 0.12)
Carbohydrate 0.0 (0.0 – 0.06) 0.0 (0.0 – 0.10) 0.01 (0.0 -0.07) 0.01 (0.0 – 0.08)
Fibre 0.0 (0.0 – 0.0) 0.0 (0.0 – 0.0) 0.00 (0.0 – 0.00) 0.0 (0.0 – 0.0)
Calcium 0.25 (0.13 – 0.56) 0.37 (0.19 – 0.72) 0.33 (0.17 – 0.62) 0.38 (0.18 – 0.78)
Iron 2.6 (1.3 – 5.0) 2.9(1.5 – 5.4) 2.3 (1.1– 4.3) 2.5 (1.2 – 5.1)
Thiamin 5.3 (2.4 – 10.0) 6.3 (2.6 – 11.5) 6.1 (2.6 – 12.4) 7.8 (3.6 – 14.7)
Saturated fat 2.5 (1.2 – 5.8) 3.3 (1.7 – 6.9) 2.9 (1.4 – 6.1) 3.2 (1.5 – 6.9)
MUFA▫ 4.5 (2.3 – 10.2) 5.7(2.9 – 11.4) 4.9 (2.2 – 9.6) 5.1 (2.3 – 10.7)
PUFA▫▫ 2.4 (1.2 – 5.3) 3.0 (1.4 – 5.8) 2.5 (1.2 – 4.9) 2.7 (1.2 – 5.5)
LC n-3 PUFA▫▫▫ 1.5 (0.21 – 5.2) 1.6 (0.21 – 6.2) 0.88 (0.0 – 3.9) 1.0 (0.0 – 4.3)
Cholesterol 6.8 (3.7 – 12.7) 8.2 (4.5 – 14.5) 6.8 (3.5 – 11.8) 7.7 (3.9 – 14.4)
Riboflavin 2.1 (1.0 – 4.1) 2.7 (1.2– 5.3) 2.4 (1.1 – 5.1) 3.0 (1.3 – 6.2)
Niacin 5.3 (3.0 – 9.4) 6.3 (3.3 – 11.1) 5.6 (3.0 – 10.0) 6.4 (3.4 – 11.5)
Phosphorous 4.1 (2.5 – 7.3) 5.3 (3.2 – 9.0) 5.1 (2.7 – 8.5) 5.4 (3.2 – 9.8)
Magnesium 2.0 (1.2 – 3.9) 2.5 (1.4 – 4.4) 2.1 (1.0 – 3.8) 2.5 (1.3 – 4.6)
Zinc 5.2 (3.2 – 9.7) 6.5 (3.8 – 11.2) 5.9 (2.9 – 9.9) 6.3 (3.3– 11.8)
Potassium 2.3 (1.4 – 4.3) 3.0 (1.7 – 5.1) 2.8 (1.4 – 5.1) 3.3 (1.7 – 6.2)
Iodine 0.77 (0.29 – 1.8) 1.2 (0.38 – 2.3) 0.78 (0.26 – 1.7) 0.92 (0.33 – 2.1)
Sodium 12.2 (7.3 – 19.5) 13.7 (7.6 – 21.8) 10.9(5.9 – 17.8) 12.2 (6.8 – 19.6)
60
Appendix 12: Median (interquartile range) percentage contribution (%) of total pork to Estimated Average Requirements (EAR) or Adequate
Intakes (AI) of consumers, according to gender
% contribution
Nutrients
Males (n=1140) Females (n=1105)
Protein 25.7 (13.5 – 46.3) 24.4 (13.0 – 45.3)
Fibre 0.0 (0.0 – 0.0) 0.0 (0.0 – 0.0)
Calcium 0.43 (0.25 – 0.91) 0.38 (0.19 – 0.81)
Iron 5.4 (3.0 – 10.2) 4.5 (2.3 – 8.9)
Thiamin 19.0 (9.5 – 35.8) 15.5 (7.1 – 29.6)
LC n-3 PUFA▫▫▫ 1.6 (0.02 – 5.0) 1.6 (0.2 – 5.3)
Riboflavin 10.3 (5.0 – 19.0) 8.5 (3.9 – 17.0)
Niacin 35.8 (18.7 – 61.6) 28.7 (15.3 – 53.8)
Phosphorous 11.0 (6.4 – 20.4) 8.9(5.0 – 16.7)
Magnesium 4.2 (2.3 – 8.2) 3.7 (1.8 – 7.3)
Zinc 14.0 (7.9 – 25.8) 13.5 (7.3 – 25.0)
Potassium 3.0 (1.7 – 5.4) 2.7 (1.5 – 5.0)
Iodine 1.7 (0.59 – 3.2) 1.4 (0.46 – 2.8)
61
Appendix 13: Median (interquartile range) percentage contribution (%) of total pork to Estimated Average Requirements (EAR) or Adequate
Intakes (AI) of consumers, according to age range
% contribution
Nutrients
2 -3 years (n=493) 4 – 8 years (n=642) 9 – 13 years (n=555) 14 – 16 years (n=555)
Protein 31.5 (18.0 – 60.5) 34.5 (19.0 – 59.2) 20.1 (10.9 – 36.3) 17.9 (9.0 – 31.2)
Fibre 0.0 (0.0 – 0.0) 0.0 (0.0 – 0.0) 0.0(0.0 – 0.0) 0.0 (0.0 – 0.0)
Calcium 0.5 (0.29 – 1.1) 0.56 (0.31 – 1.0) 0.34 (0.17 – 0.63) 0.31 (0.15 – 0.62)
Iron 4.6 (2.6 – 9.6) 6.9 (3.7 – 13.0) 4.3 (2.2 – 7.7) 3.8 (1.9 – 7.4)
Thiamin 17.2 (9.2 – 33.6) 19.6 (9.5 – 37.9) 15.5 (7.8 – 29.6) 16.0 (8.0 – 29.3)
LC n-3 PUFA▫▫▫ 2.3 (0.61 – 6.8) 2.2 (0.57 – 5.8) 1.1 (0.0 – 4.3) 1.1 (0.0 – 3.4)
Riboflavin 11.4 (5.6 – 20.7) 11.5 (5.9 – 21.6) 7.2 (3.5 – 14.2) 7.8 (3.6 – 14.5)
Niacin 34.2 (18.0 – 61.4) 39.9 (21.5 – 66.9) 26.6 (13.4 – 48.4) 28.1 (14.7 – 50.0)
Phosphorous 12.3 (7.1 – 21.9) 15.9 (8.8 – 26.9) 6.3 (3.6 – 11.1) 8.0 (4.7 – 14.5)
Magnesium 6.9 (3.6 – 12.9) 5.7 (3.1 – 10.0) 3.1 (1.6 – 5.4) 2.4 (1.2 – 4.4)
Zinc 16.5 (9.6 – 30.9) 19.0 (10.9 – 34.6) 11.3 (6.6 – 21.0) 9.3 (4.8 – 16.1)
Potassium 2.5 (1.5 – 4.8) 3.0 (1.7 – 5.4) 2.7 (1.4 – 4.8) 3.1 (1.7 – 5.8)
Iodine 1.5 (0.59 – 2.8) 2.1 (0.74 – 4.0) 1.3 (0.40 – 2.7) 1.4 (0.44 – 2.6)
62
Appendix 14. Percentage pork consumers and non-consumers meeting Estimated Average Requirements (EAR) or Adequate Intakes (AI) for
key nutrients, according to gender
Nutrients Males (n=2249) Chi-squared Females (n=2238) Chi-squared

