1
NUTR7001 Assessment #1: Current Nutrition Topic
Due: Thursday, 28th of August 2025, at 1:00pm AEST (i.e., Brisbane time) Weighting: 25%
Task:
As an intern at the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), you have been working alongside
NHMRC staff who are responsible for leading the review of the 2013 Australian Dietary Guidelines. Once the
revised draft guidelines are released in 2026, they will be open for public consultation. You have been asked to
contribute to this public consultation process as part of your learning and work experience at NHMRC. Your
task is to synthesise and report on the food-based dietary guidelines (FBDGs) in a country of your choice
(excluding Australia). You will produce a clear evidenced informed oral presentation and present to NHMRC
staff and fellow interns as part of an intern professional development workshop. The aim of this workshop is to:
(a) identify key learnings from relevant international food-based dietary guidelines that might positively
contribute to the revision of the Australian Dietary Guidelines and,
(b) model to you and fellow interns how you can all actively contribute to the dietary guideline consultation
process.
When constructing your response, you should consider the following elements:
Elements: Detail:
Purpose To synthesise information, educate and inform
Text type Multi-media oral presentation (pre-recorded), including supporting
PowerPoint slides
Written report – evidence-based presentation background report
Audience and your role Your role: A public health postgraduate student completing an internship at
the NHMRC
Audience: Staff and fellow interns at the NHMRC
Conditions and upload
requirements
Part A: Oral presentation: Three (3) minutes, pre-recorded (not live)
Upload presentation via assignment link on Blackboard Ultra
Part B: Written background report: Word count: 800-1000 words
Upload report via Turnitin link on Blackboard Ultra (in addition to your written
background report, please include a pdf of your PowerPoint slides, Reference list and AI
generated content consolidated into one pdf document)
Referencing style: Vancouver (see
https://guides.library.uq.edu.au/referencing/vancouver-ama and ensure numbers are included
on slides and Reference List is included on the final slide/s)
This is an Individual task
Learning objectives
assessed
3. Critically evaluate the influence of socio-political, cultural, economic, and
environmental determinants on public health nutrition issues affecting
priority populations across domestic and global contexts
4. Communicate complex concepts related to food systems, nutrition
policy, and public health nutrition to both specialist and non-specialist
audiences
5. Demonstrate advanced reflective analytical and effective oral and written
communication skills to identify, curate and critically appraise literature to
assess the ethical, cultural, and global implications of nutrition-related
decisions


2
Background:
Food-based dietary guidelines (FBDGs) provide country-specific guidance on what constitutes a healthy diet.
Many countries are actively involved in revising their dietary guidelines that reflect current scientific evidence
and that consider a range of different aspects such as cultural relevance, and public health priorities.
As discussed, the Australian Dietary Guidelines are currently being reviewed and are due for release in 2026
(see https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/health-advice/nutrition/australian-dietary-guidelines-review/about-the-review).
The FBDGs are also periodically reviewed in many other countries, based on best available recent evidence.
Getting started:
Your task is to review a current FBDG in a country of your choice. Use the structure outlined below to guide
your content (for your 3-minute oral presentation and written background report). If you use AI to generate any
part of the assessment, please include outputs as an appendix.
1. Introduction/overview:
Briefly define and identify the FBDG in your chosen country
o Provide any key/relevant information about your chosen country – e.g., describe the population,
diversity, cultural context.
o Succinctly outline the FBDG key messages and visual tools (e.g., food plate, food pyramids etc)
o Who is responsible for drafting them?
o When were they developed?
o Are they under review?
2. Public health nutrition priorities and rationale:
What have the FBDG been based on e.g., what background information, for example:
o Key public health issues the guidelines aim to address (e.g., obesity, undernutrition, non-
communicable diseases)
o How the guidelines reflect national dietary patterns, food security, or sustainability concerns
(provide evidence)
o Alignment with national policies supporting food and nutrition
o Equity considerations for meeting the needs of the entire population
3. Implementation and communication strategies:
o How are the guidelines promoted (e.g., education campaigns, school programs, food labelling)?
o Do the existing FBDG meets the needs of all sections of the population?
o Have there been any key successes and/or major challenges in uptake of the guidelines?
4. Brief comparison with the Australian Dietary Guidelines:
o State one similarity and difference between the FBDG of the selected country and the Australian
Dietary Guidelines e.g., in structure, content, and public health focus…?
o What are 1-2 key strengths and limitations of each (e.g., consider for example in terms of cultural,
environmental, and policy contexts…)
5. Critical reflection: Recommendations for the 2026 ADG:
o What could Australia learn or adapt from the chosen country (ensure this is an evidence-based
suggestions for improvement (e.g., sustainability, equity, cultural relevance). Provide one (1)
recommendation ONLY.
o Provide a brief personal reflective statement on the importance of global perspectives in shaping
national nutrition policy



