On this page:

• How Health Star Ratings are displayed
• How Health Star Ratings are calculated
• What about daily intake labelling?
• ÌÇÐÄVlog verdict

But while the system is voluntary and has a few limitations, it will only be truly helpful for consumers if most (if not all) food and drink companies get on board and apply ratings to all applicable products.

How Health Star Ratings are displayed

There are three main elements of the HSR system graphic:

1. Health Star Rating (both as a star rating graphic and number, calculated per 100g/mL of the food)
2. Energy icon (per 100g/mL, pack or serve)
3. Nutrient icons – three ‘negative’ nutrients (sat fat, sugars, sodium) plus one optional ‘positive’ nutrient such as fibre or calcium (per 100g/mL, pack or serve)

Companies are encouraged to use as many elements of the graphic as possible, following a hierarchy of options laid out in the Style Guide, subject to available pack size and label space.

How Health Star Ratings can help

Making healthy food choices can be difficult, particularly when faced with the many claims frequently made on products. Products claiming to be low fat are often packed with sugar and high in kilojoules. And claims of added vitamins and minerals can be masking a product with few other redeeming nutritional features.Ìý 

The Health Star Rating system, which was developed by the government jointly with food companies, consumer groups and NGOs, addresses this.

The system ranks food products on a scale from half a star (least healthy) to five stars (most healthy), allowing you to make healthier choices at a glance. And the behind the system reflects the , the best, most current dietary advice available to consumers.

The system does have its limitations, however.

1. You can’t compare apples with oranges

Instead, HSRs should be used to compare like with like – think similar products that are side-by-side on the supermarket shelf.

If you’re choosing a staple such as bread, for example, one with more stars should be a healthier option than the one next to it with less. And even when it comes to processed treats or snack foods like a bag of chips, you can still make healthier choices by choosing an equivalent product with more stars on its label.

Just don’t use the stars to compare chips with bread.

2. It won’t help you determine ‘naturalness’

Food additives are a major concern for many consumers, and one criticism of the system is that it doesn’t take them into account. A product like margarine which generally contains multiple ingredients including various additives can have a higher HSR than butter, which is minimally processed and has just a couple of ingredients, for example.

The HSR System, however, was designed to interpret nutrient information and give you an overall picture of the nutritional profile of a food, not to judge how ‘natural’ or ‘pure’ a product is.

Including additives in the algorithm that produces the ratings would be very difficult, as well as change the purpose. The best way to determine the naturalness of a product is by looking at the ingredients list.

3. It’s not applicable to all foods

The HSR system was designed to be used on packaged food products – a good rule of thumb is that if the food product has a nutrition information panel (NIP), it can have a health star rating.

Products exempt from NIP labelling, and therefore the expectation of HSR labelling, include:

• fruit, vegetables, meat, poultry, and fish that comprise a single ingredient or category of ingredients
• foods with inherently low nutritional contribution, such as herbs, spices, vinegar, salt, pepper, tea and coffee
• fresh, ‘value-added’ products, such as packaged fruit, vegetables, meat, poultry and fish, and pre-packaged rolls and sandwiches (although products can carry HSR labelling if label space permits and the products are of standardised composition, such as bulk-produced pre-packaged sandwiches, rolls or wraps)

Additionally, health star ratings shouldn’t be displayed on special purpose foods such as infant formula and food, toddler milks, formulated supplementary sports food or alcohol.

How Health Star Ratings are calculated

The rating is based on an algorithm which firstly takes into account kilojoules plus three ‘negative’ (‘bad’) nutrients – saturated fat, sodium and total sugars.

These four aspects of a food – kilojoules, saturated fat, sodium and sugars – are the basis for the rating because they’re associated with increasing the risk factors for chronic diseases like type 2 diabetes, heart disease and obesity.

This is balanced against the ‘positive’ aspects of a food – its fruit, vegetable, nuts or legumes content (all valuable sources of a range of vitamins, minerals and antioxidants), as well as the protein and dietary fibre content in some cases.

The data used for calculations is per 100g or 100mL of a food.

Why are HSR calculations based on per 100g/mL of food?

Research conducted to inform the HSR system found that consumers prefer nutrition information based on 100g/mL because of confusion over serving size. Moreover adults, children, males, females, more active or less active people may have different serving size requirements – serve sizes can over- or under-estimate the amount people should eat – meaning nutrition labelling based on serving sizes can be misleading.

A consistent measure like 100g/mL, on the other hand, allows consumers to compare products easily and accurately within categories – whether you’re choosing the healthiest fruit yoghurt or the healthiest frozen lasagne.

What about daily intake labelling?

ÌÇÐÄVlog has long maintained that the industry-developed Daily Intake Guide (DIG), or % daily intake (%DI), thumbnail labelling fails to provide consumers with the necessary information to easily compare the nutritional content of similar products.

For starters it’s based on the daily energy intake of an ‘average adult’, so it’s not applicable to a range of consumer groups, including children. It’s also based on suggested serving sizes, which can be hugely inconsistent within product categories, making for unfair comparisons.