Consumer Non-consumer analysis Consumer Non-consumer analysis
(n=1140) (n=1109) (n=1105) (n=1133)
Protein 100 99.4 2=7.2, p=.01 99.6 98.8 2=4.1, p=.04
Fibre 46.5 50.2 2=3.1, p=.07 47.0 48.5 2=.50, p=.48
Calcium 73.8 72.1 2=.85, p=.36 62.2 57.5 2=5.2, p=.02
Iron 97.1 96.1 2=1.7, p=.20 2.1 90.4 2=2.1, p=.14
Thiamin 98.9 97.1 2=8.7, p<0.005 96.1 94.3 2=4.2, p=.04
LC n-3 PUFA▫▫▫ 25.7 24.2 2=.71, p=.40 0.0 0.0 N/A
Riboflavin 98.6 97.2 2=5.3, p=.02 97.3 96.7 2=.58, p=.44
Niacin 100.0 100.0 N/A 100.0 99.7 2=2.9, p=.09
Phosphorous 95.8 94.0 2=3.9, p=.05 89.0 83.5 2=14.0, p<0.005
Magnesium 86.5 86.7 2=.03, p=.86 81.8 80.0 2=1.3, p=.26
Zinc 93.6 91.6 2=3.2, p=.07 97.3 95.0 2=8.0, p<0.005
Potassium 52.4 55.1 2=1.7, p=.19 52.6 52.9 2=.02, p=.89
Iodine 89.4 86.6 2=4.2, p=.04 79.0 74.9 2=5.2, p=.02
N/A: Chi-squared analysis not appropriate due to all participants meeting or not meeting requirements
63

