Developing a food list for a new 24‐h dietary recall tool for New Zealand

Abstract

Aim

A 24‐h dietary recall is commonly used in national nutrition surveys to assess population diets. Intake24, an automated United Kingdom tool, was selected and modified for use in New Zealand in 2023. This study aimed to develop a local food list for Intake24‐New Zealand.

Methods

A draft food list developed for the Australian 2023 National Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey was the starting point due to similarities in food supply between the two countries. Additional New Zealand foods were identified using the New Zealand Food Composition Database, New Zealand dietary intake studies, household purchasing data, and consultation with nutritionists working with ethnic communities. Food names and recipes were revised and included to reflect New Zealand versions and linked to New Zealand food composition data.

Results

The final New Zealand food list contained 2618 foods which included: 968 foods that were matched to nutrient lines from the New Zealand Food Composition Database; 558 new recipes; 1028 foods that were matched to other food composition databases; and 64 foods which needed to be matched.

Conclusions

This contemporary New Zealand food list will facilitate the use of Intake24 New Zealand in national surveys, research studies, and clinical practice.

1. INTRODUCTION

National dietary surveys are used to assess population nutritional status through the collection of food consumption data. This can be complemented with data on demographics, food patterns, and anthropometric or biochemical data to study the relationship between dietary patterns and health outcomes. ¹ The collection of nutrition surveys at a national scale are an important input used by government agencies to inform the development, monitoring, and evaluation of food guidelines, policies, and regulations to improve dietary patterns. ² Valid estimation of habitual nutrient intakes relies on robust dietary assessment methods that collect detailed food intake data that are linked to nutrient composition data. ³ National nutrition surveys typically use either the 24‐hour dietary recall method or weighed food records. ⁴ Food consumption surveys are time‐consuming, complex, and resource‐intensive, and a common challenge in dietary assessment is participant fatigue. ⁴ Many surveys are moving to an automated 24‐hour recall tool where foods selected by a participant are automatically matched to a nutrient line (energy, macronutrients and micronutrients). ⁵ The participant is presented with a finite number of food item options on the screen related to the item the participant searched for. This automated matching of foods to a nutrient line requires a balance between a concise food list to reduce participant burden and allow participants to find their food (presented with a limited number of foods to scan) while having enough foods so the food consumed, or a similar food, is presented. ⁶ Previously, nutritionists manually matched foods to nutrient lines, which was very time‐consuming. ⁷ , ⁸

After a comprehensive review of available 24‐h dietary recall tools, the University of Auckland worked with the UK Intake24 team to adapt the tool for New Zealand. Intake24 is an open‐source dietary assessment system ⁹ originally developed by Newcastle University (UK) funded by Food Standards Agency, Scotland. It is now maintained and developed through a collaboration between Newcastle University, University of Cambridge (UK) and Monash University (Australia). ¹⁰ It has been used in the UK National Diet and Nutrition Survey ⁶ and more recently in the 2023 Australian National Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey (survey results not yet published). ¹¹ New Zealand adaptations included a New Zealand‐specific food list (described in this paper) along with adding portion size photos for local and indigenous foods, reviewing prompts for food items typically consumed together, and new questions on the source of foods. ¹²

The food list developed for the New Zealand version of Intake‐24 (Intake24‐New Zealand) needed to reflect foods currently consumed by New Zealanders of all ages (including children) and major ethnic groups (including Māori, Pacific and Asian). This required the inclusion of some newer foods, such as plant‐based meat and milk alternatives, and foods that are required to be fortified with iodine and folic acid. In New Zealand, fortified and non‐fortified products needed to be differentiated where possible.

The aim of this research was to create a contemporary New Zealand food list that is representative of the local diet, relevant to public health priorities, and includes foods commonly consumed by major ethnic populations while also considering the optimal number of food choices presented to participants when completing their recall.

2. METHODS

A national collaboration was formed involving nutrition and food science experts from the Ministry of Health, the Ministry for Primary Industries, Plant and Food Research Ltd., and the University of Auckland. The food list development process took place over 2022 and 2023, and the number of foods added and deleted at each stage is outlined in Figure 1. An overview of the process is provided below, with greater detail on each step given in later sections. Firstly, a baseline food list was selected (Australian Intake24 food list used for the 2023 National Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey). This food list was reviewed for the New Zealand context, removing, adding, and revising foods as required. New Zealand‐specific foods were identified from smaller national surveys, the New Zealand Food Composition Database, supermarket websites, recipe books, and industry organisations and sales data (breakfast cereals only). Dietitians and nutritionists were asked to identify common Māori, Pacific, and Asian foods. Food names were revised, and lastly, foods were linked to food composition data. The STROBE checklist for cross‐sectional studies was followed to ensure appropriate reporting of the research. Ethical approval was not required for this research as there were no human subjects involved.