3
Step-by-step process
Step 1 - Select a country and commence research:
• Select a country and locate its current FBDG.
• See the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) website link to assist with this
process https://www.fao.org/nutrition/education/dietary-guidelines/home/en/
• Collect and research a wide range of peer-reviewed evidence related to the chosen country and its
FBDG.
• Use this research to help inform your 3-minute presentation and your written background report.
Step 2 - Preparing your presentation:
• Prepare an engaging and visually appealing PowerPoint presentation.
• Your presentation ideally will be no more than 6 slides (excluding an Acknowledgment and Reference
List slide/s). Number all slides in the bottom right-hand corner.
• Use 14-point font or larger on all slides.
• Include graphics where possible to reduce text.
• Develop a written background report to support your presentation.
• Use Vancouver (numbered) referencing style throughout.
Step 3 - Recording your presentation:
• Record your presentation using any software such as PowerPoint (3-minutes only).
• You will require a built-in microphone on your device or alternatively use a headset with a microphone.
Complete a test run as soon as possible to make sure everything is working.
• You must be visible in the presentation along with the slides.
• Please do not end the recording as soon as you get to your reference slide, or it will not be possible to
review the references you have listed on your final slide/s (your 3-minute limit will stop before your
reference slide/s).
Step 4 - Submitting your presentation:
• You will need to submit your recorded presentation (media file) via a submission link AND
accompanying written report (including a pdf of your slides, Reference list and AI generated content
consolidated into one pdf document) via the Turnitin link available in the ‘NUTR7001 Assessment 1:
Current Nutrition Topic’ folder.
• Instructions to record and upload your video presentations can be found via
https://elearning.uq.edu.au/student-guides-ultra/video-assessment-ultra/record-video-or-audio-through-
echovideo-ultra-student


Using Generative AI
You are allowed to use generative AI in this assignment if you chose to do so. Microsoft Co-pilot is the
preferred tool. Please make sure it is acknowledged, verified, and that you include your interactions with Co-
Pilot as an appendix within the written document. This is not included in the word count.

Note: Assessment elements (oral presentation and background report) need to provide succinct justification
that is evidence-based (needs more than a yes or no response to prompts above). Additionally, please use a
strengths-based approach when constructing this assessment task (see document in the Assessment folder
titled ‘Using Inclusive language and correct terminology’)




4
NUTR7001 Assessment #1: Current Nutrition Topic (25%) Marking Criteria & Standards

Learning Objectives
& Criteria
7 (>85%)
Demonstrated evidence of
exceptional achievement of
course learning outcomes.
6 (75-84%)
Demonstrated evidence
of advanced achievement
of course learning
outcomes.
5 (65-74%)
Demonstrated evidence
of proficient achievement
of course learning
outcomes.
4 (50-64%)
Demonstrated evidence
of functional
achievement of course
learning outcomes.
3 (45-49%)
Demonstrated evidence
of developing
achievement of course
learning outcomes.
2-1 (<44%)
Absence or minimal
evidence of
achievement of course
learning outcomes.

1. Introduction
/overview

20%
Comprehensive FBDG definition
with all key elements (basis,
responsible parties, timeline,
review status). Rich country
context with clear connections.
Excellent outline of key messages
and visual tools.
Good FBDG definition
covering most elements.
Solid country context with
relevant details. Clear
outline demonstrating good
understanding.
Adequate FBDG definition
with some key elements.
Basic country context
information. Adequate
outline with basic
understanding.
Basic FBDG definition with
limited detail. Minimal
country context. Limited
outline with unclear
understanding.
Minimal/incorrect FBDG
definition. Poor/missing
country context.
Poor/missing outline of key
messages.
No clear FBDG definition.
Poor/missing country
context. Poor/missing
outline of key messages.

2. Public Health
Priorities & Rationale

20%
Comprehensive analysis of public
health issues with strong
evidence. Excellent integration of
dietary patterns, food security,
sustainability. Clear policy
connections. Thorough equity
analysis with strong justification.
Good analysis with adequate
evidence. Good integration
with some evidence. Good
policy connections. Good
equity analysis with
adequate justification.
Basic analysis with some
evidence. Basic integration
identified. Some policy
connections. Basic equity
analysis with some
justification.
Limited analysis with weak
evidence. Minimal
integration with little
evidence. Limited policy
connections. Limited equity
analysis.
Poor/missing analysis.
Limited integration or
evidence. Very poor policy
connections. Poor/missing
equity analysis.
No evidence and analysis
of all elements.

