On Thursday, Australian and New Zealand food ministers at state, federal and national levels met to discuss what’s next for health star ratings for packaged foods.
Now, after the food industry made slow progress in meeting the target to voluntarily put health stars on more products, ministers are tightening the screws.
In an important step, they have just started a process to make health stars mandatory.
Here’s what this could mean for consumers and what else we’d like to see.
A voluntary system is not working
Health star ratings are currently a form of voluntary, on-pack labeling intended to provide a simple, at-a-glance tool to help consumers compare similar packaged foods and make healthier choices.
But food ministers say the food industry is “significantly off track” to meet targets for voluntary retention of health stars. The aim is for 70% of target products to have a health star rating by mid-November 2025.
Statistics published in May this year show that health stars were only on 32% of products in Australia and 30% in New Zealand that should carry them.
Therefore, yesterday’s decision of the ministers to start the preparations for the mandate of the system is important.
Ten years of voluntary health stars have limited their value, with stars still missing from most labels. Uptake also remains skewed toward higher-scoring products. This reduces the potential of stars to warn people about low-scoring, unhealthy foods and drinks that play a major role in driving chronic disease.
Will the food industry reach its 2025 target?
Overall, the uptake of health stars has stagnated or even declined slightly in recent years. So, given the food industry’s performance so far, the chances are slim, at best, that it will reach the 70% target in 2025.
The George Institute’s annual independent monitoring suggests that further approval will require an about-face from some major manufacturers that have so far resisted the use of health stars. Hundreds of smaller manufacturers also haven’t gotten on board.
The fact that most products that have yet to show appreciation would attract low scores makes it extremely unlikely that the industry will voluntarily meet the 70% target.
The George Institute’s FoodSwitch program and app calculates star ratings for products, regardless of whether food companies indicate it on the label. The image below shows the health stars of some popular products that are not currently labeled under the voluntary system. As you can see, they got low stars.
George Institute
What else would we like to see?
In addition to allowing shoppers to make healthy choices, mandating health stars has other less obvious but equally important advantages.
Not only will governments no longer have to rely on the food industry to buy into the process, but mandating health stars gives governments the opportunity to further strengthen the system.
The system currently rates foods using an algorithm that was developed by a group that included the food industry. The algorithm deducts points for energy, total sugars, salt and saturated fat, while rewarding protein, fiber, fruit, vegetable, nut and legume content.
Our work has previously shown that the algorithm evaluates products in most cases. Despite this, there is room for improvement.
Manufacturers can “game” the current system by adding fiber, protein and artificial sweeteners to boost their ratings. This creates a “health halo” effect where products appear healthier than they actually are.
These fibers, proteins and sweeteners are markers of ultra-processing, as they would not normally be found in those foods at those levels. Diets high in ultra-processed foods are increasingly associated with a number of serious long-term health problems.
In recent weeks, we showed that factoring ultra-processing into how health stars are calculated can reduce the scores given to many of these problematic foods, such as sugary cereals, refined white bread and diet soft drinks.
While ministers have not included an algorithm review in their next steps, periodic reviews will be necessary to ensure the stars remain up-to-date with evolving nutrition science.
They must also follow World Health Organization guidelines by ensuring they are carried out by an independent panel of experts without industry interference.
There’s also much we can learn from a decade of global labeling progress to refresh and improve the appearance of stars on packaged foods.
Markus Mainka/Shutterstock
Europe’s Nutri-Score system, for example, is similar, but rates foods overall by AE with the addition of red, orange and green to enhance consumer messaging. Australian research has already shown that health stars can benefit just as much from using meaningful colors.
Other potential best practice improvements include dictating where the health stars would be on the package, reducing competing food claims such as “high protein” or “low sugar” and removing marketing directed at children from packages with low scores.
We must be ready
About 25 Australian and New Zealand public health and consumer groups have called for mandatory health stars to maximize the benefits of the policy as a public health tool.
Now, work to prepare for this must progress urgently. Drafting new laws takes time. So starting work now means a mandatory program could be implemented quickly if the food industry fails to meet its 2025 target.