FIGURE 1.

Process of developing a food list for New Zealand.

Select baseline food list: Several sources were considered for the baseline food list, including the New Zealand Food Composition Database, ¹³ the unpublished food list compiled for the 2023 Australian National Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey, ¹⁴ and the list from the previous (2008/09) New Zealand Adult Nutrition Survey. ¹⁵ The Australian food list was selected as the starting point list because New Zealand has a similar food supply to Australia and the Australian survey also used Intake24. This food list was provided to the researchers directly by Food Standards Australia New Zealand (personal communication, Manager of Australian Food Composition Program, Food Standards Australia New Zealand, May 2022). The New Zealand Food Composition Database is less reflective of foods from a dietary survey and user perspective; for example, some meats are in the raw form, and it does not have a wide range of multi‐ingredient meals (mixed dishes). The 2008/09 New Zealand nutrition survey list was not used given known changes in the food supply since 2008, and the previous list was too long for an automated 24‐h dietary recall, with 11 850 individual food items.

Review food list: The food list was reviewed at a food‐category level (Table 1) using the food categories in the Australian food list. Each category was revised by considering the optimal range of foods within a category so participants have a limited number of foods to scan while having enough foods so the food consumed is presented and that similar varieties of a food with key differences in nutrients are available. The common brands available in New Zealand were identified along with key nutrients within foods and foods typically fortified. The monitoring priorities of the two ministries were considered, such as meeting dietary guidelines, dietary habits, nutrient intake, fortification (iodine, folic acid), and other nutrients of concern in New Zealand (e.g. saturated fat, sodium, iron, vitamin D). Commonly consumed foods in New Zealand were identified from a range of sources (described below as ‘Add New Zealand specific foods’). For each sub‐category (e.g., yoghurt), the range of food items was explored, and the key differences in the nutrient profile and major ingredients between foods were identified (e.g., plain/flavoured yoghurt, low/full fat) to decide on the optimal type and number of food items. Additional items relevant to the New Zealand food supply were identified to add to the category as described below (e.g., plant‐based yoghurts), any foods that were in the New Zealand Food Composition Database but not required in a survey database (e.g., raw versions of meats) were removed, foods that could be composites (similar foods merged into one food with one nutrient line) were identified (e.g., all varieties of red apples were combined to one food item, a range of biscuits were combined as ‘cookie, other flavours (not chocolate)’), and foods that could be represented by a similar food were removed (e.g., duck curry removed as represented by chicken curry).

TABLE 1.

Number of items in the food list by food category.

Food category	Number of items	% of food list
Dairy and dairy alternatives	197	7.5
Drinks (including alcoholic)	218	8.3
Fruit and vegetables	435	16.6
Grains, bread, and cereals	235	9.0
Infant, baby, and toddler cereals	29	1.1
Protein, sport, and meal replacements	28	1.1
Meat, seafood, eggs, and alternatives	385	14.7
Biscuits, snacks, bars, confectionary, and nuts	288	11.0
Cakes, pancakes, and desserts	131	5.0
Condiments, sauces, dips, and sugar	266	10.2
Mixed meals and dishes, soups	406	15.5
Total	2618	100

Note: The complete food list is accessible in Supplementary File Intake24_NZ food list 2024.

Generally, food items in the food list were not brand‐specific, but when required, there was more than one variation of a food to capture the correct amount of a particular nutrient, with the food name indicating this (e.g., a separate nutrient line for ‘almond milk with added calcium’ versus ‘almond milk, not further defined’ (without calcium)). These decisions were based on whether the same manufacturing plant is used to produce different brands, whether the manufacturer operates across both New Zealand and Australia, sales data (for breakfast cereals), the presence or absence of additional nutrients (e.g., calcium added to milk), and if nutrient content differed by a nutritionally significant amount (e.g., high protein yoghurt). Some generic items were added for common foods such as ‘crackers, not further defined’ for users not aware of details such as the brand or ingredients. Breakfast cereals are often fortified, commonly consumed in high amounts, and concentrations of key nutrients such as fibre, sugar, and sodium vary significantly between products, so a food item was added for specific brands with market dominance (e.g., Sanitarium Weet‐bix). NielsenIQ Homescan® household food purchasing data was used to identify and select the most purchased breakfast cereals in New Zealand as there are many products in this category.