Our 2013 survey showed that 62% of Australians have either never heard of this scheme, or rarely use it to choose food products. And a national survey by research group IPSOS revealed that just 51% of the 3000 respondents found the DIG thumbnail graphic easy to understand, compared with 72% for the health star rating graphic.

Despite this, the Style Guide doesn’t object to its use, as long as it’s clear that it’s not linked to the HSR graphic.

ÌÇÐÄVlog verdict

HSRs aren’t the be-all and end-all of healthy eating. However, they can certainly help you make healthier choices, particularly when faced with a range of similar-looking products making a range of appealing nutrient claims.

Not only can the HSR system help consumers directly, it provides an indirect benefit by incentivising companies who choose to apply it to improve the nutritional profile of products in order to achieve more stars.

But the system will only succeed – and benefit consumers – if there’s take-up from the majority of food companies. ÌÇÐÄVlog applauds companies who are already on board, and we strongly encourage those companies that haven’t, to do so.

The post What is the Health Star Rating system? appeared first on ÌÇÐÄVlog.

On this page:

• Clean labelling tricks
• How to be a savvy shopper

What is ‘clean label’ food? Although it means a range of things to different people, it basically refers to food or drink products made from a small number of natural, wholesome, easily recognisable ingredients.

The clean label trend, according to industry, is one of the biggest trends in food today, although it’s not a new concept.

For years, the advice for people wanting to choose healthier, less processed food was to look for products that list whole foods as the first few ingredients, and be skeptical of foods with long lists of ingredients – particularly ingredients you don’t recognise.Ìý

Or, as Michael Pollan suggested in his book In Defence of Food, don’t “…eat anything with more than five ingredients, or ingredients you can’t pronounce.”

You can take this advice as a rule of thumb. But is a ‘clean’ label a guarantee of ‘clean’ food?

Cashing in on consumer craving for natural foods

In an ideal world, we’d be able to take food labels at face value. But at the same time as consumers are increasingly looking for foods with labels that promise a more natural product, free from processed nasties – so too are manufacturers upping their ‘clean labelling’ game in an attempt to match their products to these consumer preferences.Ìý

From a food manufacturer’s point of view it makes good business sense to present their products as squeaky clean, if that’s what consumers are looking for.

But, rather than reformulate a product to make it ‘cleaner’ – for example, removing artificial additives and replacing them with a natural alternative, it’s easier to be clever with the labelling so that the product appeals to the unsuspecting clean food consumer. There are even training courses that teach food manufacturers how to do just that (staying within the confines of the law, of course).

Prefer not to be sucked in by marketing? Here are five clean labelling tricks of the trade for you to keep an eye out for next time you’re food shopping.

Clean labelling tricks

1. Make the most of a health halo

‘Natural’, ‘organic’ and ‘plant-based’ are generally thought to be positive attributes. So it’s not surprising that these types of claims are frequently used by food manufacturers for their halo effect, to persuade consumers that a product is healthier or better than other similar products.Ìý

‘Organic’ sugar from a nutritional standpoint is still just sugar, however. And ‘plant-based’ burgers can be excessively salty and have little in common with the plants they are derived from.Ìý But the health halo created by these claims can still entice consumers into paying a premium. So approach these claims with skepticism..

2. Make claims about what’s not in the product 

‘Fat free’. ‘No added sugar’. ‘Free from artificial colours and flavours’.

We’ve all seen these sorts of claims on the front of a pack. The premise here is to make a big deal about what’s not in the product, in order to distract from what’s actually in it. But just because a product doesn’t contain sugar, fat, GMOs or artificial additives, it doesn’t mean the product is natural (or good for you, for that matter).Ìý

This yoghurt (pictured) has ‘no added sugar’ but it does contain a long list of other ingredients, including polydextrose, thickeners, gelatine and artificial sweeteners, acesulphame potassium and sucralose, in addition to the milk and live starter cultures that form the basis of yoghurt.

And these lollies (pictured) may contain ‘no artificial colours’ but they’re still just sugar with a bunch of other food additives.

3. Describe ingredients in the best possible light

Some ingredients can be labelled in different ways, so it’s to the manufacturers advantage to use the name that sounds the most natural, or at least innocuous. Food additives are a case in point.

If you’re buying strawberry jam, for example, are you more likely to choose the one with ‘pectin’ or the one that contains ‘gelling agent (440)’? They’re actually the same ingredient, but to many ‘pectin’ may seem more familiar and natural – something you might actually have in your pantry. The same goes for ascorbic acid, otherwise known as vitamin C.

Food additive monosodium glutamate (MSG) is another example. MSG has a bad reputation for triggering asthma in some people, and as a result many people actively avoid it. Manufacturers can (and often do, as per this chicken soup, pictured) instead choose to label it as ‘flavour enhancer 621’, which is arguably less identifiable and therefore not as likely to sound alarm bells.