3B 106 Final Report 121222

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

3B 106 Final Report 121222

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Health benefits of pork consumption

in the diets of Australian children

Report prepared for the

Established and supported under

Outcomes of the project

Relevance of the project’s outcomes to the Australian Pig Industry

4. Application of Research .................................................................................. 442

5. Conclusion ................................................................................................... 442

Specific objectives were to:

Specific methods employed in the current study were as follows:

1. Comparison of nutrient content of fresh pork and other protein sources

2. Classification of pork products in the 2007 Australian National Children’s

Survey participants were then classified as pork consumers or non-consumers. Further

3. Characteristics of pork consumers versus non-consumers

The frequency and proportion of a range of demographic characteristics for pork

Chi-squared analyses were conducted to assess whether significant differences in the

4. Nutritional benefits associated with pork consumption

5. Health benefits associated with pork consumption

One-way between-groups analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were conducted to determine

1. Comparison of pork with other sources of meat protein

Following a comprehensive review of the most relevant food composition database,

3. Characteristics of pork consumers versus non-consumers

Description of pork consumption

Figure 1. Proportion of pork consumers and non-consumers in the 2007 Australian

Total sample (n=4487) Pork consumers (n=2245)

Pork Mean±SD* Median IQR** Mean±SD* Median IQR**

Type of pork eaten

Demographic characteristics of pork consumers and non-consumers

Consumers (n = 2245) Non-consumers (n = Chi Squared

1 Excluded n=4 (did not answer)

Primary carer's region of birth

Study child's region of birth

Family of study child's combined annual income before tax

Demographic characteristics of fresh pork consumers and non-consumers

A quantitative analysis of the demographic characteristics of fresh pork consumers and

Partner of primary carer's region of birth

Study child's region of birth

Demographic characteristics of processed pork consumers and non-consumers

A quantitative analysis of the demographic characteristics of processed pork consumers

Time of pork consumption

Accompanying foods consumed with pork

Location of pork consumption

Time of pork consumption

Accompanying foods consumed with fresh pork

Accompanying foods consumed with processed pork

4. Nutritional benefits associated with pork consumption

A comparison of nutrient consumption between pork consumers and non-consumers, after

Mean + SD Median (IQR) Mean + SD Median (IQR) p-value

Nutrients Consumer (n = 310) Non-consumer (n=4177)

(% contribution) (% contribution) (% contribution)

Nutrients (% contribution) (% contribution) (% contribution)

Mean + SD Median (IQR) Mean + SD Median (IQR) Mean + SD Median (IQR)

Pork consumers (n=2245)

Anthropometric characteristics between pork consumers and non-consumers are listed in

Table 9. Anthropometric characteristics of children participating in the 2007 Australian

Fresh pork non- 36.5±20.6 30.4(18.1- 62.3±12.5 59.4(52.4-70.7)

Impact of the research

Wynne K, Stanley S, McGowan B & Bloom S (2005), ‘Appetite control’, Journal of

Beef (from Williams et al., 2006):

Lamb (from Williams et al., 2006):

Seafood (from Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, 2006)

Pork category Pork products and dishes included in category [FSANZ

Total sample (n=4487) Pork consumers (n=2245)