Add New Zealand specific foods: These were identified from various sources. The food lists collated in three recent studies of specific New Zealand populations that collected dietary intake data were shared with the survey team to help identify commonly consumed foods not on the draft nutrition survey food list. These include the following:

• A study of 254 adolescents ¹⁶ to identify common foods and mixed meals amongst this age group.

• A study of children aged 1–3.9 (2021/22, n = 289) to identify common toddler foods. ¹⁷

• A study involving 142 Pacific women ¹⁸ to identify common Pacific dishes.

Other sources of information on available foods, such as the Nutritrack packaged food database, ¹⁹ and supermarket websites were also utilised to ascertain the range of items within a food type, and supermarket shelf space was observed as a guide to popular items.

Include common Māori, Pacific, Asian foods: Consultation was conducted to ensure the Intake24‐New Zealand food list included foods and recipes commonly consumed by Māori, Pacific, and Asian people through contacting the public health nutrition network of nutritionists and dietitians, predominantly working in Auckland, New Zealand (the largest and most ethnically diverse city), and inviting those who considered themselves familiar with these communities to respond. Members were provided with a provisional list of ~120 foods considered to be common cultural foods. Nineteen members identified missing foods, foods on the list not considered common (so deleted) and suggested common mixed dishes. Eight members commented on the Māori food list, five on the Pacific food list, and six on the Asian food list.

Revise food names: An appropriate food name for Intake24‐New Zealand was chosen using common terms to ensure it could be understood by the 24‐hour recall user. As users search for a food, a list of related foods is displayed which requires sufficient detail so users can identify the food while avoiding overly long food names that may not be fully read. The food item was first described, followed by the variety and any cooking method or added condiment. For example, ‘potato, peeled, baked/fried/grilled, with oil/fat’. Examples of common New Zealand brands were added to some packaged foods to make these easily findable for the user, and to distinguish between brands where the nutrient composition differs significantly (e.g., fortified and non‐fortified foods). For certain foods, multiple variants were created to distinguish between wet or dry cooking methods (e.g., ‘boiled potato’; ‘roast potato’) or with or without fat added (e.g., ‘kūmara, baked/fried/grilled with added fat/oil’) or variations in salt content (e.g., ‘peanut butter with added salt’).

Create recipes: Recipes were created for most mixed dishes (curry/stir‐fry) as no matching nutrient line existed in the New Zealand Food Composition Database. Recipes can be for foods that are a mix of ingredients or simply be one food item with a cooking method applied or an ingredient added. Examples are provided in Table 2. Recipes may be for mixed dishes or for composites. Composites are where similar foods are amalgamated in one nutrient line (e.g., a range of common table spreads and margarines named ‘spread composite’) as users may not know the type used. Recipes are not ‘cookbook’ style recipes with instructions of methods but a list of ingredients that can represent multiple variants of a dish, as an individual may not be able to identify and recall all the ingredients and proportions in a mixed dish, especially where they did not prepare it themselves.

TABLE 2.

Recipe types for the creation of nutrient lines.

Type of recipe	Example
Item with cooking fat added	Cauliflower baked or grilled with fat
Item with topping or accompaniment	Fruit cake with icing
Variety of cooking methods	Carrot boiled/steamed/microwaved
Combine versions of the same ingredient	Rolled oats uncooked – consisting of rolled oats New Zealand, rolled oats Australia, wholegrain oats
Mixed dish with variations	Curry recipe – tomato or coconut milk or cream‐based Recipes in the food list for tomato‐based curries with the same core ingredients: Beef curry, homemade, tomato‐based sauce Lamb curry, homemade, tomato‐based sauce Chicken curry, homemade, tomato‐based sauce Fish curry, homemade, tomato‐based sauce Seafood curry, homemade, tomato‐based sauce Vegetable curry, homemade, tomato‐based sauce
Mixed dish	Savoury muffin
Composite generic ingredient	Deep‐frying fat composite Consists of the following: Oil, vegetable, blend, frying Shortening, vegetable Shortening, Chefade Shortening, hardened canola oil Shortening, hardened palm oil Lard

