Niki Bezzant: Health ratings not written in the stars

Good old oats. Photo / 123RF

COMMENT:

How much notice do you take of health information on packaged foods? Does it factor into your decision-making when you're shopping? Or do price, convenience, taste and other things matter more?

Recent discussion on Health Star Ratings (HSR) on food labels got me thinking about this. The system – those stars from 0 to 5 you've probably seen on the front of foods like cereal and snacks – is under review at the moment. The draft review recommends a number of changes to correct some of the anomalies we've seen (and been sceptical of) in the past: things like sugary cereals still achieving four-star ratings; or sweet fruit juices getting four or five stars while water gets two stars. If the proposed changes go ahead, this will change, which can only be a good thing.

What's not recommended, and I think should be, is for the system to become mandatory on all foods. Right now, Health Star ratings are only on 21 per cent of eligible packaged foods in NZ. That's fairly heavily concentrated in some categories, such as cereals. But manufacturers are free to pick and choose which products they put ratings on, if they put them on at all. It's not in a manufacturer's interest to put a one-star rating on a product, after all.

Unfortunately this means it's a bit tricky for us, when we're standing in the supermarket, to make a quick, informed decision between one product and another. Just because a product features a star rating, doesn't mean it's the healthiest. There could be other products in the same category with no rating but which are better choices. Only 28 per cent of consumers report using the HSR to help choose packaged food, with 88 per cent of those choosing the product with more stars. But the stars are no guarantee of the healthiest food.

The review of the HSR says the system has encouraged positive reformulation – where manufacturers tweak their products to achieve better ratings. This can be both a good and bad thing. The good bit is that this will have taken out some sugar, salt, saturated fat and energy from some foods, and boosted their protein, fibre and fruit and vegetable content.

The star-rating of sugary cereals needs a rethink. Photo / 123RF

The bad bit about that is that sometimes this may not really make the food any healthier. A cereal can get a better star rating by taking out a bit of sugar and adding in what's called "functional" fibre: a fibre additive like inulin/chicory root extract. But the jury is still out on whether these types of fibre are as good as those that are intrinsic to foods – like what you might find in good old oats, for example. And for some people – such as those who suffer from IBS and other bowel issues – functional fibre is a recipe for some very un-fun symptoms.

Perhaps the biggest issue with Health Star Ratings is that they weren't designed for the healthiest foods of all: the fresh, whole, mostly-plant foods that don't come in packages.

• Niki Bezzant is editor-at-large for Healthy Food Guide; www.healthyfood.com