Consumers’ Perceptions of the Australian Health Star Rating Labelling Scheme

Pelly, Fiona E.; Swanepoel, Libby; Rinella, Joseph; Cooper, Sheri

doi:10.3390/nu12030704

Cited by 21 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Yet, all HSRs provide a positive score, i.e., the minimum is 0.5 health stars, regardless of whether a food is discretionary or a UP food. There is concern that this can provide a 'health halo' to foods that the population should be consuming less frequently [65]. In Australia, over half of the packaged food supply is composed of discretionary and UP foods [51]; discretionary foods are price promoted twice as often [66] and advertised more frequently than FFG foods [67,68], and most high-market-share UP foods display some form of marketing on the packaging [69].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Yet, our results highlight that too many are displaying relatively high HSRs, and thus the system, in its current implementation, may not be effectively countering the marketing or decreasing the consumption of these products. Furthermore, it reduces trust in the FOPL system; for example, Pelly et al reported that consumers were sceptical about the HSR as it often resulted in too high star ratings being displayed on 'junk foods' [65].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluating Nutrient-Based Indices against Food- and Diet-Based Indices to Assess the Health Potential of Foods: How Does the Australian Health Star Rating System Perform after Five Years?

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating Nutrient-Based Indices against Food- and Diet-Based Indices to Assess the Health Potential of Foods: How Does the Australian Health Star Rating System Perform after Five Years?

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, it has been recently shown that around 57% of industrial foods with Nutri-Score A/B are ultra-processed foods [ 24 ], and there is a study that blames industrial foods for childhood obesity [ 25 , 26 ]. Australian studies of the health star rating system [ 27 ] showed how the HSR is simple, uncluttered, easy to understand, and useful for a quick comparison across products. The nutrition information is positive, however, there is a perceived lack of transparency in the criteria used to determine the number of stars.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ultra-Processed Foods in University Students: Implementing Nutri-Score to Make Healthy Choices

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Going to university means that many students assume, for the first time, responsibilities associated with living outside the family group, such as controlling eating habits. A survey was conducted among 161 university students in order to find out their perceptions regarding their type of diet, their knowledge of nutrition issues, their consumption of ultra-processed foods, and to evaluate the Nutri-Score labeling system as an aid in choosing healthier products. This is a cross-sectional observational study. Participants who have the perception of following a healthy diet show a more adequate BMI, regularly practice sports and read labels (nutritional information, expiration date, and ingredients). In general, the university students surveyed do not read the labels (64%) and find it difficult to identify the degree of wholesomeness of what they consume. Furthermore, they buy products based on the external information on the packaging (72%). The consumption of ultra-processed products, such as alcohol and soft drinks, is higher in those who live outside their family homes. The Nutri-Score labeling system is perceived as an aid for better product choice (89%).

show abstract

“…The impact of each system depends on the consumer's awareness of the meaning of the graphical design [1].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Guideline Daily Amounts Versus Nutri-Score Labeling: Perceptions of Greek Consumers About Front-of-Pack Label

Papathanasiou¹,

Καρπέτας²,

Kotsiou³

et al. 2022

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nutrition information is becoming more urgent than ever so that consumers can make informed choices when buying food. This study aimed to investigate consumers' perceptions and behavior of the front-ofpack label (FOPL), between two specific labeling systems, the Nutri-Score and the Guideline Daily Amounts (GDA). This is a post hoc analysis of data from a previous, more extensive cross-sectional study conducted from April 2021 to June 2021. A total of 510 participants were included in the study, of whom 49.6% were women. Participants' perceptions were assessed in nine questions on a five-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree). Multivariate variance analysis (MANOVA) was performed to test the effects of the label GDA vs. Nutri-Score on the overall positive and negative perceptions. We found that the Nutri-Score label was significantly more understandable (p=0.003), clear, visible, and preferable (p<0.001) than the GDA label, which required more time to be understood. The findings indicate that the interpretive label, Nutri-Score, was superior to the non-interpretive label GDA, in terms of consumers' perception, more visibility, less time-consuming, and reliability. The FOPL can improve the ability of consumers in Greece to understand the healthfulness of food products.

show abstract

Consumers’ Perceptions of the Australian Health Star Rating Labelling Scheme

Cited by 21 publications

References 27 publications

Evaluating Nutrient-Based Indices against Food- and Diet-Based Indices to Assess the Health Potential of Foods: How Does the Australian Health Star Rating System Perform after Five Years?

Evaluating Nutrient-Based Indices against Food- and Diet-Based Indices to Assess the Health Potential of Foods: How Does the Australian Health Star Rating System Perform after Five Years?

Ultra-Processed Foods in University Students: Implementing Nutri-Score to Make Healthy Choices

Guideline Daily Amounts Versus Nutri-Score Labeling: Perceptions of Greek Consumers About Front-of-Pack Label

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About