Recipes were identified by type of mixed dish (e.g., curry) and a base recipe was created with variations. The ingredients and amounts were identified in several ways. Common New Zealand versions of recipes identified as popular by a survey of dietitians were searched online and in recipe books. Recipes continued to be identified until the common ingredients were clear enough to be able to compile one recipe or variation. The ingredients were matched to an item in the New Zealand Food Composition Database to obtain the appropriate nutrient information for the whole recipe. To supplement the previous steps, some of the recipes created for the 2008/09 Adult Nutrition Survey list were revised to update ingredients, quantities, and food composition data. A special effort was made for the food list to represent the complexity and variety of mixed dishes. For some mixed dishes, the food (e.g., noodle soup) could be homemade or ready‐made. For some dishes, such as curries, separate recipe lines were needed as the dish may differ when prepared in a restaurant compared to at home. For other dishes, such as lasagna, the ingredients and preparation methods of a homemade dish were considered similar to a restaurant dish, so the same recipe was used for both. Recipes for indigenous dishes were sought from survey respondents.

Link to food composition data: Each food item in the Intake24‐New Zealand food list needed to be linked to the corresponding nutrient data. First, the food list items were matched to an appropriate nutrient line in the New Zealand Food Composition Database, if this existed. Second, recipes were generated for mixed dishes (e.g., beef curry with a tomato‐based sauce), or simple variations of an existing food in the New Zealand Food Composition Database (e.g., salmon steamed calculated from a raw salmon food record). Remaining items were matched to a nutrient line from the latest available version of the Australian Food and Nutrient Database 2011–13, ²⁰ particularly single ingredient foods (e.g., almond butter).

Nutrient lines were created for recipes within the data management software FoodCASE. ²¹ This involved applying relevant nutrient retention and weight yield factors from a range of established sources identified by Plant and Food Research Ltd. ²² as required to adjust for nutrient losses during cooking and moisture/fat adjustments made to account for losses or gains during cooking. Each nutrient line consisted of 62 components (energy, macronutrients, micronutrients, and other components such as caffeine).

Many common cultural foods were already on the provisional food list provided to the nutritionists, particularly vegetables and fruits. An additional 44 food items were identified and added to the food list, including vegetables, breads, snacks, mixed dishes, and desserts (Table 3).

TABLE 3.

Foods common to Māori, Pacific or Asian communities added to the food list.

Category	Food or drink item	Ethnic group
Drinks	KoKo Samoa (made‐up drink)	Pacific
	Lassi	Asian
Fruits and vegetables	Bitter melon	Asian
	Taewa/Riwai, purple potato, cooked	Māori
Meat, seafood, eggs, and alternatives	Beef tendons	Asian
	Bone marrow	Asian
	Dried fish	Asian
	Fish head, cooked	Māori
	Pigs trotters, cooked	Pacific
	Preserved egg, e.g., century egg	Asian
	Tofu skin	Asian
	Turkey tails, cooked	Pacific
Grains, breads, and cereals	Bhatura (bread)	Asian
	Dhosa (pancake)	Asian
	Flattened rice/poha	Asian
	Glass noodles, e.g., vermicelli, dangmyeon	Asian
	Panipopo (coconut cream bun)	Pacific
	Parāoa (fry bread)	Māori
	Paratha (bread)	Asian
	Rēwena bread	Māori
	To'okutu/Fa'apapa (coconut bread)	Pacific
Biscuits, snacks, bars, confectionary, and nuts	Masi saiga (coconut biscuits)	Pacific
	Mithai/sweet, milk based, e.g., Barfi	Asian
	Mithai/sweet, flour based, e.g., Laddu	Asian
Cakes, pancakes, and desserts	Dessert/sweet, soaked in syrup, e.g., jalebi, gulab jamun	Asian
	Filled, sweet rice cake, e.g., Mochi, Tangyuan	Asian
	Kokoalaisa (koko rice)	Pacific
	Kopai/Topai (flour dumpling with sweet sauce)	Pacific
	Panikeke (deep fried pancakes)	Pacific
	Pineapple pie	Pacific
	Ras malai (dessert)	Asian
	Sua fa'i (banana sago)	Pacific
Mixed dishes	Boil‐up, with doughboys	Māori
	Boil‐up, without doughboys	Māori
	Creamed paua	Māori
	Hangi (cooking food using heated rocks buried in a pit oven)	Māori
	Oka i'a/Ota ika (raw fish salad, with coconut cream)	Pacific
	Palusami (taro leaves with coconut cream)	Pacific
	Paua fritter	Pacific
	Pisupo (corned beef stir fry)	Pacific
	Poke (dessert with pumpkin or banana)	Pacific
	Sapasui (beef chop suey)	Pacific
	Sapasui (chicken chop suey)	Pacific
	Taro in coconut cream	Pacific

3. RESULTS

The final New Zealand food list comprised 2618 foods as shown in Figure 1. The number of foods in each of the 11 food categories is listed in Table 1. The complete food list is accessible in Supplementary File ‘Intake24_NZ food list 2024’.