Ingredient lists can also be used as marketing. ‘Madagascan vanilla extract’ (if that’s what they’re using) has a nicer ring to it than ‘vanilla flavour’. And why not throw in the word natural where you can – ‘natural thickening agent (Xanthan gum)’, anyone?

4. Avoid listing ingredients if you don’t have to

Some ingredients don’t need to be declared in an ingredients list, such as the ingredients that make a flavouring – just the word ‘flavouring’ or ‘flavour’ is permitted.Ìý

But also exempt from being labelled are the individual ingredients that make up a compound ingredient, if that compound ingredient makes up less than 5% of the finished product  – a technicality of food labelling laws that’s often referred to as the 5% loophole. (The exception is if an ingredient that makes up a compound ingredient is a known allergen, or a food additive which has a technological function in the final food).

A compound ingredient is an ingredient made up of two or more ingredients. An example of one that could be less than 5% of the final food is the tomato sauce (consisting of tomatoes, capsicum, onions, water and herbs) on a frozen pizza.

Of course food companies can choose to label those ingredients too, but why would they if they’re trying to refine their ingredients list? This 5% rule is particularly helpful if the compound ingredient is one that contains multiple additives – the label will look much ‘cleaner’ without them on it!

5. Be creative when listing ingredients 

Ingredients need to be listed in order of ingoing weight on a food label. But if a food contains a compound ingredient there are ways to manipulate the list so that individual ingredients are more or less prominent as desired.

Food manufacturers have two options when listing compound ingredients:

• declare the compound ingredient by name in its appropriate place in the statement of ingredients and then list the ingredients of the compound ingredient in brackets after its name, or 
• declare all of the ingredients of the compound ingredient separately as if they were individual ingredients of the final food.

For a clean label, food manufacturers can choose the approach which makes the ingredients list look most wholesome and simple.

How to be a savvy shopper

To avoid choosing a food product that doesn’t live up to expectations, try the following:

• Take time to read the label. Rather than rely on front of pack visuals and claims, check that the ingredients list and nutrition information panel back these up.
• Know your additives nomenclature. If there’s a food additive you want to avoid, make sure to familiarise yourself with both its , as it can be labelled as either.
• Call out offending labels. If you think a food label is misleading or deceptive you can make a complaint about it to the relevant in the state where the food manufacturer/distributor is based, and they can take action if it doesn’t comply with the food standards code.

The post Does a ‘clean label’ mean better food? appeared first on ÌÇÐÄVlog.

On this page:

• ÌÇÐÄVlog verdict: Improvements needed, and system should be mandatory

New research from ÌÇÐÄVlog highlights the value of Health Star Ratings (HSRs) in helping people see beyond persuasive – and sometimes misleading – marketing to find healthier options among similar food products. The results add weight to calls to make Health Stars mandatory.

With such a dizzying array of foods on supermarket shelves,  it can be overwhelming trying to choose those that are better for us – even among what appear to be relatively healthy products.Ìý

Add to this time pressures; an overload of labelling detail including ingredients lists, nutrition information panels and nutrition claims; or shopping with small children – and it’s clear that having a system that provides a simple, meaningful health rating is essential.

HSRs were developed to help consumers make informed food purchases and healthier eating choices at a glance. And the results of our recent survey further demonstrate how they help – and why the system needs to be strengthened.

Read on for four things we learned from our survey, or jump to our verdict on what needs to change about Health Star Ratings.

1. When Health Star Ratings aren’t present, consumers are far less likely to accurately identify less healthy products

We showed survey participants a range of different food products and asked them to rate the products as ‘very healthy’ to ‘not at all healthy’ based on the images and information that appear on the pack, but we only revealed the products’ HSRs to half the participants.Ìý 

Carman’s Oat Slice Cranberry & Blueberry

Without seeing the HSR, almost three out of four (74%) people said this Carman’s Oat Slice Cranberry & Blueberry is healthy, compared with 41% when its rating of 1.5 was provided.

On pack claims: 

• Real food made with real passion
• Real fruit
• Source of whole grain
• Source of fibre
• No artificial colours or flavours
• Baked

Table of Plenty Mini Rice Cakes Milk Chocolate

Without seeing the HSR, 43% of people considered Table of Plenty Mini Rice Cakes Milk Chocolate to be healthy, compared with just 19% when its rating of 1 was provided.

On pack claims:

• 69 calories per pack
• Gluten free
• Nothing artificial
• No Palm Oi

2. Health Star Ratings help people determine the healthiness of a product.

Without HSRs, people disproportionately rely on marketing claims.

