Suchergebnisse

OBJECTIVES: The Health Star Rating (HSR) system is an interpretative front-of-pack labelling (FOPL) scheme for Australia and New Zealand, which aims to guide consumers towards foods higher in components associated with a healthy diet and lower in energy and nutrients associated with an increased risk of disease, and thereby reduce the diet-related burden of disease. Type of program: A government-endorsed and funded nutrient profiling model for application to packaged foods and beverages in retail environments. METHODS: By considering the nutritional profile of a product, based on widely accepted risk-increasing and beneficial components, and assigning a rating from 0.5 to 5 stars, the HSR system simplifies complex nutrition information and messages to highlight the healthier options within a given product range. RESULTS: Implementation of the HSR system is progressing well, with a rapidly increasing presence in supermarkets. Consumer understanding and use of the system is increasing and sentiments are generally favourable. People are changing purchasing behaviour by using the system to select healthier choices. The great majority of HSRs displayed on packs are accurate and industry is reformulating products to improve nutritive quality. However, some issues of concern have been raised during the implementation period. These are being investigated through an independent review of the system. LESSONS LEARNT: The experience of the HSR system, particularly its governance structures, has demonstrated that when disparate stakeholders are included in the process, a workable and acceptable system that achieves tangible outcomes can be implemented.

The Health Star Rating (HSR) system is a voluntary front-of-pack labelling (FoPL) initiative endorsed by the Australian government in 2014. This study examines the impact of the HSR system on pre-packaged food reformulation measured by changes in energy density between products with and without HSR. The cost-effectiveness of the HSR system was modelled using a proportional multi-state life table Markov model for the 2010 Australian population. We evaluated scenarios in which the HSR system was implemented on a voluntary and mandatory basis (i.e., HSR uptake across 6.7% and 100% of applicable products, respectively). The main outcomes were health-adjusted life years (HALYs), net costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). These were calculated with accompanying 95% uncertainty intervals (95% UI). The model predicted that HSR-attributable reformulation leads to small reductions in mean population energy intake (voluntary: 0.98 kJ/day [95% UI: −1.08 to 2.86]; mandatory: 11.81 kJ/day [95% UI: −11.24 to 36.13]). These are likely to result in reductions in mean body weight (voluntary: 0.01 kg [95% UI: −0.01 to 0.03]; mandatory: 0.11 kg [95% UI: −0.12 to 0.32], and HALYs (voluntary: 4207 HALYs [95% UI: 2438 to 6081]; mandatory: 49,949 HALYs [95% UI: 29,291 to 72,153]). The HSR system evaluated via changes in reformulation could be considered cost-effective relative to a willingness-to-pay threshold of A$50,000 per HALY (voluntary: A$1728 per HALY [95% UI: dominant to 10,445] and mandatory: A$4752 per HALY [95% UI: dominant to 16,236]).

The Australian Dietary Guidelines (ADGs) and Health Star Rating (HSR) front-of-pack labelling system are two national interventions to promote healthier diets. Our aim was to assess the degree of alignment between the two policies. Methods: Nutrition information was extracted for 65,660 packaged foods available in The George Institutes Australian FoodSwitch database. Products were classified core or discretionary based on the ADGs, and a HSR generated irrespective of whether currently displayed on pack. Apparent outliers were identified as those products classified core that received HSR amp;lt;= 2.0; and those classified discretionary that received HSR amp;gt;= 3.5. Nutrient cut-offs were applied to determine whether apparent outliers were high in salt, total sugar or saturated fat, and outlier status thereby attributed to a failure of the ADGs or HSR algorithm. Results: 47,116 products (23,460 core; 23,656 discretionary) were included. Median (Q1, Q3) HSRs were 4.0 (3.0 to 4.5) for core and 2.0 (1.0 to 3.0) for discretionary products. Overall alignment was good: 86.6% of products received a HSR aligned with their ADG classification. Among 6324 products identified as apparent outliers, 5246 (83.0%) were ultimately determined to be ADG failures, largely caused by challenges in defining foods as core or discretionary. In total, 1078 (17.0%) were determined to be true failures of the HSR algorithm. Conclusion: The scope of genuine misalignment between the ADGs and HSR algorithm is very small. We provide evidence-informed recommendations for strengthening both policies to more effectively guide Australians towards healthier choices. ; Funding Agencies|Australian Government Research Training Program (RTP) Scholarship; National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia [APP1106947]; NHMRC [APP1052555]; Centre for Research excellence [APP1117300]; County Council of Ostergotland