Matching to New Zealand‐specific food composition data was prioritised:

• 968 foods matched to data from the New Zealand Food Composition Database.

• 558 additional recipes created using ingredients/existing food entries in the New Zealand Food Composition Database.

• 34 foods borrowed from other food composition databases (FoodData Central United States Department of Agriculture, ²³ UK/National Nutrient Databank/McCance and Widdowson's The Composition of Foods Integrated Dataset ²⁴ ).

• 994 foods matched to nutrient lines from the Australian Food and Nutrient Database. ²⁰

• 64 foods – to be analysed, recipes created, or nutrient line borrowed.

4. DISCUSSION

Our development of a concise food list for Intake24‐New Zealand follows the process used in other countries. The final list has a similar number of foods to the UK Intake24 food list (approximately 2500 foods) ⁶ and is less than the Australian Intake24 food list (n = 3741) (personal communication). Furthermore, the number of items in the US Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrient Database for Dietary Studies reduced from 8690 foods in 2015/16 to 5624 foods in 2019/20. ²⁵ Although the Intake24‐New Zealand food list is considerably smaller than the previous New Zealand national nutrition survey list (n = 11 850), the list nevertheless reflects the commonly consumed foods in New Zealand, including those consumed by the major ethnic communities, without being burdensome for users.

A challenge faced when developing the food list was a lack of information on commonly consumed foods and brands due to the lack of recent food intake data in New Zealand. As such, the food list was developed using a collaborative approach, drawing on the expertise of many, such as nutritionists working in Māori, Pacific, and Asian communities. In addition, a range of information sources were used, such as recent dietary studies that were conducted with specific population groups, ¹⁶ , ¹⁷ , ¹⁸ the Nutritrack packaged food database, ¹⁹ and supermarket websites as a guide to popular items. Sales data is expensive to purchase, so it was purchased only for breakfast cereals, as these foods are commonly consumed, often fortified, and there are many brands and types of cereals. This meant that the most popular cereals were listed as separate branded food items, and this food category has more granularity than other categories.

Developing a local food list requires balancing the possible user burden of finding and selecting a food from a long list of options with the food list being too short and there being no appropriate food to choose from, both resulting in inaccuracies in the reporting of dietary intake. There needs to be enough granularity to detect relevant differences nutritionally, so it is important to understand when separate food items (and therefore nutrient lines) are required for variations of a food, and when similar foods or flavours can be combined as one food item (one nutrient line). For example, chocolate and vanilla yoghurts can be combined into one nutrient line as the sugar, protein, and calcium content are similar, but separate nutrient lines are required for standard and high‐protein plain yoghurt due to the nutritionally significant differences in protein content.

There is a concern that a shorter food list may incorrectly estimate nutrient intakes as the food composition data differs from the actual foods a participant consumed. Two studies used a range of measures to test the impact on estimates of nutrient intake of a shorter food list compared to a longer list and found the concise food list to be suitable for use. ⁶ , ²⁶ The UK Intake24 team compared the nutrient analysis from four‐day diet diaries of the 2017 UK National Diet and Nutrition Survey data to a recalculation of nutrient intakes using an updated rationalised food list. ⁶ Of 29 nutrients, the percentage difference in intake was <2% for 20, and <5% for all but two. Most participants were classified into the same tertile of nutrient intake ranging from 73% of participants for percentage energy from fat to 92% for carbohydrate.

A study in Ireland ²⁶ using data from the 2008–2010 Irish National Adult Nutrition Survey compared a concise list of foods (n = 751) with an extensive list of foods (n = 2319). Of 35 nutrients, the percentage difference in intake was <2% for 25, and <5% for all but two. Most participants were classified into the same tertile of nutrient intake, ranging from 80% of participants for vitamin E to 97% for alcohol.

It was not possible to conduct similar comparison studies in New Zealand as our previous national nutrition survey was in 2008/09. Since then, there have been significant changes to the food supply, meaning that reanalysing the 2008/09 data using our 2023/24 shorter food list would be difficult due to challenges in matching foods across a 15‐year time period. There were separate nutrient lines where possible for foods such as breakfast cereals and yoghurts, which differ in nutrient content, but there are many different foods in these categories, so it is not possible to have a separate item in the food list to account for all the variations and it is challenging to keep up with changes in formulation by manufacturers. Therefore, this may overestimate or underestimate the nutrient intake, particularly for some micronutrients.