We asked participants how easy or difficult they found it to rate the healthiness of the products.Ìý

• Of those who found it easy, the HSR was cited by 65% as being the reason.Ìý

• Of those who saw the HSRs, around half (52%) also took into consideration the marketing on pack, including product descriptions and images, to assess a product’s healthiness. When HSRs weren’t shown, this number rose to 75%.Ìý

3. People struggle to compare like products effectively when some have Health Star Ratings and others don’t.

People were asked to select the healthiest option from a selection of like products across different categories, with some products within each category displaying HSRs and others not.Ìý

Brand perception

When products didn’t display HSRs, people disproportionately relied on brand perception in order to make a decision about the healthiness of a product.Ìý

Weight Watchers Macadamia & Cranberry has an HSR of 2, which isn’t displayed on pack. Still, around half (49%) chose it as as the healthiest option from a selection of four snack bars (including a product with an on-pack HSR of 5), based on their perception of the brand.

The role of images

Without the guidance of an HSR, consumers also relied upon their understanding of the ingredients and pictures on the pack.Ìý

For example, when asked to select the healthiest option from a range of coconut flavoured yoghurt products all without HSRs on pack, three out of five respondents (63%) weren’t able to.

Linda Przhedetsky, ÌÇÐÄVlog policy and campaigns adviser, says, “Manufacturers are picking and choosing when and where to display Health Stars. This approach is confusing, and leaves too many sugar-laden, unhealthy options on our shelves without appropriate labelling.” 

“Ministers have to stop manufacturers from gaming the system by making them display the star rating on all of their products,” she adds.

4. People are using the Health Star Rating system

Finally, we asked survey participants about their trust in and use of the HSR system. Overall we found that it’s well-known and utilised. It plays an important role in influencing people’s food choices, and encourages them to make healthier choices. Our survey results showed that:

• Three quarters (75%) of those that have used HSRs trust the system quite a lot or a great deal.
• More than three out of every five (62%) respondents have used HSRs to influence their choice of food.Ìý
• One in four (25%) have chosen a product with a HSR displayed on pack versus those that don’t have a HSR on pack.

ÌÇÐÄVlog verdict: Improvements needed, and system should be mandatory

Clearly, the HSR system isn’t perfect. There are a number of anomalies which allow certain products to receive higher ratings than they deserve. And importantly, the system is only voluntary, meaning that manufacturers aren’t required to use it. But there are ways it can be improved to make it work better for consumers.

Earlier this year, the government provided a draft report on recommended updates as part of a five-year review of the HSR system. We support many of these recommendations, but we don’t think they go far enough. In particular:

• The report recommends a package of changes be made to the way the HSR is calculated to better align with Australian Dietary Guidelines. This includes stronger penalties for total sugars, but we want the algorithm to incorporate a penalty for added sugar in food and drinks.
• The report recommends an uptake target – that HSRs must be displayed on 70% of target products by end 2023 – but our preference is that the system be mandatory.

We’re now calling on ministers to improve upon the review’s recommendations, to help make the HSR system work better for consumers.

How we surveyed

In October 2019, ÌÇÐÄVlog conducted research to understand the impact of Health Star Ratings. The research was completed by 1001 Australians, representative by age, state and gender via an online survey. The respondents and fieldwork was managed by independent, accredited market research supplier, Dynata.

The post Strengthening Health Star Ratings appeared first on ÌÇÐÄVlog.

The release of the long-awaited Five Year Review of the Health Star Rating System was a missed opportunity, according to consumer groups and public health experts.Ìý

“The recommendations do not go far enough to ensure that the Health Star Rating system works for consumers,” says ÌÇÐÄVlog food policy expert Linda Przhedetsky.Ìý

ÌÇÐÄVlog, along with other public health organisations from Australia and New Zealand, have been calling for a Health Star Rating System that is mandatory, is free from undue industry influence, and that penalises sugary and salty snacks appropriately.

Unfortunately, without major improvements, it may be another five years before the system meets shopper’s needs.Ìý

“We urge Forum ministers to go further, and implement more ambitious changes to the Health Star Rating system, as recommended by consumer groups and public health experts,” says Przhedetsky.Ìý

Uptake targets a big concern

As of June 2019, there were 15,292 products that displayed the health star rating graphic. While the report calls for a substantial increase in uptake, it’s still too low.Ìý

“A 70% target over a five year period is not high enough. This doesn’t do much to close a major loophole in the system,” says Przhedetsky.

“This will let manufacturers continue avoiding putting Health Stars on 3 out of 10 products.”

Inadequate penalties for sugar and salt

ÌÇÐÄVlog is also disappointed to see that the recommendation won’t adequately penalise sugary and salty foods.Ìý

“The report’s recommendations give manufacturers a green light to keep packing food with added sugar and salt, while cashing in on undeserved high Health Star Ratings,” Przhedetsky says.Ìý

“The report’s modest recommendations do not go far enough to penalise unhealthy foods.”

Added sugars to be highlighted

There was some good news for consumers.

Along with the release of the review, a separate announcement from the Ministerial Forum for Food Regulation’s August meeting has confirmed that all state and territory ministers have agreed to the request that Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) review nutrition labelling for added sugars.Ìý

In the announcement, it was noted that quantifying added sugars in the nutrition information panel was the best option for the desired outcome.Ìý

“We’ve been calling for the inclusion of added sugars in the nutritional information panel and the pictorial representation of added sugars on beverages,” says Przhedetsky. “We’re pleased to see these options being considered.”

