Food-based Dietary Guidelines (FBDGs) promote healthy dietary patterns. Nutrient-based Front-of-Pack Labelling (NBFOPL) schemes rate the ‘healthiness’ of individual foods. This study aimed to investigate whether the Australian Health Star Rating (HSR) system aligns with the Australian Dietary Guidelines (ADGs). The Mintel Global New Products Database was searched for every new food product displaying a HSR entering the Australian marketplace from 27 June 2014 (HSR system endorsement) until 30 June 2017. Foods were categorised as either a five food group (FFG) food or ‘discretionary’ food in accordance with ADG recommendations. Ten percent (1269/12,108) of new food products displayed a HSR, of which 57% were FFG foods. The median number of ‘health’ stars displayed on discretionary foods (2.5; range: 0.5–5) was significantly lower (p < 0.05) than FFG foods (4.0; range: 0.5–5), although a high frequency of anomalies and overlap in the number of stars across the two food categories was observed, with 56.7% of discretionary foods displaying ≥2.5 stars. The HSR system is undermining the ADG recommendations through facilitating the marketing of discretionary foods. Adjusting the HSR’s algorithm might correct certain technical flaws. However, supporting the ADGs requires reform of the HSR’s design to demarcate the food source (FFG versus discretionary food) of a nutrient.

Nutrient-based indices are commonly used to assess the health potential of individual foods for nutrition policy actions. This study aimed to evaluate the nutrient profile-informed Australian Health Star Rating (HSR), against NOVA and an index informed by the Australian Dietary Guidelines (ADGs), to determine the extent of alignment. All products displaying an HSR label in the Australian marketplace between June 2014 and June 2019 were extracted from the Mintel Global New Product Database, and classified into one of four NOVA categories, and either as an ADG five food group (FFG) food or discretionary food. Of 4451 products analysed, 76.5% were ultra-processed (UP) and 43% were discretionary. The median HSR of non-UP foods (4) was significantly higher than UP foods (3.5) (p < 0.01), and the median HSR of FFG foods (4) was significantly higher than discretionary foods (2.5) (p < 0.01). However, 73% of UP foods, and 52.8% of discretionary foods displayed an HSR ≥ 2.5. Results indicate the currently implemented HSR system is inadvertently providing a ‘health halo’ for almost ¾ of UP foods and ½ of discretionary foods displaying an HSR. Future research should investigate whether the HSR scheme can be reformed to avoid misalignment with food-and diet-based indices.

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.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12966-018-0760-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Policy makers are increasingly using nutrition classification schemes (NCSs) to assess a food's health potential for informing nutrition policy actions. However, there is wide variability among the NCSs implemented and no standard benchmark against which their contrasting assessments can be validated. Objective This study aimed to compare the agreement of nutrient-, food-, and dietary-based NCSs in their assessment of a food's health potential within the Australian food supply, and examine the conceptual underpinnings and technical characteristics that explain differences in performance. Methods A dataset combining food compositional data from the Mintel Global New Products Database and the AUSNUT 2011-2012 database (n = 7,322) was assembled. Products were classified by seven prominent NCSs that were selected as representative of one or other of nutrient- (the Chilean nutrient profile model (NPM), Health Star Rating (HSR), Nutri-Score, the World Health Organization European Region's NPM (WHO-Euro NPM) the Pan American Health Organization's (PAHO) NPM, food- (NOVA), and dietary-based (the Australian Dietary Guidelines (ADGs)). Results The PAHO NPM classified the lowest proportion (22%) of products as ‘healthy’, and the HSR the highest (63%). The PAHO NPM, NOVA, WHO-Euro NPM, and the Chilean NPM classified &gt;50% of products as ‘unhealthy’, and the ADGs, HSR and Nutriscore, classified &lt;50% of products as ‘unhealthy’. The HSR and Nutri-score had the highest pairwise agreement (k = 0.7809, 89.70%), and the PAHO NPM and HSR the lowest (k = 0.1793, 53.22%). Characteristics of NCSs that more effectively identified ultra-processed and discretionary foods were: category-specific assessment, the classification of categories as always ‘healthy’ or ‘unhealthy’, consideration of level of food processing, thresholds for ‘risk’ nutrients that do not penalize whole foods; and no allowance for the substitution of ingredients. Conclusions Wide variation was observed in agreement of the assessment of a food's health potential among the NCSs analyzed due to differing conceptual underpinnings and technical characteristics.

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.

This paper is of interest to Nurse Practitioners and workforce planners.

Unhealthy diets are a leading risk factor for non-communicable diseases and negatively impact environmental sustainability. Policy actions recommended to address dietary risk factors, such as restrictions on marketing and front-of-pack labelling, are informed by nutrition classification schemes (NCSs). Ultra-processed foods are associated with adverse population and planetary health outcomes, yet the concept is rarely incorporated in nutrition classification schemes for policy actions. This study aims to develop a novel food processing-based nutrition classification scheme for guiding policy actions. A secondary aim is to validate the scheme by classifying food and beverage items in the Australian food supply (face validity) and comparing them to the classifications of existing NCSs (convergent validity). Two versions of a model were developed, classifying foods and beverages in two steps, first using the NOVA classification system and secondly by applying upper thresholds for added free sugars and sodium, producing a binary output of either healthy or unhealthy. All food and beverage items (n = 7,322) in a dataset combining the Australian Food Composition Database (AUSNUT 2011–2013) and Mintel’s Global New Product Database (2014–2019) were classified using the two models. The same dataset was also classified by the Health Star Rating system (HSR), The Australian Dietary Guidelines (ADGs), The Pan American Health Organization’s Nutrient Profile Model (PAHO NPM), and the NOVA classification scheme, and pairwise agreement between all NCSs and the two models was determined (using Cohen’s Kappa coefficient). A higher proportion of food categories consistent with dietary patterns that are associated with positive health outcomes, such and fruits, vegetables, and eggs were classified as healthy. And the clear majority of food categories consistent with dietary patterns associated with adverse health outcomes, such as confectionery, snack foods, and convenience foods were classified as unhealthy. The two versions of the model showed substantial agreement with NOVA and the PAHO NPM, fair agreement with the ADGs and slight to moderate agreement with the HSR system. A model NCS combining level of processing and nutrient criteria presents a valid alternative to existing methods to classify the health potential of individual foods for policy purposes.

No abstract