3. Implementation &
Communication

15%
Comprehensive analysis of
promotion strategies with specific
examples. Insightful population
needs evaluation with strong
justification. Detailed analysis of
successes/challenges with
evidence.
Good analysis with some
examples. Good evaluation
with adequate justification.
Good analysis of
successes/challenges with
some evidence.
Basic analysis with limited
examples. Basic evaluation
with some justification.
Basic analysis with limited
evidence.
Minimal analysis with few
examples. Limited
evaluation with weak
justification. Minimal
analysis with little evidence.
Poor/missing analysis of
promotion. Poor/missing
population needs
evaluation. Poor/missing
analysis of
successes/challenges.
All elements very poorly
considered.

4. Australian Guidelines
Comparison

10%
Clear, insightful identification of
similarity and difference with
excellent analysis. Comprehensive
analysis of strengths/limitations
with strong justification. Excellent
contextual considerations.

Good identification with
solid analysis. Good analysis
of strengths/limitations with
adequate justification. Good
contextual consideration.
Adequate identification with
basic analysis. Basic analysis
with some justification.
Basic contextual
consideration.
Limited identification with
weak analysis. Limited
analysis with weak
justification. Limited
contextual consideration.
Limited comparison, missing
strengths/limitations
analysis. Poor/missing
contextual considerations.
No comparison of any
kind.

5. Critical Reflection &
Recommendations

10%
Outstanding, well-justified
recommendation for 2026 ADG
with strong evidence base.
Insightful personal reflection on
global perspectives in nutrition
policy.
Good recommendation with
adequate evidence. Good
reflection with clear insights
about global perspectives.
Basic recommendation with
some evidence. Adequate
reflection with some
insights.
Weak recommendation with
limited evidence. Limited
reflection with minimal
insights.
Poor/missing
recommendation.
Poor/superficial reflection
on global perspectives.
No critical reflection.


5
Learning Objectives
& Criteria
7 (>85%)
Demonstrated evidence of
exceptional achievement of
course learning outcomes.
6 (75-84%)
Demonstrated evidence
of advanced achievement
of course learning
outcomes.
5 (65-74%)
Demonstrated evidence
of proficient achievement
of course learning
outcomes.
4 (50-64%)
Demonstrated evidence
of functional
achievement of course
learning outcomes.
3 (45-49%)
Demonstrated evidence
of developing
achievement of course
learning outcomes.
2-1 (<44%)
Absence or minimal
evidence of
achievement of course
learning outcomes.

6. Presentation Quality

10%
Exceptional slide design with
appropriate graphics, excellent
readability (≥14pt font). Clear,
confident delivery within 3-minute
limit. All technical requirements
met perfectly (6-8 slides,
numbering, visibility, audio
quality).
Good design with effective
visuals and readability. Good
delivery within time limit,
engaging presentation. Most
technical requirements met.
Adequate design with some
visuals. Adequate delivery,
mostly within time limit.
Some technical
requirements met.
Basic design with limited
visuals. Delivery issues or
timing problems. Few
technical requirements met.
Very basic presentation
design, and technical
requirements inadequately
met.
Poor design, difficult to
read. Poor delivery,
significantly over/under
time. Technical
requirements not met.

7. Academic Integrity &
Referencing

15%
Perfect Vancouver style
referencing throughout. Excellent
use of high-quality, peer-reviewed
sources with appropriate
integration. Exemplary use of
inclusive language and strengths-
based approach.
Critically verifies AI generated
content and provides Co-pilot
interactions in appendix.
Good referencing with
minor errors. Good use of
quality sources with
adequate integration. Good
use of inclusive language
and approach.

Verifies AI generated
content and provides Co-
pilot interactions in
appendix.
Adequate referencing with
some errors. Adequate
sources with basic
integration. Adequate use
with minor language issues.

Identifies AI generated
content and provides Co-
pilot interactions in
appendix.
Poor referencing with many
errors. Limited quality
sources, weak integration.
Limited use with some
problematic language.

Identifies limited AI
generated content and
provides Co-pilot
interactions in appendix.
Limited. Poor sources or
inadequate integration. Poor
use of inclusive language.

Very limited identification of
AI generated content;
limited appendix content.
Poor referencing skills and
AI content not identified.


Comments:
Feedback: What was done well and not so well…
Feedforward: Next 0me….

学霸联盟