There is concern that relying on standard recipes rather than individuals adding their own recipes may incorrectly estimate nutrient intakes. Zhang et al. ²⁷ assessed the extent of standard recipe modifications in the Dutch National Food Consumption Survey by comparing the nutrient intake from users reporting standard recipes compared to users adjusting standard recipes to match the recipe they consumed. The non‐adjusted standard recipes caused a slight underestimation of the quantity of ingredients and therefore nutrients consumed. Estimating ingredient amounts in a mixed meal is, however, challenging, particularly when the person did not prepare the dish themselves. Standard recipes can save time and include commonly forgotten ingredients such as seasonings and added fat. The range of deviation from standard recipes in New Zealand is not known and would depend on factors like season, ingredient availability, and personal taste. Therefore, this could overestimate or underestimate nutrient intake, particularly for sodium, as seasonings can vary among people but also the amount of vegetables and types of fat that are in a recipe.

A valid food list determines the user's ability to select food items and is essential for the utility and accuracy of automated online dietary assessment tools. One of the major concerns with a concise food list, and one that is developed prior to the survey rather than after the survey, is that it may not contain some common foods. As such, users may select foods that do not represent what they actually ate; there may be missing foods (although Intake24 has a function to add missing foods which can be matched to nutrient lines manually by the researcher), which may ultimately result in incorrect estimation of nutrient intakes. In a field test of Intake24 in Scotland with a food list of about 2300 foods, Rowland et al. ²⁸ identified finding the correct food items as the most reported challenge of participants. Finding a relevant match can also be an issue with larger food lists. Koch et al. ²⁹ tested Myfood24‐Germany with a list of 11 501 foods. Most participants agreed the search function was easy to use, but many reported problems finding a correct item and criticised the incompleteness of the database despite the size. Usability testing in New Zealand with 37 people ³⁰ and with 45 participants (unpublished) also identified finding a correct item as challenging, but this was more to do with the search function, as most of the foods reported as missing were either very specific mixed dishes or the food was on the food list. The use of Intake24 by researchers will assist in identifying further foods not currently on the food list.

Developing a food list is time‐consuming and an iterative process with limitations. Subjective decisions were required as there is no one correct food list. The expert group determining the food list was not representative of the population, so a survey of nutritionists working with ethnic communities was conducted. Using the Australian food list as the starting point saved time but could have missed key New Zealand foods. The food list is dynamic, with missing foods able to be added and to respond to changes in the food supply.

As the food supply is constantly changing, it is imperative that a food list is regularly reviewed and updated, in particular food categories with high fortification levels and emerging categories like plant‐based milks and meat alternatives. Maintenance of the food list is generally more feasible for a shorter list, particularly where items are not brand‐specific, as the inclusion of specific branded items involves the need for regular nutrient line updates as formulations change.

This paper describes a feasible and collaborative process for nutrition researchers and professionals to develop a food list for automated dietary analysis that reflects the food supply of the country or region. The resulting New Zealand food list reflects commonly consumed foods in New Zealand and includes important ethnic and indigenous foods, thus reflecting the current food supply.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

S. M., C. N. M., M. T., M. G., and C. L. conceptualised the research. S. M., M. T., M. G., C. L., and B. F. were involved in developing the food list. S. M. wrote the first draft and is responsible for the paper's final content. All authors critically revised and approved the final version. The authors acknowledge Maria Turley, Megan Grant, Suba Sivakumaran and Dr Mary‐Ann Carter for providing scientific expertise in the development of the food list. Food Standards Australia New Zealand and the Australian Bureau of Statistics are also acknowledged.

FUNDING INFORMATION

The New Zealand Ministry of Health and the Ministry for Primary Industries funded this research.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

Dr. Carolyn Lister is a member of the Zespri Nutrition and Health Scientific Advisory Board and a member of the 5+A Day Charitable Trust. The remaining authors declare no conflict of interests.

Supporting information

Data S1 Supporting Information.

Mackay S, Haliburton C, Follong B, Lister C, Gibbs M, Ni Mhurchu C. Developing a food list for a new 24‐h dietary recall tool for New Zealand. Nutrition & Dietetics. 2025;82(3):292‐300. doi: 10.1111/1747-0080.70014

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The data that supports the findings of this study are available in the supplementary material of this article.