Australian Health Star Rating Research Articles

The Nutritional Quality of Gluten-Free versus Non-Gluten-Free Pre-Packaged Foods and Beverages Sold in Hong Kong

Introduction: The consumption of gluten-free foods has continued to increase in recent years. Given their higher intake among individuals both with and without a medically diagnosed gluten allergy or sensitivity, it is important to understand how the nutritional quality of these foods compares against non-gluten-free foods. As such, we aimed to compare the nutritional quality of gluten-free and non-gluten-free pre-packaged foods sold in Hong Kong. Methods: Data from 18,292 pre-packaged food and beverage items in the 2019 FoodSwitch Hong Kong database were used. These products were categorized as (1) “declared gluten-free”; (2) “gluten-free by ingredient or naturally gluten-free”; and (3) “non-gluten-free” according to information presented on the package. One-way ANOVA was used to compare the differences in the Australian Health Star Rating (HSR), energy, protein, fibre, total fat, saturated fat, trans-fat, carbohydrates, sugars, and sodium content between products in different gluten categories, overall and by major food category (e.g., bread and bakery products) and region of origin (e.g., America, Europe). Results: Products declared gluten-free (mean ± SD: 2.9 ± 1.3; n = 7%) had statistically significantly higher HSR than those gluten-free by ingredient or naturally gluten-free (2.7 ± 1.4; n = 51.9%) and non-gluten-free (2.2 ± 1.4; n = 41.2%) (all pairwise comparisons p < 0.001). Overall, non-gluten-free products have higher energy, protein, saturated fat, trans-fat, free sugar and sodium, and less fibre compared with products in the other two gluten categories. Similar differences were observed across major food groups and by region of origin. Conclusions: Non-gluten-free products sold in Hong Kong were generally less healthy than gluten-free products (regardless of the presence of gluten-free declaration). Consumers should be better educated on how to identify gluten-free foods, given that many gluten-free foods do not declare this information on the label.

Comparison of Nutri-Score and Health Star Rating Nutrient Profiling Models Using Large Branded Foods Composition Database and Sales Data

Front-of-package nutrition labelling (FOPNL) is known as an effective tool that can encourage healthier food choices and food reformulation. A very interesting type of FOPNL is grading schemes. Our objective was to compare two market-implemented grading schemes-European Nutri-Score (NS) and Australian Health Star Rating (HSR), using large Slovenian branded foods database. NS and HSR were used for profiling 17,226 pre-packed foods and drinks, available in Slovenian food supply dataset (2020). Alignment between models was evaluated with agreement (% of agreement and Cohen's Kappa) and correlation (Spearman rho). The 12-month nationwide sales-data were used for sale-weighing, to address market-share differences. Study results indicated that both models have good discriminatory ability between products based on their nutritional composition. NS and HSR ranked 22% and 33% of Slovenian food supply as healthy, respectively. Agreement between NS and HSR was strong (70%, κ = 0.62) with a very strong correlation (rho = 0.87). Observed profiling models were most aligned within food categories Beverages and Bread and bakery products, while less aligned for Dairy and imitates and Edible oils and emulsions. Notable disagreements were particularly observed in subcategories of Cheese and processed cheeses (8%, κ = 0.01, rho = 0.38) and Cooking oils (27%, κ = 0.11, rho = 0.40). Further analysis showed that the main differences in Cooking oils were due to olive oil and walnut oil, which are favoured by NS and grapeseed, flaxseed and sunflower oil that are favoured by HSR. For Cheeses and cheese products, we observed that HSR graded products across the whole scale, with majority (63%) being classified as healthy (≥3.5 *), while NS mostly graded lower scores. Sale-weighting analyses showed that offer in the food supply does not always reflect the sales. Sale-weighting increased overall agreement between profiles from 70% to 81%, with notable differences between food categories. In conclusion, NS and HSR were shown as highly compliant FOPNLs with few divergences in some subcategories. Even these models do not always grade products equally high, very similar ranking trends were observed. However, the observed differences highlight the challenges of FOPNL ranking schemes, which are tailored to address somewhat different public health priorities in different countries. International harmonization can support further development of grading type nutrient profiling models for the use in FOPNL, and make those acceptable for more stake-holders, which will be crucial for their successful regulatory implementation.

Does the Australian Health Star Rating System Encourage Added Sugar Reformulation? Trends in Sweetener Use in Australia.