“Right now, it’s impossible to know how much added sugar is in the food that we eat. We need actual information, not marketing on our food labels. The Forum’s decisions to review added sugar labelling options is a major step forward to better labels,” says Przhedetsky.

Energy icon to go

Despite disappointment in many of the recommendations, one positive to come out of the report is removal of the energy icon on drinks.

The energy icon has been one of five Health Star Rating graphic options available to manufacturers. This icon is most commonly used on non-dairy beverages and confectionery, but it’s not well understood by consumers and doesn’t provide information to support healthy choices.Ìý

Also, because some products choose the energy icon and others use the stars, it makes it difficult to compare products.Ìý

“We welcome the removal of the confusing energy icon on beverages. We need labels that make sense for shoppers, and with only two percent of Australian consumers finding it easy to understand, this icon clearly wasn’t helping,” says Przhedetsky.

The post Health Star Rating review doesn’t go far enough appeared first on ÌÇÐÄVlog.

On this page:

• Five-year review
• Why the system should focus on added sugar instead of total sugar

A medical research unit has come up with a new algorithm that differentiates between the sugar added by manufacturers during processing, and the sugar that naturally occurs in food – such as the sugar in milk and fruit.

We’ve applied the algorithm to a range of foods to see how it could affect their Health Star Ratings.

Popular products lose health halo under proposed changes

In its submission on the government’s proposed changes to Health Star Ratings, The George Institute for Global Health has suggested a change to the HSR algorithm to take the level of added sugars into account. This move is similar to proposals currently on the table in the UK to update their traffic light labelling system.

There are lots of proposed changes that should improve the usability of HSRs, but we wanted to know how this one simple change might affect the HSRs of existing products. We applied the strengthened algorithm to 17 food products, ranging from cereals to natural yoghurt.

Here’s what the stronger penalty for added sugar could do to their HSRs.

What we found

1. Some products gain stars

What’s interesting about using the strengthened algorithm is that not only are products with added sugar penalised, but those with only naturally occurring sugars are given a bonus.Ìý

Emma and Tom’s Cacao & Orange Life Bar receives an extra 0.5 stars as it only contains fruit sugars in the form of dates and raisins, and Gippsland Dairy Natural Yoghurt receives an extra 0.5 stars as its only sugar source is the lactose in the milk.

2. Protein content counts less

Kellogg’s Nutri-Grain cereal and Nestle Milo cereal (currently both 4 stars) both lost a whopping 2.5 health stars when the strengthened algorithm was applied, which might make you think twice about putting them in your supermarket basket.

The Nutri-Grain result is especially interesting. The cereal has long been associated with the iron-man image, and claims around protein and calcium content create the impression that it’s a healthy breakfast cereal.Ìý

But all this distracts consumers from the fact that Nutri-Grain is high in sugar, most of which is added.

Without getting too technical, the primary reason for the huge drop in HSRs in this instance is that under this proposed change these products could lose the ability to receive bonus points for protein content.Ìý

Stronger treatment of added sugars would make it harder for cereals – and other products – to claim bonus points for adding protein and other beneficial nutrients to what are otherwise sugary treats.

3. It’s easier to spot the healthier option

We also found that the strengthened algorithm helped to further differentiate between foods in the same product category that under the current system have similar HSRs, making it easier to spot the healthier option.

For example, if you were looking to buy some cereal, you might think the 0.5 star difference between Uncle Tobys Plus Protein (4 HSR) and Lowan Muesli Original (4.5 HSR) is not that big a deal.Ìý

However, when we modelled added sugar changes, the Uncle Tobys cereal could go down to 1.5 stars because, like the Nutri-Grain and Milo cereals, they’d lose their protein bonus points, while the Lowan product could go up by 0.5.Ìý

This 3.5 star difference is because the Lowan muesli contains only naturally-occurring sugars, while most of Uncle Toby’s Plus Protein’s sugars are added.

Even the difference in ratings between natural and sweetened yoghurts gets greater – which again goes to show how scoring added sugars is more useful than scoring total sugars.Ìý

Currently, Gippsland Dairy Natural Yoghurt has 4 health stars while its Toffee & Honeycomb version has 2. These ratings indicate that the natural version is better for you, but under the proposed changes the difference in HSRs makes this more obvious.Ìý

The natural yoghurt with no added sugar could increase to 4.5 stars, while the toffee yoghurt – with added sugar making up more than half of its total sugar – gets just 1 star.

4. Shoppers would be the winners

The results of our modelling show that incorporating added sugars into the health star rating would benefit Australians, making it easier to identify products higher in added sugar and letting us make informed decisions about what exactly we’re eating.

“ÌÇÐÄVlog’s modelling, carried out in collaboration with The George Institute, shows that penalising added sugar can have a significant impact on the Health Star Ratings of products,” says Linda Przhedetsky, ÌÇÐÄVlog policy and campaigns adviser.

