'
Australia’s ‘flawed’ health star ratings are being criticized as they meet a deadline
International

Australia’s ‘flawed’ health star ratings are being criticized as they meet a deadline

author
7 minutes, 36 seconds Read

It was intended to make healthy choices easy, but nutritionists say the Health Star Rating system is falling short.
Critics say the front-of-pack labeling system for foods and beverages lacks consistency between products, uses an algorithm that overlooks ultra-processed foods and artificial sweeteners, and, because displaying a rating is not mandatory, is more likely to be applied to higher-rated products as a promotional tactic.
After a five-year process in the wake of a 2019 review, Friday marks the final deadline for food and drink manufacturers to voluntarily apply the review to 70 percent of relevant products.

The government promised to consider making the system mandatory if the target was not met, which appears to be the case.

Research from Sydney-based The George Institute for Global Health found that uptake in the sector was just 37 percent by 2025.
Uptake has stagnated in recent years. Last November, only 35 percent of targeted products in Australia showed a star rating, only slightly higher than the 32 percent the year before, according to government data.
Alexandra Jones, head of food management at The George Institute, said the government’s targets were “extremely generous, yet the multi-billion dollar packaged food industry has not even come close to meeting them”.
“This is a stunning failure by the industry that shows blatant disregard for the Australian consumers who buy their products.”
Julian Rait, vice-president of the Australian Medical Association, told SBS News the system was “the only way to ensure the Health Star Ratings benefit consumers and not just the industry”.

“It appears that food manufacturers are very selective about what they use the Health Star Ratings for,” he said. “They mostly use them for their healthier products and exploit the HSR as a marketing tool, avoiding using unhealthy products.”

How does the Health Star Rating system work?

The government initiative was introduced in Australia and New Zealand in 2014 in consultation with industry and public health stakeholders.

It rates the nutritional profile of a packaged food or beverage product from 0.5 to 5 stars.

Source: SBS news

Using an online calculator, manufacturers add four key ‘negative’ nutrients that lower an item’s score: kilojoules, saturated fat, sugars and sodium.

They can then add four ‘positive’ inputs that increase the rating. These are:

– Fiber

– Egg white

– Content of vegetables, fruit, nuts and legumes (FVNL)

– Concentrated fruit or vegetable ingredients such as tomato paste
The intention is to compare similar products, i.e. cheese with other cheese products, but not cheese with muesli bars.
Sarah Dickie, a research fellow in the Department of Nutrition, Dietetics and Food at Monash University, told SBS News that allowing positive components to override negative ones is not an ideal system.

“The idea of ​​adding enough good ingredients to balance that doesn’t really work. It’s still junk food.”

Products with a low rating are less likely to display a rating

Research from the George Institute on more than 21,000 products last year found that 61 percent of five-star items showed their rating.

Only 16 percent of products that would receive a half-star were labeled, and only 24 percent of products that scored three stars or lower received a rating.

Inclusion of Health Star Rating

Source: SBS news

Jones of The George Institute said in August that the lack of consistency makes it difficult for consumers to compare items.

She called for a “clear and rapid timeline” to make assessments mandatory, in addition to regular, independent reviews of the algorithm underlying the system.

Processing not included

Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) are made with few unprocessed foods, made using industrial techniques, modified substances and various additives. This includes products such as crisps, carbonated or artificially sweetened drinks, lollipops, certain breakfast cereals and energy bars.
The processing is not captured by the Health Star Rating algorithm, despite growing evidence linking UPFs to it numerous adverse health effects including heart disease and diabetes.

“You get ultra-processed foods that can go through the algorithm and say they’re really healthy,” says Dickie, whose research looked specifically at the Health Star Rating system.

Health star

Source: SBS news

Artificial sweeteners also don’t count in the system, meaning soft drinks and liqueurs without sugar can get up to 3.5 stars.

