Investigating nutrient profiling and Health Star Ratings on core dairy products in Australia

Wellard, Lyndal; Hughes, Clare; Watson, Wendy L.

doi:10.1017/s1368980016000975

Cited by 17 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The HSR system is intended to provide consumers with a quick summary of the nutritional quality of packaged foods and drinks that is easy to understand and is consistent with dietary guidelines [ 10 ]. In line with this study’s findings, previous analyses have shown that the HSR system assigns higher ratings to foods that form the basis of a healthy diet (i.e., core foods) and lower ratings to foods that can be included occasionally in small amounts, but are not a necessary part of the diet (i.e., discretionary foods) [ 12 , 13 , 22 ]. A two-year review of the system suggested that the HSR has had significant uptake and was displayed on over 5500 products in Australia and over 800 products in New Zealand in 2016 [ 23 ].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Incorporating Added Sugar Improves the Performance of the Health Star Rating Front-of-Pack Labelling System in Australia

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The Health Star Rating (HSR) is an interpretive front-of-pack labelling system that rates the overall nutritional profile of packaged foods. The algorithm underpinning the HSR includes total sugar content as one of the components. This has been criticised because intrinsic sugars naturally present in dairy, fruits, and vegetables are treated the same as sugars added during food processing. We assessed whether the HSR could better discriminate between core and discretionary foods by including added sugar in the underlying algorithm. Methods: Nutrition information was extracted for 34,135 packaged foods available in The George Institute’s Australian FoodSwitch database. Added sugar levels were imputed from food composition databases. Products were classified as ‘core’ or ‘discretionary’ based on the Australian Dietary Guidelines. The ability of each of the nutrients included in the HSR algorithm, as well as added sugar, to discriminate between core and discretionary foods was estimated using the area under the curve (AUC). Results: 15,965 core and 18,350 discretionary foods were included. Of these, 8230 (52%) core foods and 15,947 (87%) discretionary foods contained added sugar. Median (Q1, Q3) HSRs were 4.0 (3.0, 4.5) for core foods and 2.0 (1.0, 3.0) for discretionary foods. Median added sugar contents (g/100 g) were 3.3 (1.5, 5.5) for core foods and 14.6 (1.8, 37.2) for discretionary foods. Of all the nutrients used in the current HSR algorithm, total sugar had the greatest individual capacity to discriminate between core and discretionary foods; AUC 0.692 (0.686; 0.697). Added sugar alone achieved an AUC of 0.777 (0.772; 0.782). A model with all nutrients in the current HSR algorithm had an AUC of 0.817 (0.812; 0.821), which increased to 0.871 (0.867; 0.874) with inclusion of added sugar. Conclusion: The HSR nutrients discriminate well between core and discretionary packaged foods. However, discrimination was improved when added sugar was also included. These data argue for inclusion of added sugar in an updated HSR algorithm and declaration of added sugar as part of mandatory nutrient declarations.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Incorporating Added Sugar Improves the Performance of the Health Star Rating Front-of-Pack Labelling System in Australia

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…construct validity): We identified eight studies that assessed alignment between HSR and the Australian Dietary Guidelines (ADGs). This work consistently found that healthy ‘core’ or ‘Five Food Group’ (FFG) foods received higher HSRs on average (HSR 3.7–4.0) than ‘discretionary’ foods (HSR 1.9–2.5) 61,63–68 …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 81%

The performance and potential of the Australasian Health Star Rating system: a four‐year review using the RE‐AIM framework

Jones

Thow

Mhurchú

et al. 2019

Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Results:Thirty-three peer-reviewed publications, 21 government and three independent reports informed the assessment. Awareness and trust in HSR was increasing, though campaign reach remained low. Consumers liked, could understand and use the HSR logo, though effects on purchasing were largely unknown. The algorithm was the focus of a formal review. HSR was present on 20-28% of products but biased to those that scored better (HSR≥3.0). Necessary stakeholders were mostly engaged. Conclusions:A substantial body of work supports continuation and strengthening of HSR. Reasonable refinements to HSR's star graphic and algorithm, action to initiate mandatory implementation, and strengthened HSR governance present the clearest opportunities for improving public health impact.Implications for public health: Development and implementation of government-led front-ofpack nutrition labelling systems have the potential to improve public health, while engaging a diverse set of stakeholders.

show abstract

“…One of the nutrient profile models most widely used in the current academic literature to evaluate the healthiness of packaged food and beverage products is the Australasian Health Star Rating (HSR) system . The HSR is a voluntary interpretive front‐of‐pack nutrition labelling system in place since 2014, which is designed to assist consumers in making healthier choices and to stimulate the food industry to reformulate their products to make them healthier .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…14 One of the nutrient profile models most widely used in the current academic literature to evaluate the healthiness of packaged food and beverage products is the Australasian Health Star Rating (HSR) system. [15][16][17][18][19] The HSR is a voluntary interpretive front-of-pack nutrition labelling system in place since 2014, which is designed to assist consumers in making healthier choices and to stimulate the food industry to reformulate their products to make them healthier. 20 The underlying nutrient profile model is based upon the widely used United Kingdom Ofcom model and assesses nutrients of concern (as the densities of energy, sodium, total sugars and saturated fat) and positive nutrients (as the densities of fruit and vegetable content, protein, fibre and in some cases, calcium).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparison of the healthiness of packaged foods and beverages from 12 countries using the Health Star Rating nutrient profiling system, 2013–2018

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary We compared the healthiness of packaged foods and beverages between selected countries using the Health Star Rating (HSR) nutrient profiling system. Packaged food and beverage data collected 2013–2018 were obtained for Australia, Canada, Chile, China, India, Hong Kong, Mexico, New Zealand, Slovenia, South Africa, the UK, and USA. Each product was assigned to a food or beverage category and mean HSR was calculated overall by category and by country. Median energy density (kJ/100 g), saturated fat (g/100 g), total sugars (g/100 g) and sodium (mg/100 g) contents were calculated. Countries were ranked by mean HSR and median nutrient levels. Mean HSR for all products (n = 394,815) was 2.73 (SD 1.38) out of 5.0 (healthiest profile). The UK, USA, Australia and Canada ranked highest for overall nutrient profile (HSR 2.74–2.83) and India, Hong Kong, China and Chile ranked lowest (HSR 2.27–2.44). Countries with higher overall HSR generally ranked better with respect to nutrient levels. India ranked consistently in the least healthy third for all measures. There is considerable variability in the healthiness of packaged foods and beverages in different countries. The finding that packaged foods and beverages are less healthy in middle‐income countries such as China and India suggests that nutrient profiling is an important tool to enable policymakers and industry actors to reformulate products available in the marketplace to reduce the risk of obesity and NCDs among populations.

show abstract

Investigating nutrient profiling and Health Star Ratings on core dairy products in Australia

Cited by 17 publications

References 12 publications

Incorporating Added Sugar Improves the Performance of the Health Star Rating Front-of-Pack Labelling System in Australia

Incorporating Added Sugar Improves the Performance of the Health Star Rating Front-of-Pack Labelling System in Australia

The performance and potential of the Australasian Health Star Rating system: a four‐year review using the RE‐AIM framework

A comparison of the healthiness of packaged foods and beverages from 12 countries using the Health Star Rating nutrient profiling system, 2013–2018

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About