In Australia, manufacturers can use two government-endorsed approaches to advertise product healthiness: the Health Star Rating (HSR) front-of-pack nutrition labelling system, and health claims. Related, but different, algorithms determine the star rating of a product (the HSR algorithm) and eligibility to display claims (the Nutrient Profiling Scoring Criterion (NPSC) algorithm). The objective of this study was to examine the agreement between the HSR and NPSC algorithms. Food composition information for 41,297 packaged products was extracted from The George Institute&rsquo ; s FoodSwitch database. HSR and the NPSC scores were calculated, and the proportion of products in each HSR category that were eligible to display a health claim under the NPSC was examined. The highest agreement between the HSR scoring algorithm and the NPSC threshold to determine eligibility to display a health claim was at the HSR cut-off of 3.5 stars (k = 0.83). Overall, 97.3% (n = 40,167) of products with star ratings of 3.5 or higher were also eligible to display a health claim, and 94.3% (n = 38,939) of products with star ratings less than 3.5 were ineligible to display a health claim. The food group with greatest divergence was &ldquo ; edible oils&rdquo ; with 45% products (n = 342) with HSR > ; 3.5, but 64% (n = 495) eligible to display a claim. Categories with large absolute numbers of products with HSR < ; 3.5, but eligible to display a claim, were &ldquo ; yoghurts and yoghurt drinks&rdquo ; (335 products, 25.4%) and &ldquo ; soft drinks&rdquo ; (299 products, 29.7%). Categories with a large number of products with HSR &ge ; 3.5, but ineligible to display a claim, were &ldquo ; milk&rdquo ; (260 products, 21.2%) and &ldquo ; nuts and seeds&rdquo ; (173 products, 19.7%). We conclude that there is good agreement between the HSR and the NPSC systems overall, but divergence in some food groups is likely to result in confusion for consumers, particularly where foods with low HSRs are eligible to display a health claim. The alignment of the NPSC and HSR scoring algorithms should be improved.

Background In June 2014, the Australian government agreed to the voluntary implementation of an interpretive 'Health Star Rating' (HSR) front-of-pack labelling system for packaged foods. The aim of the system is to make it easier for consumers to compare the healthiness of products based on number of stars. With many Australians consuming fast food there is a strong rationale for extending the HSR system to include fast food items. Objective To examine the performance of the HSR system when applied to fast foods. Design Nutrient content data for fast food menu items were collected from the websites of 13 large Australian fast-food chains. The HSR was calculated for each menu item. Statistics describing HSR values for fast foods were calculated and compared to results for comparable packaged foods. Results Data for 1529 fast food products were compared to data for 3810 packaged food products across 16 of 17 fast food product categories. The mean HSR for the fast foods was 2.5 and ranged from 0.5 to 5.0 and corresponding values for the comparator packaged foods were 2.6 and 0.5 to 5.0. Visual inspection of the data showed broadly comparable distributions of HSR values across the fast food and the packaged food categories, although statistically significant differences were apparent for seven categories (all p < 0.04). In some cases these differences reflected the large sample size and the power to detect small variations across fast foods and packaged food, and in others it appeared to reflect primarily differences in the mix of product types within a category. Conclusions These data support the idea that the HSR system could be extended to Australian fast foods. There are likely to be significant benefits to the community from the use of a single standardised signposting system for healthiness across all fresh, packaged and restaurant foods.

