HEALTH STAR RATINGS: WHY THE SYSTEM IS FAILING SHOPPERS

As Australia's Health Star Rating system comes under review, some nutrition experts say the labels may be giving shoppers an incomplete picture of what's really healthy.

The familiar Health Star Rating has become a quick guide for Australians trying to make healthier choices at the supermarket.

But with the system now under review, questions are being raised about whether those stars accurately reflect the nutritional quality of the food inside the packet.

Food Standards Australia New Zealand is currently consulting on proposals to make Health Star Ratings mandatory on most packaged foods, standardise where the labels appear and ensure they are calculated consistently.

While many health experts support mandatory labelling, some believe the system itself also needs a rethink.

Health Star Ratings may not tell the whole story

Associate Professor of Biomedical Sciences at the University of New England, Gal Winter, believes the current rating system focuses too heavily on individual nutrients while overlooking the overall quality of the food.

She argues that foods should be assessed more holistically rather than treated as a simple mathematical formula.

According to Winter, highly processed products can sometimes achieve favourable ratings by adding beneficial nutrients such as fibre or protein, even if the food itself remains heavily processed.

"The food is more than the sum of its individual nutrients," she said.

Instead, she believes the physical structure of food, often referred to as the "food matrix", should play a much larger role in determining how healthy a product really is.

Health Star Ratings and highly processed foods

One criticism of the existing system is that manufacturers are only required to display Health Star Ratings voluntarily.

That means brands can choose to display high ratings while leaving lower-scoring products without any label at all, potentially making comparisons more difficult for shoppers.

Winter also believes the current algorithm contains loopholes that allow some processed foods to score well by avoiding penalty thresholds or adding isolated nutrients during manufacturing.

As a result, consumers may assume products with higher star ratings are healthier overall, when the reality can be more complex.

Health Star Ratings could become more holistic

Winter is advocating for what she describes as a "wholesomeness first" approach to food labelling.

Rather than focusing primarily on nutrient calculations, she believes future Health Star Ratings should also consider factors such as whether a product is highly processed, contains excessive added sugar or has undergone significant changes from its original form.

She has incorporated these concepts into her teaching at the University of New England through a subject examining how food moves from production to its effects on human health.

The debate comes as Australia continues to grapple with rising rates of diet-related disease and growing calls for clearer nutrition information to help consumers make healthier choices.

As consultation on the future of Health Star Ratings continues, the discussion is expanding beyond whether the labels should be mandatory to whether the stars themselves are measuring the right things.