Dietary risk factors, including excess added sugar intake, are leading contributors to Australia’s burden of disease. An objective of the Australian Health Star Rating (HSR) system is to encourage the reformulation of packaged foods. Manufacturers may improve a product’s HSR by replacing added sugar with non-nutritive sweeteners (NNS). Concerns have been raised regarding the potential substitution effects of ultra-processed foods containing NNS for whole foods, and the long-term impact this may have on population health. The aim of this study was to determine whether the implementation of the HSR system has impacted the use of added sugars and NNS in the food supply. Four product categories were used: products with no added sweetener, products containing added sugar only, products containing NNS only, and products containing a combination of added sugar and NNS. Of 6477 newly released products analyzed displaying a HSR in Australia between 2014–2020, 63% contained added sugars. The proportion of new products sweetened with added sugars increased over time, while NNS use did not, despite a higher average and median HSR for products sweetened with NNS. These findings suggest that at the current time, the HSR system may not discourage the use of added sugars in new products or incentivize the reformulation of added sugar with NNS. As the health risks of NNS are questioned, increased reformulation of products with NNS to reduce the presence of added sugar in the food supply may not address broader health concerns. Instead, supporting the promotion of whole foods and drinks should be prioritized, as well as policy actions that reduce the proliferation and availability of UPFs.

1.B. Workshop: Front-of-pack nutrition labelling: recent progress and remaining challenges

Abstract Front-of-pack nutrition labelling (FOPNL) is increasingly viewed as a central policy instrument in the fight against unhealthy diets, obesity, and noncommunicable diseases (NCDs), both for its direct effects on consumer behavior and for its potential to guide other effective nutrition policies (e.g. marketing restrictions, excise taxes). Major FOPNL schemes include the traffic-light system pioneered in the United Kingdom, warning labels as first introduced in Chile, the Australian Health Star Rating, and the Nutri-Score scheme developed in France. Countries that have already introduced mandatory FOPNL schemes include Chile, Israel, Peru, and Sri Lanka. Meanwhile, strong opposition from the food and beverage industry has prevented significant progress on FOPNL in many other countries. National developments have motivated several international initiatives. In 2019, the Codex Alimentarius Committee on Food Labelling began to formally negotiate guidelines for the development of FOPNL. Meanwhile, France and Australia have begun to convene a UN-supported Global Action Network on Nutrition Labelling. Understanding these national and international developments has become essential for effective public health advocacy in the field of FOPNL. The presentations in this workshop will therefore review recent key developments and identify major challenges to introducing effective FOPNL. The workshop will feature four presentations followed by an open discussion and exchange. Alexandra Jones will analyze key components of 31 existing FOPNL regulations and outline relevant best practice guidance. Tim Dorlach will explain why FOP warning labels first emerged in Chile and have subsequently diffused throughout Latin America. Chantal Julia will review the development of the Nutri-Score scheme in France and its adoption in other European countries. Anne Marie Thow will discuss how trade agreements and international standards can influence and potentially limit FOPNL schemes. Key messages Front-of-pack nutrition labelling (FOPNL) is a central policy instrument in the fight against unhealthy diets, obesity, and noncommunicable diseases (NCDs). Understanding recent national and international FOPNL developments is essential for effective public health advocacy for FOPNL and related interventions.

Energy Density of New Food Products Targeted to Children.

High dietary energy density (ED) is linked to childhood obesity and poor diet quality. The Australian Health Star Rating (HSR) system aims to assist consumers in making healthful food choices. This cross-sectional study used 2014–2018 data from the Mintel Global New Products Database to describe the ED of new food products targeted to children (5–12 years) released after the introduction of HSR and examine relationships between ED and HSR. Products were categorised by ED (low < 630 kJ/100 g, medium 630–950 kJ/100 g, high > 950 kJ/100 g) and HSR (no, HSR < 2.5 low, HSR ≥ 2.5 high). Non-parametric statistics were used to examine ED and HSR. A total of 548 products targeted children: 21% low, 5% medium, 74% high ED. One hundred products displayed an HSR: 24% low, 76% high; 53 products with both high HSR and ED. The EDs of products differed by HSR (p < 0.05), but both group’s medians (HSR < 2.5: 1850 kJ/100 g, HSR ≥ 2.5: 1507 kJ/100 g) were high. A high proportion of new products had a high ED, and the HSR of these foods did not consistently discriminate between ED levels, particularly for high ED foods. Policies to promote lower ED foods and better alignment between ED and HSR may improve childhood obesity and diet quality.

Consumers' Perceptions of the Australian Health Star Rating Labelling Scheme.