“Our estimates show that some products could lose as many as 2.5 Health Stars. Including added sugar in the calculation of Health Stars will help people make more informed choices.”

Five-year review

The Health Star Rating (HSR) system is a voluntary scheme that was designed to help us make informed, healthy food choices at a glance by ranking food products on a scale from half a star (least healthy) to five stars (most healthy).

It’s clearly been of benefit since it was first launched in 2014, with research finding that 60% of Australians who’ve bought a product with an HSR said the system influenced the product they chose.

While we’re supportive of the system, we think it could be strengthened with a number of changes, including incorporating a penalty in the algorithm for added sugar in food and drinks.

Earlier this year, the government provided a draft report on recommended updates as part of a . Among its findings, the review recommended that:

• HSRs be continued
• further steps be taken to promote the system
• the way the star ratings are calculated should better align with dietary guidelines, including stronger penalties for total sugars, and an automatic rating of 5 given to fresh, frozen or canned fruits and vegies (with no added sugar, salt or fat) .

Once the review is finalised, it will be presented to federal and state governments who will decide on the next steps.

ÌÇÐÄVlog wants HSR algorithm strengthened

ÌÇÐÄVlog supports many of the government review’s key recommendations, but one of the things we’re concerned about is that products high in added sugar aren’t properly penalised by the current HSR algorithm.

“Sugar has often been added to the food that we buy,” says Przhedetsky. “Unlike naturally occurring sugars such as lactose in milk, added sugars are extra sugar that’s added during manufacturing.

“Added sugar is hiding in so many different foods, both sweet and savoury – foods like muesli bars, dips, chips or drinks. And it’s often listed under multiple names in ingredients lists, meaning that it’s hard for people to make an accurate assessment of how healthy products are.”

“Manufacturers should clearly label the amount of added sugar that they put in what we eat and drink, and this should be reflected in Health Star Ratings.”

Why the system should focus on added sugar instead of total sugar

Not all sugars are created equal.

Intrinsic sugars are naturally-occurring, and are found in nutrient-rich foods such as milk, yoghurt and intact fruits and vegetables. They’re part of a healthy, balanced diet.

Added sugars are added to food and drinks during processing or cooking, and they include glucose, honey and fruit juice concentrates. Added sugars provide empty kilojoules – kilojoules with little or no associated beneficial nutrients, yet they’re the major source of sugar in the Australian diet and are damaging to our health. (We use the World Health Organization .)

By focusing on total sugars, the current system treats two products with 30g total sugar the same, even if one product contains 99% added sugar while the other contains mostly intrinsic sugar.

There’s also significant about apparent anomalies in the current system, particularly when products with high levels of added sugar, sodium, or saturated fat receive relatively high HSRs. This can have a negative impact on public confidence and trust.

And shows that people find it’s easier to choose healthier foods when added sugars are called out instead of total sugars.

We’re calling for the HSR algorithm to penalise added sugars, instead of total sugars, to better reflect Australian dietary guidelines (ADG), to boost consumer confidence in the system and to ensure that HSRs are more useful to consumers.

Correction 1 July 2019: We initially published incorrect current Health Star Ratings (HSRs) for Little Bellies Organic Gingerbread Men, Rafferty’s Garden Blueberry, Banana & Apple Snack Bar, Golden Days Apricot Delight, Emma and Tom’s Cacao & Orange Life Bar and Go Natural Macadamia Divine, and the incorrect proposed HSR for Emma and Tom’s Cacao & Orange Life Bar. These have now been corrected.

The post Nutri-Grain and Milo Cereal lose Health Stars under proposed changes appeared first on ÌÇÐÄVlog.

On this page:

• Easier to identify origin, particularly if it's Australian
• Labelling updates lagging in some products 
• Continued improvements necessary
• Country of origin labelling: NOW
• Country of origin labels: THEN

To see if the new standard makes it easier to find out where your food comes from, we checked the labels on a range of frozen fruit and veg in supermarket freezers.Ìý

We found that while it’s now much easier to identify the Australian ingredients in products, some companies still aren’t using the new system.

Easier to identify origin, particularly if it’s Australian

In 2015 we found it impossible to determine the country of origin of nearly half the frozen mixed fruit and vegetables available in Australian supermarkets which, in the wake of numerous hepatitis A cases linked to imported frozen berries, was cause for concern. Our campaign for better country of origin labelling achieved new labels, and our label check confirms that the situation has improved.

