It's time to shine a spotlight on Australia's Health Star Rating system and its controversial journey so far. This system, designed to simplify healthy choices, is now at a critical juncture, and its future is uncertain. But here's where it gets interesting: despite good intentions, experts argue it's falling short of its goals.
The Health Star Rating system, introduced in 2014, rates packaged foods and drinks from 0.5 to 5 stars based on their nutritional profile. It considers four 'negative' nutrients (kilojoules, saturated fat, sugars, and sodium) and four 'positive' inputs (fibre, protein, fruit/vegetable/nut content, and concentrated fruit/vegetable ingredients). The system aims to compare similar products, but critics argue it lacks consistency and overlooks ultra-processed foods and artificial sweeteners.
And this is the part most people miss: the rating is voluntary, so it's often applied to products that score higher as a promotional tactic. Research shows that only 16% of products with half a star are labelled, and just 24% of products with a score of 3 stars or lower display a rating.
Ultra-processed foods, like chips and artificially-sweetened drinks, can go through the algorithm and be labelled as healthy, despite growing evidence linking them to harmful health outcomes. Sarah Dickie, a research fellow at Monash University, says this system doesn't work: 'It's still a junk food.'
Artificial sweeteners, often found in zero-sugar drinks, can also rate highly, despite being linked to gut issues and promoting a taste for sweetness, especially in children.
Surveys suggest consumers want more transparency, with many saying they don't trust food labels. A 2024 VicHealth survey found nutrition information was the second most important factor influencing food purchases, yet respondents expressed distrust in food labels. Similarly, a 2023 Cancer Council survey found 82% of Australian adults believe Health Star Ratings should be on all packaged foods.
So, should a flawed system be made mandatory? Experts agree it's crucial, but there's debate over the next steps. Magriet Raxworthy, CEO of Dieticians Australia, supports making the current system mandatory, believing it will help inform consumer choices. However, Dickie, an executive member of Healthy Food Systems Australia, disagrees, arguing the current model isn't fit for purpose and suggesting a warning-based system instead.
Food ministers will meet early next year to review the system's uptake and consider whether to mandate it. If they decide to proceed, it could take years for consumers to see the impact on shelves.
The Australian Food and Grocery Council supports the Health Star Rating system, citing the time and cost involved in introducing or revising packaging, especially for small manufacturers.
What could an alternative approach look like? Research suggests a warning system or negatively-skewed system would be more effective. Dickie believes a system that warns against junk foods would be more beneficial than the current positive ranking system.
The future of the Health Star Rating system is uncertain, but one thing is clear: the debate over food labelling and transparency is far from over. What do you think? Should the system be mandated, improved, or replaced? We'd love to hear your thoughts in the comments.