The objective of this study was to explore consumers’ use and perception of the Australian Health Star Rating (HSR). A purposive sample of fifteen Australian grocery shoppers was recruited into four focus groups using a supermarket intercept strategy. Focus group discussions were recorded, transcribed and analysed using an iterative approach to thematic analysis. Three key themes emerged from analysis. The HSR was seen as simple, uncluttered, easy to understand and useful for quick comparison across products. The nutrition information was viewed positively; however, there was little confidence in the HSR due to a perceived lack of transparency in the criteria used to determine the number of stars. Highly processed foods were generally seen as having inflated ratings and participants expressed concern that this would increase consumption of these products. Finally, there was a belief that the HSR had a lack of negative imagery limiting the dissuasive impact on consumers when presented with low-rated foods. Consumers saw benefits in the HSR but were sceptical about how the ratings were derived. Transparency about the development and education on the application may assist with consumers’ perception of the HSR.

Application of nutrient profile models to compare products offered in ‘healthy’ vs ‘conventional’ vending machines in a Spanish hospital environment

IntroductionVending machines promote easy access to food with low nutritional value. ‘Healthy’ vending machines (HVM) have been introduced as a means to improve the availability and accessibility of healthy food options, and the healthiness of the foods, however, has not been evaluated. ObjectiveOur aim was to assess the healthiness of the products offered in HVM and ‘conventional’ vending machines (CVM), located in the Catalan Institute of Oncology. Study design and methodsAll products available in vending machines (HVM (n = 33) and CVM (n = 62) were evaluate during three nutrient profile models (NPMs): the World Health Organization's European Regional Office model (WHO), Nutrient Profile Model UK (NPM-UK), and Australian Health Star Rating system (HSR). ResultsRegardless of the NPM used, significant differences found in the proportion of healthy products among HVM and CVM (WHO: P-value = 0.005, NPM-UK: P value < 0.001, HSR: P-value < 0.001). The healthy products offered in HVM accounted for 30%, 73%, and 52% of the total content, while CVM offered 6%, 32%, and 15% of the content, as assessed by WHO, NPM-UK, and HSR, respectively. The WHO model was the most restrictive model, and the NPM-UK was the most permissible one. ConclusionsAlthough not all products in HVM are rated as healthy by the different NPMs, the percentage of healthy products was significantly higher than those in CVM.

Analysing the use of the Australian Health Star Rating system by level of food processing

BackgroundThe consumption of ultra-processed foods is associated with diminished dietary quality and adverse health outcomes. The Australian Health Star Rating (HSR) is a nutrient-based front-of-pack (FOP) labelling system that assesses the ‘healthiness’ of foods on a scale of 0.5 to 5 stars based on their content of ‘risk’ and ‘positive’ nutrients. This study aimed to analyse the use of health stars on new packaged food products entering the Australian marketplace by level of food processing.MethodsThe Mintel Global New Product Database (GNPD) was searched to identify the number of stars displayed on the labels of all new packaged food products participating in the HSR system released into the Australian retail food supply between 27 June 2014 (the endorsement date) and 30 June 2017. Products were categorised by the four NOVA food processing categories: unprocessed and minimally processed (MP), processed culinary ingredients (PCI), processed (P), and ultra-processed (UP), and the distribution of the star ratings within each category was compared and analysed.ResultsThe majority of new food products displaying an HSR were UP (74.4%), followed by MP (12.5%), P (11.6%), and PCI (1.5%). The median HSR of MP products (4.5) was significantly higher than the median of P (4) and UP products (3.5) (all p < 0.05). In all NOVA categories HSR profiles were distributed towards higher star ratings, and the majority (77%) of UP products displayed an HSR ≥ 2.5.ConclusionsThe HSR is being displayed on a substantial proportion of newly released UP foods. Technical weaknesses, design flaws and governance limitations with the HSR system are resulting in 3 out of 4 instances of these UP foods displaying at least 2.5 so-called ‘health’ stars. These findings add further evidence to concerns that the HSR system, in its current form, is misrepresenting the healthiness of new packaged food products and creating a risk for behavioural nutrition.

What Is Nutritious Snack Food? A Comparison of Expert and Layperson Assessments.

The term “nutritious” is being increasingly used by product manufacturers but the term is not currently regulated as a nutrition claim. It is unclear how lay consumers and experts define and interpret the term or how they evaluate the “nutritiousness” of various foods. To address this evidence gap, a mixed methods design was applied and both nutrition experts (n = 206) and lay participants (n = 269) provided definitions of the term “nutritious” and evaluated the “nutritiousness” of 20 different snack foods in a cross-sectional survey. Definitions were analysed using Leximancer and snack evaluations were compared both between groups and with nutrient profile scores (UK Ofcom and Australian Health Star Rating). Expert and lay definitions differed considerably, with experts using terms such as nutrient-density, macro- and micronutrients, kilojoules/Calories, while lay consumers used descriptions such as fuel, fresh, natural, body needs, and functioning. Snack evaluations were highly correlated between groups (Rs > 0.89, p < 0.001) and between nutrient profile scores (Rs > 0.75, p < 0.001). However, mean perceptions significantly differed for 18 out of 20 foods with the largest difference for yoghurts (p < 0.05). There are discrepancies between expert and lay perceptions of snack foods and the definition of the term “nutritious”. The results highlight the need for an agreed definition and the potential regulation of the term “nutritious” in food marketing.