We revisited the labelling on the frozen mixed fruit and vegie products we surveyed in 2015.Ìý

Of the 37 products still available today:

• 30 enable you to identify the origin of the ingredients, or at least the percentage of Australian ingredients (compared with just 23 in 2015).
• 8 still use variations of much less transparent statements (compared with 14 in 2015).Ìý
• 29 carried the new labelling.Ìý

Labelling updates lagging in some products 

A number of the products we looked at have yet to update their labelling to comply with the new labelling standard. For example:

• Birds Eye Steam Fresh Carrot, Broccoli & Corn Mix is labelled ‘Made in Australia’ with no kangaroo icon or bar chart
• Heinz Steam Fresh Beans, Broccoli & Sugar Snap Peas is labelled ‘Made in New Zealand from imported and local ingredients’ but the statement isn’t in a clearly defined box.Ìý

If you want to know where the vegies were grown, these labels are useless.Ìý

There has been a two-year transition period leading up to 1 July when the new laws came into effect. So while the ACCC has said that food products that were packaged and labelled according to the Food Code on or before 30 June 2018 can still be sold without the new labels after that date, we’re disappointed to see that some companies still haven’t moved to the new system.Ìý

Continued improvements necessary

Imported frozen pomegranate was linked to hepatitis A cases earlier this year prompting a nationwide recall, again highlighting the importance of clear and accurate country of origin labelling that allows consumers to make an informed choice about what they buy.Ìý

Some consumers are also willing to pay extra for products grown, produced, or made in Australia, and the new labelling gives companies the opportunity to promote how ‘Australian’ their products are. The origin statement on Birds Eye Country Harvest Snap Frozen Carrot, Cauliflower & Broccoli is ‘Packed in Australia from at least 40% Australian ingredients’, for example.Ìý

But we think more transparency is necessary and would like to see manufacturers voluntarily provide information about the origin of all ingredients, not just those that are Australian.Ìý

The ACCC has plans to conduct market surveillance checks on 10,000 food products to ensure businesses are correctly displaying the new labels, and concerns will be raised with any businesses identified as not complying with the new laws. We look forward to hearing the outcome of these inspections.Ìý

Country of origin labelling: NOW

There are different labelling requirements depending on whether an item is classified as a priority or non-priority food. Priority foods are all foods except those that belong to one of seven non-priority categories – seasonings, confectionery, biscuits and snack foods, soft drinks and sports drinks, alcoholic drinks, tea and coffee, bottled water.Ìý

The biggest label changes are for products made, grown or produced in Australia. These now need to display a triangle logo with a kangaroo icon, a bar chart indicating the percentage of Australian ingredients and explanatory text to explain if the product was made, produced or grown in Australia. A product that is packed in Australia just needs to display a bar chart indicating the percentage of Australian ingredients.Ìý

Imported priority food must, at a minimum, carry a country of origin text statement (e.g. ‘Made in China’ or ‘Product of Brazil’) in a clearly defined box.

The following are examples of labels you should see on all priority foods that contain Australian ingredients:

Country of origin labels: THEN

‘Product of [country name]’

Definition: Each significant ingredient or part of the product originated in the country claimed and almost all of the production processes occurred in that country.

What it doesn’t tell us: This is arguably the most helpful of the current approved statements, but it doesn’t guarantee that 100% of that product came from or was processed in that country.

‘Made in [country]’

Definition: The product was made (not just packed) in the country claimed and at least 50% of the cost to produce the product was incurred in that country.

What it doesn’t tell us: Where the ingredients were grown or sourced.

‘From local and imported ingredients’

Definition: The ingredients come from at least one other country in addition to the one claimed.

What it doesn’t tell us: What other countries ingredients may have come from, or in what proportion.

The post Where does your frozen fruit and veg come from? appeared first on ÌÇÐÄVlog.

On this page:

• Environmental and social impact
• Health impact
• Consumers left in the dark
• Mandatory palm oil labelling needed

But there’s a dark side to palm oil.

Environmental and social impact

Clearing land to make way for oil palm plantations has resulted in mass deforestation, particularly in Malaysia and Indonesia where more than 80% of the world’s palm oil is produced. This has destroyed the natural habitat of animals including orangutans, tigers, rhinos and elephants, pushing some to the brink of extinction. It has also resulted in large volumes of greenhouse gas emissions.

In some cases forest clearance has also displaced indigenous people, depriving them of their livelihoods and threatening their culture and way of life.

Health impact

Palm oil is also bad for your health. Although it’s rich in carotenoids (antioxidants), it contains more than 50% saturated fat and can raise ‘bad’ cholesterol levels.

°Õ³ó±ðÌý believes there’s convincing evidence that palmitic acid (found in palm oil) contributes to an increase in the risk of cardiovascular disease, and palm oil is one of the two tropical oils (the other is coconut oil) the  recommends we avoid.

The even identifies palm oil as one of the saturated fat-heavy foods we should replace with alternatives that contain predominantly polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fats.

But that’s easier said than done.

Consumers left in the dark

Our food might be riddled with palm oil, but you’d be forgiven if you didn’t know it. (FSANZ) currently doesn’t require companies to specifically label palm oil – it allows it to be hidden behind a generic ‘vegetable oil’ or ‘vegetable fat’ label.

To see if this is common knowledge, we surveyed Australians and asked them to list oils they thought were included in the term ‘vegetable oil’ – just 15% mentioned palm oil.

The reactions on being told about current labelling requirements were revealing.

