In your trips to the supermarket, you’ve probably come across the Health Star Rating on the front of some foods. You might even be one in every of the 70% of Australians who say they read the detailed nutrition information on the back of product packaging.
Nutrition labelling is designed to assist people make informed food purchases, and encourage shoppers to pick out and eat healthier options.
But Australia’s food labelling system is under-performing. Here’s how we will make it simpler.
Labels help us select healthier options
Nutrition labelling has been shown to steer to small but essential improvements within the healthiness of what people eat.
A recent review concluded that food labels are likely to encourage people to devour higher amounts of healthier foods. But most foodformats aren’t very effective in stopping people from choosing unhealthy foods.
While the results of food labels could also be small, such changes on a big scale can result in healthier eating habits across the population.
Which labelling format works best?
Studies show people favour having front-of-pack nutrition labels along with the more detailed back-of-pack information.
People are likely to understand simpler, colour-coded labels more easily than more complex, monochrome labels. And they consistently prefer “interpretive” labelling, like Australia’s Health Star Rating, that gives clear guidance on how healthy a specific product is.
Recent evidence indicates warning labels, reminiscent of those indicating high amounts of particular nutrients, are likely to be helpful in steering people away from unhealthy foods.
Shutterstock
Several countries have recently introduced warning labels on unhealthy foods. In Chile, for instance, it’s mandatory for products to display black, octagon-shaped “stop” signs on foods that exceed limits for sugar, sodium (salt), saturated fat and energy.
The introduction of Chile’s warning labels, as a part of a comprehensive nutrition policy suite, has led to improvements within the healthiness of Chilean diets on the population level.
How do Australia’s labelling rules stack up?
Australia’s Health Star Rating system performs relatively well in helping people to grasp the healthiness of various products.
And it has likely led to some improvements in product healthiness, as manufacturers have reformulated products to realize the next Health Star Rating.
But, as a voluntary scheme, Health Star Ratings have been implemented on lower than half of eligible products. This limits people’s ability to match product healthiness across the board.
Perhaps in consequence of the limited rollout, there’s no compelling evidence to point out that the Health Star Rating system has modified what people buy.
How can we make our food labelling simpler?
Research points to several suggestions to optimise the design of food labels in Australia.
First, if the Health Star Rating scheme were made mandatory, it might help people compare the healthiness of every product – not only the select few products which might be labelled now.
This would work best if coupled with improvements to the algorithm used to calculate health stars to raised align the scheme with the Australian Dietary Guidelines.
Second, the addition of color (through using a spectrum linked to the product’s healthiness) to the present Health Star Rating design would increase its visibility and is likely to boost the performance of the scheme.
One option for colour-coding can be for the healthiest rating to be green, with red for the least healthy.
Third, the addition of warning labels could possibly be used to obviously show products high in dangerous nutrients reminiscent of sodium and sugar.
There is emerging evidence that using warning labels and Health Star Ratings together is simpler, and may discourage consumption of unhealthy products.
Flipping to the back of food packaging, public health groups consistently recommend including added sugar levels in the present nutrition information panel. This is currently into consideration by the food standards regulatory body.
What else could we do?
In considering ways to boost the impact of food labels, it’s value seeking to other elements of package design.
The packaging on many unhealthy Australian products, reminiscent of sugary breakfast cereals and snack bars, currently features cartoon characters and other promotional techniques designed to appeal to children.
Chile banned using cartoon characters on food packaging alongside the implementation of warning labels. This likely contributed to the advantages observed there.
More radical options include exploration of plain packaging for unhealthy food – much like the packaging rules for tobacco. Evidence from New Zealand has shown plain packaging can lower young people’s desire to purchase unhealthy products reminiscent of sugary drinks.
Experts have argued plain packaging would help challenge the marketing power of enormous food manufacturers. It would also put unhealthy foods on a level playing field with unbranded vegetables and fruit.
The inclusion of environmental sustainability labellingalongside Health Star Ratings, is more likely to provide additional essential information for shoppers.
Shutterstock
We need a comprehensive approach
While food labelling is a crucial tool to tell people about product healthiness, it is just more likely to play a supporting role in efforts to handle unhealthy diets.
Broader changes to the best way foods are produced and marketed are more likely to be stronger. These changes, reminiscent of laws to cut back children’s exposure to unhealthy food marketing and taxes on sugary drinks, can work together with food labelling regulations as a part of a cohesive technique to improve population health.