The impact of front-of-pack marketing attributes versus nutrition and health information on parents' food choices

Front-of-pack attributes have the potential to affect parents' food choices on behalf of their children and form one avenue through which strategies to address the obesogenic environment can be developed. Previous work has focused on the isolated effects of nutrition and health information (e.g. labeling systems, health claims), and how parents trade off this information against co-occurring marketing features (e.g. product imagery, cartoons) is unclear. A Discrete Choice Experiment was utilized to understand how front-of-pack nutrition, health and marketing attributes, as well as pricing, influenced parents' choices of cereal for their child. Packages varied with respect to the two elements of the Australian Health Star Rating system (stars and nutrient facts panel), along with written claims, product visuals, additional visuals, and price. A total of 520 parents (53% male) with a child aged between five and eleven years were recruited via an online panel company and completed the survey. Product visuals, followed by star ratings, were found to be the most significant attributes in driving choice, while written claims and other visuals were the least significant. Use of the Health Star Rating (HSR) system and other features were related to the child's fussiness level and parents' concerns about their child's weight with parents of fussy children, in particular, being less influenced by the HSR star information and price. The findings suggest that front-of-pack health labeling systems can affect choice when parents trade this information off against marketing attributes, yet some marketing attributes can be more influential, and not all parents utilize this information in the same way.

Assessment of the construct validity of the Australian Health Star Rating: a nutrient profiling diagnostic accuracy study.

Nutrient profiling models classify the healthiness of foods based on their nutritional composition and provide the science that underlies nutrition signposting schemes. The two objectives were to examine the construct validity of the Health Star Rating (HSR) system by determining its diagnostic accuracy and to detect the optimal HSR cutoff points to define healthiness in packaged dairy foods. We hypothesised that ultra-processed dairy, defined by NOVA, would have less stars (less healthy) and non-ultra-processed dairy would have more stars (more healthy). The diagnostic accuracy of the HSR system used for 621 dairy foods for sale in an Australian regional supermarket was investigated. The healthiness of packaged dairy was measured using the NOVA food classification system. The dairy beverages model was found to discriminate between healthy and less healthy dairy beverages as classified by NOVA (AUC: 0.653; 95% CI: 0.556-0.750; P=0.005). A receiver operating characteristic curve analysis for dairy beverages demonstrated that the optimal cutoff point corresponded to a rating of four stars. There was no discrimination power when using the HSR for predicting the health value of yoghurt and other dairy, or cheeses. At the optimal cutoff point of four stars the HSR has a high sensitivity but a low specificity to correctly classify healthy packaged dairy beverages, as defined by NOVA. We provide evidence to support the construct validity of the HSR model for dairy beverages, but not for the models used for yoghurts and other dairy products, or cheeses.

A nutrient profiling assessment of packaged foods using two star-based front-of-pack labels.

To compare two front-of-pack nutrition labelling systems for the assessment of packaged foods and drinks with Australian Dietary Guidelines. A cross-sectional nutrient profiling assessment. Food and drink products (n 20 225) were categorised into scoring levels using criteria for the Institute of Medicine (IOM) three-star system and the five-star Australian Health Star Rating (HSR). The effectiveness of these systems to categorise foods in accordance with Australian Dietary Guidelines was explored. The study was conducted in Australia, using a comprehensive food database. Packaged food and drink products (n 20 225) available in Australia. Using the IOM three-star system, the majority (55 %) of products scored the minimum 0 points and 25·5 % scored the maximum 3 points. Using HSR criteria, the greatest proportion of products (15·2 %) scored three-and-a-half stars from a possible five and 12·5 % received the lowest rating of a half-star. Very few products (4·1 %) scored five stars. Products considered core foods and drinks in Australian Dietary Guidelines received higher scores than discretionary foods in all food categories for both labelling systems (all P<0·05; Mann-Whitney U test), with the exception of fish products using IOM three-star criteria (P=0·603). The largest discrepancies in median score between the two systems were for the food categories edible oils, convenience foods and dairy. Both the IOM three-star and Australian HSR front-of-pack labelling systems rated packaged foods and drinks broadly in line with Australian Dietary Guidelines by assigning core foods higher ratings and discretionary foods lower ratings.