In Australia, manufacturers can use two government-endorsed approaches to advertise product healthiness: the Health Star Rating (HSR) front-of-pack nutrition labelling system, and health claims. Related, but different, algorithms determine the star rating of a product (the HSR algorithm) and eligibility to display claims (the Nutrient Profiling Scoring Criterion (NPSC) algorithm). The objective of this study was to examine the agreement between the HSR and NPSC algorithms. Food composition information for 41,297 packaged products was extracted from The George Institute's FoodSwitch database. HSR and the NPSC scores were calculated, and the proportion of products in each HSR category that were eligible to display a health claim under the NPSC was examined. The highest agreement between the HSR scoring algorithm and the NPSC threshold to determine eligibility to display a health claim was at the HSR cut-off of 3.5 stars (k = 0.83). Overall, 97.3% (n = 40,167) of products with star ratings of 3.5 or higher were also eligible to display a health claim, and 94.3% (n = 38,939) of products with star ratings less than 3.5 were ineligible to display a health claim. The food group with greatest divergence was "edible oils", with 45% products (n = 342) with HSR >3.5, but 64% (n = 495) eligible to display a claim. Categories with large absolute numbers of products with HSR <3.5, but eligible to display a claim, were "yoghurts and yoghurt drinks" (335 products, 25.4%) and "soft drinks" (299 products, 29.7%). Categories with a large number of products with HSR ≥3.5, but ineligible to display a claim, were "milk" (260 products, 21.2%) and "nuts and seeds" (173 products, 19.7%). We conclude that there is good agreement between the HSR and the NPSC systems overall, but divergence in some food groups is likely to result in confusion for consumers, particularly where foods with low HSRs are eligible to display a health claim. The alignment of the NPSC and HSR scoring algorithms should be improved.

In Australia, manufacturers can use two government-endorsed approaches to advertise product healthiness: the Health Star Rating (HSR) front-of-pack nutrition labelling system, and health claims. Related, but different, algorithms determine the star rating of a product (the HSR algorithm) and eligibility to display claims (the Nutrient Profiling Scoring Criterion (NPSC) algorithm). The objective of this study was to examine the agreement between the HSR and NPSC algorithms. Food composition information for 41,297 packaged products was extracted from The George Institute's FoodSwitch database. HSR and the NPSC scores were calculated, and the proportion of products in each HSR category that were eligible to display a health claim under the NPSC was examined. The highest agreement between the HSR scoring algorithm and the NPSC threshold to determine eligibility to display a health claim was at the HSR cut-off of 3.5 stars (k = 0.83). Overall, 97.3% (n = 40,167) of products with star ratings of 3.5 or higher were also eligible to display a health claim, and 94.3% (n = 38,939) of products with star ratings less than 3.5 were ineligible to display a health claim. The food group with greatest divergence was "edible oils", with 45% products (n = 342) with HSR >3.5, but 64% (n = 495) eligible to display a claim. Categories with large absolute numbers of products with HSR <3.5, but eligible to display a claim, were "yoghurts and yoghurt drinks" (335 products, 25.4%) and "soft drinks" (299 products, 29.7%). Categories with a large number of products with HSR ≥3.5, but ineligible to display a claim, were "milk" (260 products, 21.2%) and "nuts and seeds" (173 products, 19.7%). We conclude that there is good agreement between the HSR and the NPSC systems overall, but divergence in some food groups is likely to result in confusion for consumers, particularly where foods with low HSRs are eligible to display a health claim. The alignment of the NPSC and HSR scoring algorithms should be improved.

OBJECTIVE: The Health Star Rating (HSR) is a front-of-pack nutrition labelling system, implemented voluntarily in Australia and New Zealand since 2014. Our aim was to evaluate HSR's performance. METHOD: We used data from peer-reviewed publications and government-commissioned monitoring and evaluation, websites and communiqués to evaluate HSR's performance between June 2014 and October 2018 using the RE-AIM (Reach, Efficacy, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance) framework. 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-of-pack nutrition labelling systems have the potential to improve public health, while engaging a diverse set of stakeholders.

