Uh oh, the health star system might be more flawed than we thought

Zero stars for them

Experts accuse companies of “gaming” the health star system. Image: iStock

The controversial health star system has come under fire once again. This time, experts are accusing manufacturers of “exploiting” the system to inflate the perceived healthiness of their products. 

Just when we thought Australia’s health star rating system couldn’t be confusing enough, experts are now arguing that the labelling system has been “exploited” by companies making ultra-processed foods. 

Experts say that companies in the food industry are using labelling and sneaky marketing tactics to distract consumers from discovering what’s really in their food, especially food that is highly processed.

This is because the current system is based on whether the product contains ‘good’ or ‘bad’ nutrients. As a result, manufacturers can ‘game’ the system and add isolated fibres, proteins and artificial sweeteners that can push their rating higher, inflating the perceived healthiness of a product. 

So a product that might contain little or no whole food ingredients and has undergone multiple processing steps, containing preservatives, additives, added sugar, saturated fat and sodium, might hypothetically be ranked with a five-star in the current health star rating system. 

Dr Phillip Baker, a research fellow from the University of Sydney’s School of Public Health, says that the system can easily be “gamed” by big food manufacturers and has called for more comprehensive regulations on the framework.

 “What we’re calling for is a much more comprehensive set of regulations, a broader policy framework, that actually economically disincentivises the production of ultra-processed foods in the first place,” Dr Baker told The Guardian Australia. 

Associate professor of food politics and policy expert at the University of Melbourne, Gyorgy Scrinis, added that companies have long “exploited” the framework. “Food companies have exploited the current focus on nutrients as a way of marketing their poor quality, ultra-processed products.” 

“For example, they market their products as high in protein or low in fat, or even ‘contains whole grains’, yet these products are manufactured from ingredients that have been completely broken down or chemically transformed.”

The flaw in the system can see some diet soft drinks score three-star ratings, even outweighing the ratings of orange juice. Meanwhile, processed protein bars could nab up to five stars.  

It’s yet another flaw in the already confusing health star rating system, which has previously been criticised for not considering the level of processing a product undergoes, for being based on nutrients as opposed to whole foods, that healthy food can have fewer stars than 'junk' food, and that the advisory board is made up of predominately people in the food industry, rather than nutrition experts. 

It’s hard enough to make healthy decisions. But when the information we’re receiving isn’t really reflecting what’s going on beneath the packaging, we should be worried.

Originally published as Uh oh, the health star system might be more flawed than we thought