“I am so shocked to discover that palm oil is listed under vegetable oil – wow!” commented one respondent.

“I didn’t realise that it was shown as vegetable oil on labels. I will have to rethink some of my purchases and contact companies before I buy their products in future. I don’t think that fact is widely known and I think there would be a significant change in people’s shopping habits if they knew,” wrote another.

“I am dismayed to learn that it can be labelled vegetable oil,” expressed a third.

And even though a growing number of companies now use certified sustainable palm oil (CSPO), it makes up just 18% of the global palm oil supply, and they don’t always declare it.

Mandatory palm oil labelling needed

One of the recommendations to come out of 2011 Review of Food Labelling Law and Policy (the Blewett Review) was that the type of oil should be clearly identified in brackets after the generic term ‘vegetable oil’ – and consumers agree. Seventy per cent of Australians we surveyed said it’s important to them that palm oil is labelled separately on the ingredients list, for a range of reasons neatly summed up by the following comments.

“I am vegan and cruelty free so ingredient lists being correctly displayed is very important to me,” stated one respondent.

Another commented “I don’t have a problem consuming palm oil but I am very wary of buying anything that contains it due to the environmental harm it can cause.”

Said a third, “Its got a bad reputation for health but for me the main issue is ethically sourcing it.”

And finally, “It’s not healthy. I try not to knowingly eat foods that contain palm oil.”

Whether it’s for health reasons, or to make food purchasing decisions that align with personal values and beliefs, consumers should have easy access to information about palm oil in their food.

What ÌÇÐÄVlog wants

ÌÇÐÄVlog is calling for mandatory labelling of palm oil. This would help consumers make informed decisions, give companies an incentive to source sustainable palm oil, and encourage companies already using sustainable palm oil to promote this.Ìý

FSANZ is reviewing the Blewett Review’s recommendation for palm oil labelling.Ìý

Our survey

We surveyed 1061 Australians about palm oil. The sample was nationally representative, and respondents were aged 18-75 years.

Of the Australians who place importance on being able to correctly identify whether a product contains palm oil, 59% cited environment reasons, 58% health reasons, 45% animal welfare reasons and 37% ethical reasons relating to Fairtrade/worker conditions.

Certified sustainable palm oil – what is it?

Many large food manufacturers have joined the (RSPO), an initiative that encourages members to buy palm oil from sustainable sources. The RSPO certifies a range of palm oil supply options which vary in their degree of sustainability or environmental impact.

• Identity Preserved Certified Sustainable Palm Oil (CSPO) is oil that’s 100% certified sustainable, and fully traceable to a single source.
• Segregated CSPO is oil that’s 100% certified sustainable from mixed sources.
• Mass balance is a combination of certified and uncertified palm oil.
• Book and Claim/GreenPalm is essentially a trading scheme whereby certificates are purchased by companies to offset their usage of uncertified palm oil. GreenPalm supports the production of sustainable palm oil – and companies that purchase certificates can make a sustainable claim – but the oil itself from this supply option isn’t certified sustainable. 55% of RSPO-certified palm oil sales in 2014 were via GreenPalm.

Sustainability statements

In the absence of mandatory labelling, one way to find out which food companies use palm oil and whether it’s sustainably sourced is to look on the company’s website. But when we checked palm oil-related statements on the websites of some RSPO members, and compared that with details in their 2014 annual communications on progress supplied to the RSPO, we found you’re not always given the full picture.

HJ Heinz, for example, states “Heinz completed its conversion to 100% certified sustainable palm oil in December 2013.” But it doesn’t mention that in 2014, 12% of this was sourced using the mass balance model and 6% was from GreenPalm certificates. And Nestle states “In 2013, we have already achieved 100% sourcing of RSPO certified sustainable palm oil, two years ahead of our public commitment”, without revealing that it’s largely in the form of GreenPalm certificates (90% in 2014).

And bear in mind that even if a company claims to be a member of the RSPO it doesn’t necessarily mean they’re already using certified sustainable palm oil – just that they’ve made a commitment to eventually purchase it.

Palm oil popularity

There are a number of reasons why palm oil is so popular with food manufacturers:

• It maintains its properties even when cooked under high temperatures.
• It’s stable over long periods of time which extends the shelf life of foods (crispiness or crunch can be maintained for longer, for example.
• Its smooth and creamy texture and neutral taste and smell make it a great ingredient for many recipes, from margarine and chocolate spreads to baked goods like biscuits.
• It’s solid or semi-solid at room temperature (it stops margarine from being liquid at room temperature, for example).
• It’s comparatively cheap being the highest-yielding vegetable oil crop and needing less than half the land required by other crops to produce the same amount of oil

Because of these unique properties it’s a common ingredient in products ranging from margarines, biscuits, breads and breakfast cereals to chocolates, instant noodles and ice creams. It’s even used in personal care products such as lipstick and shampoo.

has more information on everyday products that contain palm oil, and why.

The post Are we being palmed off? appeared first on ÌÇÐÄVlog.