In Australia, manufacturers can use two government-endorsed approaches to advertise product healthiness: the Health Star Rating (HSR) front-of-pack nutrition labelling system, and health claims. Related, but different, algorithms determine the star rating of a product (the HSR algorithm) and eligibility to display claims (the Nutrient Profiling Scoring Criterion (NPSC) algorithm). The objective of this study was to examine the agreement between the HSR and NPSC algorithms. Food composition information for 41,297 packaged products was extracted from The George Institute's FoodSwitch database. HSR and the NPSC scores were calculated, and the proportion of products in each HSR category that were eligible to display a health claim under the NPSC was examined. The highest agreement between the HSR scoring algorithm and the NPSC threshold to determine eligibility to display a health claim was at the HSR cut-off of 3.5 stars (k = 0.83). Overall, 97.3% (n = 40,167) of products with star ratings of 3.5 or higher were also eligible to display a health claim, and 94.3% (n = 38,939) of products with star ratings less than 3.5 were ineligible to display a health claim. The food group with greatest divergence was "edible oils", with 45% products (n = 342) with HSR >3.5, but 64% (n = 495) eligible to display a claim. Categories with large absolute numbers of products with HSR <3.5, but eligible to display a claim, were "yoghurts and yoghurt drinks" (335 products, 25.4%) and "soft drinks" (299 products, 29.7%). Categories with a large number of products with HSR ≥3.5, but ineligible to display a claim, were "milk" (260 products, 21.2%) and "nuts and seeds" (173 products, 19.7%). We conclude that there is good agreement between the HSR and the NPSC systems overall, but divergence in some food groups is likely to result in confusion for consumers, particularly where foods with low HSRs are eligible to display a health claim. The alignment of the NPSC and HSR scoring algorithms should be improved.

© 2019 The Authors Objective: The Health Star Rating (HSR) is a front-of-pack nutrition labelling system, implemented voluntarily in Australia and New Zealand since 2014. Our aim was to evaluate HSR's performance. Method: We used data from peer-reviewed publications and government-commissioned monitoring and evaluation, websites and communiqués to evaluate HSR's performance between June 2014 and October 2018 using the RE-AIM (Reach, Efficacy, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance) framework. 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-of-pack nutrition labelling systems have the potential to improve public health, while engaging a diverse set of stakeholders.

Background: The Health Star Rating (HSR) is the government-endorsed front-of-pack labeling system in Australia and New Zealand. Objectives: We aimed to examine prospective associations of a dietary index (DI) based on the HSR, as an indicator of overall diet quality, with all-cause and cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality. Methods: We utilized data from the national population-based Australian Diabetes, Obesity and Lifestyle Study. The HSR-DI at baseline (1999-2000) was constructed by 1) calculation of the HSR points for individual foods in the baseline FFQ, and 2) calculation of the HSR-DI for each participant based on pooled HSR points across foods, weighted by the proportion of energy contributed by each food. Vital status was ascertained by linkage to the Australian National Death Index. Associations of HSR-DI with mortality risk were assessed by Cox proportional hazards regression. Results: Among 10,025 eligible participants [baseline age: 51.6 ± 14.3 y (mean ± standard deviation)] at entry, higher HSR-DI (healthier) was associated with higher consumption of healthy foods such as fruits, vegetables, and nuts, and lower consumption of discretionary foods such as processed meats and confectionery (P-trend < 0.001 for each). During a median follow-up of 16.9 y, 1682 deaths occurred with 507 CVD deaths. In multivariable models adjusted for demographic characteristics, lifestyle factors, and medical conditions, higher HSR-DI was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality, with a hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) of 0.80 (0.69, 0.94; P-trend < 0.001) comparing the fifth with the first HSR-DI quintile. A corresponding inverse association was observed for CVD mortality (0.71; 0.54, 0.94; P-trend = 0.008). Conclusions: Better diet quality as defined by the HSR-DI was associated with lower risk of all-cause and CVD mortality among Australian adults. Our findings support the use of the HSR nutrient profiling algorithm as a valid tool for guiding consumer food choices.

International audience ; ABSTRACT Background The Health Star Rating (HSR) is the government-endorsed front-of-pack labeling system in Australia and New Zealand. Objectives We aimed to examine prospective associations of a dietary index (DI) based on the HSR, as an indicator of overall diet quality, with all-cause and cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality. Methods We utilized data from the national population-based Australian Diabetes, Obesity and Lifestyle Study. The HSR-DI at baseline (1999–2000) was constructed by 1) calculation of the HSR points for individual foods in the baseline FFQ, and 2) calculation of the HSR-DI for each participant based on pooled HSR points across foods, weighted by the proportion of energy contributed by each food. Vital status was ascertained by linkage to the Australian National Death Index. Associations of HSR-DI with mortality risk were assessed by Cox proportional hazards regression. Results Among 10,025 eligible participants [baseline age: 51.6 ± 14.3 y (mean ± standard deviation)] at entry, higher HSR-DI (healthier) was associated with higher consumption of healthy foods such as fruits, vegetables, and nuts, and lower consumption of discretionary foods such as processed meats and confectionery (P-trend < 0.001 for each). During a median follow-up of 16.9 y, 1682 deaths occurred with 507 CVD deaths. In multivariable models adjusted for demographic characteristics, lifestyle factors, and medical conditions, higher HSR-DI was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality, with a hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) of 0.80 (0.69, 0.94; P-trend < 0.001) comparing the fifth with the first HSR-DI quintile. A corresponding inverse association was observed for CVD mortality (0.71; 0.54, 0.94; P-trend = 0.008). Conclusions Better diet quality as defined by the HSR-DI was associated with lower risk of all-cause and CVD mortality among Australian adults. Our findings support the use of the HSR nutrient profiling algorithm as a valid tool for guiding consumer food choices.

