What's the problem with health star ratings for food?
The food labelling system could be on the chopping block under a National Government. Here's why. The Health Star Rating scheme, introduced in 2014, has been criticised by the National Government for its lack of purpose and effectiveness. The scheme uses a scale of 0.5 to five stars to score packaged foods based on their nutrient profile. Foods with more stars are healthier than similar foods with fewer stars, but party health spokesperson Dr Shane Reti has suggested that the system could be scrapped. The system was designed to allow comparison only among similar products, rather than communicate the overall nutritional value of foods. However, researchers from Victoria University of Wellington found that consumers are unaware that the rating is calculated on an ‘as prepared’ basis. They also found that manufacturers may have used the ratings only for their healthier products.
Opublikowany : 2 lata temu za pomocą Esther Taunton w Business
The health star rating scheme scores foods based on nutrient profile, comparing the “negative” nutrients against the “positive.” (File photo)
The Health Star Rating scheme could be on the chopping block under a National Government, with party health spokesperson Dr Shane Reti saying the food labelling system is no longer “fit for purpose.”
The voluntary scheme was introduced in 2014 and uses a scale of 0.5 to five stars to score packaged foods by their nutrient profile. Foods with more stars are healthier than similar foods with fewer stars.
But Reti, who is in line to become New Zealand’s next health minister, said the system needed to be looked at and could be scrapped.
“Australia’s starting to move in other directions, and I think we just need to rethink how we make it easy for [consumers] to make the best choice and the right choice.”
But what’s wrong with the current system?
While the system is simple on paper – more stars = better nutrition – it can cause confusion.
Researchers from Victoria University of Wellington said scores were intended to allow comparison only among similar products, rather than communicate the overall nutritional value (or lack thereof) of foods.
“A four-star rating for a cereal cannot be compared to a four-star rating given to milk. While the two products display the same number of stars, their healthiness may differ significantly.”
The researchers were also concerned the majority of consumers didn’t know the system was compensatory.
This meant manufacturers could get a higher score for a sugar-rich product by adding a healthy ingredient like fibre to the mix.
“It is also likely that most consumers are unaware that the rating is calculated on an ‘as prepared’ basis,” the researchers said.
“This means a product can enjoy a high rating based on the nutritional value of preparatory ingredients.”
In one such case, Nestle came under fire for slapping a 4.5-star rating on Milo, on the basis that it was prepared with low-fat milk. On its own, Milo earned just 1.5 stars.
“The 4.5-star rating was based on consuming merely three teaspoons of powder combined with skim milk. But who actually consumes Milo this way?”
The 4.5-star rating was later removed from packs of Milo.
Because the system is self-regulated and voluntary, it has long been the subject of scepticism about its reliability.
Manufacturers were free to decide when and how to use it and only around 20% of packaged foods in Australian and New Zealand supermarkets had a health star rating.
This suggested that manufacturers used the ratings only for their healthier products, the researchers said.
“A voluntary system does little to counter the inbuilt incentive that manufacturers have to use unhealthy components such as sugar, salt and saturated fats.
“These produce pleasure and create ‘craveable’ foods and food addiction. Manufacturers likely do not use a HSR for these products.
“However, consumers do not interpret missing information as ‘the worst-case scenario’, but assume average quality.”