Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) has been consulting on two changes that could affect how food companies manage labelling: a proposed annual commencement date for future labelling changes and mandatory Health Star Ratings (HSR).
Earlier this year, FSANZ called for feedback on whether to introduce a single annual commencement date for future FSANZ-initiated food labelling changes. It proposed May 30 every year as the date, following early consultation with industry stakeholders.
FSANZ said the date is generally understood to be a less disruptive period for food production cycles, while a common commencement date could give businesses greater certainty when planning for multiple labelling changes.
The proposal is still at an early consultation stage, and no decision has been made to introduce the system.
FSANZ also previously opened consultation on a proposal to require most packaged foods sold in Australia and New Zealand to display a Health Star Rating (HSR) symbol.
Currently, the HSR is a voluntary front-of-pack nutrition labelling tool that summarises a food’s overall nutritional profile using a star rating.
FSANZ’s assessment found that HSR use appears to have increased over time in both Australia and New Zealand.
Its research revealed that consumers reported using the HSR for its intended purpose of identifying healthier food choices when shopping, with 60–77% of consumers across both countries agreeing that the HSR system makes identifying healthier products easier.
However, a recent Four Corners programme titled “Duped: Food Exposed”, which examined food fraud and misleading labelling, questioned the effectiveness of the HSR system.
The Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC) is currently looking into these claims. FSANZ has expressed support for the ACCC’s work and said it will continue to work with regulators, industry and consumer representatives to support a safe, trusted and transparent food system.
What is the Health Star Rating (HSR) system?
The HSR algorithm was developed with input from technical and nutrition experts from government, industry, public health and consumer organisations.
The HSR rates eligible foods from 0.5 to five stars. It considers components associated with increased risk, including energy, saturated fat, total sugars and sodium, and offsets these against components such as protein, fibre and fruit, vegetables, nuts and legumes. The resulting score is converted into a star rating, with more stars indicating a healthier choice within the system.
Criticisms of the HSR system
The HSR scheme does not consider processing when assessing foods.
Its own website stated: “The Health Star Rating system does not consider other health effects of ingredients, products, processing methods or nutrients like vitamins and minerals.”
It then goes on to say that the HSR can be used by shoppers, along with other information on the food package, such as the ingredients list and the Nutrition Information Panel.
However, it cautions that the HSR does not replace dietary advice from a qualified dietitian, nutritionist or resources like the Australian Dietary Guidelines and New Zealand Eating and Activity Guidelines.
This has led to the HSR classifying a significant proportion of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) and discretionary (junk) foods as “healthy”, awarding these products scores at or above a ‘healthy pass’ cut-off of at least 2·5 stars, said researchers in Public Health Nutrition.
They said: “Misalignments have been reported between nutrient-, food- and diet-based indices in informing the assessment of foods’ healthiness. Most studies evaluating the HSR against Nova have reported discrepancies, with 55·0–76·9 % of UPF products receiving HSR ≥ 2·5 or ≥ 3·5, effectively classifying these foods as healthy.”
The study found that HSR aligned well with NOVA for non-ultra-processed foods, with 91.2% receiving at least 2.5 stars. However, 73.7% of ultra-processed foods also scored above the 2.5-star “healthy” cut-off. Researchers attributed this discrepancy to HSR’s focus on nutrients rather than the level of food processing, which is considered by NOVA.
Prof Mark Lawrence, who previously served as FSANZ’s principal nutritionist and later as a board member, similarly pointed out that UPF products were labelled as healthy.
“The food standards programmes are world-class in Australia for food safety concerns, excellent at protecting against microbiological concerns or toxicology concerns. But when the issue is about more chronic problems – obesity, diabetes, heart disease and so on – the policy settings and the risk assessment approaches just are not adequate, are not fit-for-purpose for ultra-processed foods. We’re now having food coming from factories. They are soft drinks, savoury snacks like crisps, infant formula, sweet snacks, sweet biscuits, lollies, confectionery and so on,” Prof Lawrence said on “Duped”.
He criticised the role of industry in FSANZ’s policymaking, arguing that industry representatives have too much influence in the process.
“The [food] lobbyists are really powerful. They do have a lot of power on the system. We do see it with a lot of policy making. They get a seat at the table, they’ve got those resources and so on.”
“Duped” cited examples of processed and sugary foods – these included food products from Nestle, Coca-Cola, and Sanitarium – that have relatively high star ratings despite being high in sugar or having “virtually no nutrients”. Some also contain flavourings, gums, and stabilisers.
A recent check on Woolworths’ online store showed that Nestle’s Milo cereal has four stars, and Coke Zero has 3.5 stars. Sanitarium’s Up & Go breakfast drink has five stars based on results from Cole’s online store.
“Most consumers believe that 2.5 stars and more represents a healthy food. Three-quarters of these ultra-processed foods were displaying 2.5 or more stars. So, this is a health halo. The system was informing these consumers that these ultra-processed foods are healthy,” Lawrence said.
The HSR consultation closed on July 5, while FSANZ’s consultation on the proposed common commencement date closed on August 18. FSANZ will consider the feedback before deciding whether to progress the proposals.
For the food industry, the outcome could affect both how future labelling changes are implemented and whether front-of-pack nutrition ratings become mandatory across Australia and New Zealand.