International audience ; ABSTRACT Background The Health Star Rating (HSR) is the government-endorsed front-of-pack labeling system in Australia and New Zealand. Objectives We aimed to examine prospective associations of a dietary index (DI) based on the HSR, as an indicator of overall diet quality, with all-cause and cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality. Methods We utilized data from the national population-based Australian Diabetes, Obesity and Lifestyle Study. The HSR-DI at baseline (1999–2000) was constructed by 1) calculation of the HSR points for individual foods in the baseline FFQ, and 2) calculation of the HSR-DI for each participant based on pooled HSR points across foods, weighted by the proportion of energy contributed by each food. Vital status was ascertained by linkage to the Australian National Death Index. Associations of HSR-DI with mortality risk were assessed by Cox proportional hazards regression. Results Among 10,025 eligible participants [baseline age: 51.6 ± 14.3 y (mean ± standard deviation)] at entry, higher HSR-DI (healthier) was associated with higher consumption of healthy foods such as fruits, vegetables, and nuts, and lower consumption of discretionary foods such as processed meats and confectionery (P-trend < 0.001 for each). During a median follow-up of 16.9 y, 1682 deaths occurred with 507 CVD deaths. In multivariable models adjusted for demographic characteristics, lifestyle factors, and medical conditions, higher HSR-DI was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality, with a hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) of 0.80 (0.69, 0.94; P-trend < 0.001) comparing the fifth with the first HSR-DI quintile. A corresponding inverse association was observed for CVD mortality (0.71; 0.54, 0.94; P-trend = 0.008). Conclusions Better diet quality as defined by the HSR-DI was associated with lower risk of all-cause and CVD mortality among Australian adults. Our findings support the use of the HSR nutrient profiling algorithm as a valid tool for guiding consumer food choices.

International audience ; ABSTRACT Background The Health Star Rating (HSR) is the government-endorsed front-of-pack labeling system in Australia and New Zealand. Objectives We aimed to examine prospective associations of a dietary index (DI) based on the HSR, as an indicator of overall diet quality, with all-cause and cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality. Methods We utilized data from the national population-based Australian Diabetes, Obesity and Lifestyle Study. The HSR-DI at baseline (1999–2000) was constructed by 1) calculation of the HSR points for individual foods in the baseline FFQ, and 2) calculation of the HSR-DI for each participant based on pooled HSR points across foods, weighted by the proportion of energy contributed by each food. Vital status was ascertained by linkage to the Australian National Death Index. Associations of HSR-DI with mortality risk were assessed by Cox proportional hazards regression. Results Among 10,025 eligible participants [baseline age: 51.6 ± 14.3 y (mean ± standard deviation)] at entry, higher HSR-DI (healthier) was associated with higher consumption of healthy foods such as fruits, vegetables, and nuts, and lower consumption of discretionary foods such as processed meats and confectionery (P-trend < 0.001 for each). During a median follow-up of 16.9 y, 1682 deaths occurred with 507 CVD deaths. In multivariable models adjusted for demographic characteristics, lifestyle factors, and medical conditions, higher HSR-DI was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality, with a hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) of 0.80 (0.69, 0.94; P-trend < 0.001) comparing the fifth with the first HSR-DI quintile. A corresponding inverse association was observed for CVD mortality (0.71; 0.54, 0.94; P-trend = 0.008). Conclusions Better diet quality as defined by the HSR-DI was associated with lower risk of all-cause and CVD mortality among Australian adults. Our findings support the use of the HSR nutrient profiling algorithm as a valid tool for guiding consumer food choices.