Although some positive adjustments have been made to the rating system following a previous review, Dickie said there are still some “fundamental flaws” in the algorithm.
“You can walk around the grocery store and find things that are heavily processed, like Up & Go, or even artificially sweetened soda – 3.5,” she said.
“That doesn’t make any sense, does it?” she added. ‘There is no nutritional value in it [in artificially-sweetened soft drink].”

Artificial sweeteners have been linked to intestinal problems, she said, and can promote taste preferences for sweetened foods and drinks.

“If you get them from a young age, you develop a taste for sweets, which is not good for your dietary habits.”

Up & Go’s liquid breakfast products, which contain fiber and protein, score between 4.5 and 5 stars. Several brands of packaged chips have ratings of up to 3.5 stars. Milo snack bars have a 4-star rating, while other snack products like LCM’s choc chip have a 1-star label.

Consumers want more transparency, studies show

A 2024 VicHealth survey of 1,100 Australians found that nutritional information was the most important factor influencing food purchases after price. Yet many respondents said they did not trust food labels to be transparent.
Similarly, a 2023 Cancer Council survey found that 82 percent of Australian adults believe Health Star Ratings should be displayed on all packaged food.

About two-thirds said making the system mandatory would make it more useful, and 65 percent said it would help simplify their purchasing decisions.

Should a flawed system be made mandatory?

Experts agree that a mandatory system is crucial, but disagree on which direction it should go.
Magriet Raxworthy, CEO of Dietitians Australia, said the peak body was in favor of making the current system mandatory, but said there was still scope for improvements in the future.
“I really believe this will take us a step in the right direction, and will certainly allow the Australian public to make more informed choices,” she told SBS News.

She suggested that outlier products with inaccurate ratings are only a small part of the picture, but said the vast majority “do provide accurate information.” However, she called for better messaging to the public on how to properly read the ratings.

“We know people are comparing Health Star Ratings of products outside the groupings, and that means you’re also not using the system correctly,” she said.
Dickie, who is also an executive member of advocacy group Healthy Food Systems Australia, said she does not believe the current model is fit for purpose.
That group would not want the system to be made mandatory in its current form.

“Our preference would be to change it to an alert-based system,” she said.

Food ministers will meet early next year

A Department of Health spokesperson told SBS News that food ministers will meet early next year to review reporting on the application and receive updates from Food Standards Australia New Zealand – the agency that develops food standards and policies for both countries – on preparatory work it has undertaken to potentially make the system mandatory.
“Based on this update, food ministers will further consider whether to make the HSR system mandatory,” the spokesperson said.

If ministers decide to make the system mandatory, it could take several years before consumers see the effects on the shelves.

The spokesperson noted that the existing system is designed to align with the Australian Dietary Guidelines, which do not refer to processing level.
These guidelines are currently under review and once an updated version is released, “the continued alignment of the HSR system will be considered”.
“The HSR does not replace nutritional knowledge. Unlike dietary guidelines, it does not tell you what types of food to eat or in what quantities. Just because a product has a 5-star rating does not mean you should eat it every day or in large quantities,” the spokesperson said.

“Health Stars helps consumers quickly and easily compare similar products. It won’t help you choose between bacon and cereal. But if you’ve decided to buy cereal, it will help you choose a healthier option.”

The Australian Food and Grocery Council, the largest trade body for the food, drink and grocery industry, told SBS News it “supports the Health Star Rating system as a tool to help Australians make informed food choices”.
“For many companies, especially small manufacturers, introducing or revising packaging involves a lot of time, cost and logistical complexity,” a spokesperson said.

“Any shift from the HSR to a mandatory measure would require adequate timeframes and support to ensure long-term planning and avoid unnecessary waste or disruption to production.”

What might a different approach look like?

Dickie pointed out that the existing system is positively skewed: By design, every product technically has a positive star rating above 0.5, even the lowest-rated products.
Research into front-of-pack labeling shows that a warning system or a negatively skewed system is more effective.
“Something that actually puts a warning label on junk food and points out the products we shouldn’t eat is going to be more effective than these kinds of ranking-based systems that are positive,” she said.

#Australias #flawed #health #star #ratings #criticized #meet #deadline

Similar Posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *