- A shopper was baffled by the Health Star Rating system
- She questioned why whole foods had so few stars
- An Australian Department of Health spokesperson offered a response
- READ MORE: Supermarket item urgently pulled due to 'foreign matter'
Australian supermarket aisles are stocked with thousands of products that proudly display a Health Star Rating, a front-of-pack labelling initiative overseen by the Australian Government's Department of Health.
However, it's not uncommon for shoppers to feel confusion over the seemingly haphazard health rating system, as recently highlighted by one health-conscious woman.
Jaylee Villani, a Californian who lives between the US and Australia, recently shared her observations about how the Australian Health Star Ratings often don't seem to add up.
Sharing a tongue-in-cheek video filmed in a typical major Aussie supermarket, Jaylee recently embarked on a shopping trip where she aimed to purchase only the highest-rated products, according to the Health Star Rating system.
Starting off in the dairy section, Jaylee mused that she needed 'something to cook and bake with' - and selected 'a certified organic salted butter'. But after discovering it only had a 0.5 Health Star Rating, she swapped it for a more highly rated alternative: a tub of margarine with four stars.
Looking at the ingredients list of the table spread, Jaylee wryly commented: 'a bunch of seed oils, emulsifiers, preservatives and colours. See, I would have thought that oils which had to go through a petroleum-based chemical bath and then bleached and deodorised to even be used were worse for me. But what do I know?'
Next, Jaylee searched for a convenient packaged snack that she could enjoy 'on the go', with a pack of Bliss Balls catching her eye.
'They're 3.5 stars, and it's mostly whole foods,' she noted of the date and nut-based snack. 'But I bet we can find something higher.'
Jaylee Villani recently shared a video airing her wry observations about the Australian Health Star Ratings awarded to foods stocked in the supermarket
The video shared to her @jaylee.villani account saw her respond with surprise to the discovery that certified organic salted butter made from all-natural ingredients had a 0.5 star rating...
...compared to a table spread that had a 4 star rating
To her surprise, a cereal food bar with 'a whole entire paragraph' of ingredients had a four-star rating.
'I would have thought that something containing glyphosate, added sugar in a bunch of different forms, preservatives, emulsifiers and other processed foods would be worse for me. But again, I am not the expert,' she remarked.
It was a similar story in the bread aisle, where Jaylee found a loaf of white bread with a 4.5 star rating, musing that she 'always thought white bread was worse'.
A similar scenario played out when Jaylee tried to select the best drink. She noted that a jug of pure orange juice made from nothing but oranges had a 3 star rating, but is edged out by a zero-sugar cola soft drink variety, which had a 3.5 star rating.
Jaylee's final moment of bafflement came when trying to decide on a breakfast meal.
'I thought my healthiest option would be eggs, because there's only one ingredient in eggs: it's eggs,' she deadpanned.
But after spotting that the carton of eggs comes with only a 4 star rating, she found an alternative 5 star rated breakfast product in the cereal aisle.
'I thought added sugar, seed oils and emulsifiers wouldn't make for a perfect breakfast, but you learn something new every day,' she said, her words dripping in mockery.
The health-conscious shopper was also surprised to see that a variety of white bread had been awarded a 4.5 star rating
In the snack aisle, Jaylee was surprised that Bliss Balls made from entirely whole food ingredients had a lower Health Star Rating compared to a cereal bar
Her final ridiculing statement? 'Turns out I was wrong about absolutely everything. Moral of the story, don't trust yourselves. Trust the experts. They know what's best for you.'
An Australian Department of Health spokesperson responded to the video and provided Daily Mail with an explanation about their Health Star Rating system, which has been used by food manufacturers on a voluntary basis since June 2014.
'Health Star Ratings are intended to be a quick, front of package guide and then for further information consumers can look to the ingredients list and nutrition information panel to inform their choices,' said the Department of Health spokesperson.
Importantly, the spokesperson noted the rating system is 'designed to compare similar products' - not unrelated or disparate products, as was done in the social media video.
'For example, you can compare one breakfast cereal with another, but not breakfast cereal to eggs,' they said.
Explaining precisely how a food's Health Star Rating is calculated, the spokesperson said it was 'determined using an evidence-based algorithm'.
'The algorithm weighs positive nutrients against nutrients associated with increasing the risk of chronic disease,' they continued. 'For most products, the rating is based on total energy (kilojoules), saturated fat, sodium (salt) and sugar content – consuming too much of these risk nutrients is linked to overweight and obesity, some cancers, heart disease and type 2 diabetes.
'These factors are balanced against fibre, protein, and the proportion of fruit, vegetable, nut and legume (FVNL) content – consuming more of these nutrients and ingredients is good for your health.'
An Australian Department of Health spokesperson responded to the video and provided Daily Mail with an explanation about their Health Star Rating system
'Health Star Ratings are intended to be a quick, front of package guide and then for further information consumers can look to the ingredients list and nutrition information panel to inform their choices,' said the Department of Health spokesperson.
The spokesperson explained that a food's Health Star Rating was calculated by an algorithm that took into account a range of factors, like 'total energy (kilojoules), saturated fat, sodium (salt) and sugar content'
They added: 'The system assesses objective nutrition information only. It does not take into account other real, claimed or perceived health attributes, such as whether a product is organic, which relates to agricultural practices rather than nutritional composition.'
The spokesperson also addressed some of the claims in Jaylee's video, explaining why certain seemingly healthier options were lower than expected.
In regard to butter, for instance, the spokesperson explained that it has a low rating because it's 'high in energy, saturated fat and in some cases, sodium'.
Similarly, pure orange juice does not automatically receive a high rating because 'fruit juice is energy dense and, when consumed in excess, can displace more nutritious foods in the diet'.
The spokesperson acknowledged Jaylee's criticism about how some mostly whole food based products did not receive a high rating. However, they shared a reminder that all 'fresh and minimally processed fruit and vegetables automatically receive a Health Star Rating of five stars' - even if it's not explicitly labelled.
The Department of Health spokesperson advised that shoppers who are looking to make healthier choices at the supermarket should start by looking to the Australian Dietary Guidelines, which provide 'broad advice about what types of foods to eat and how often'.
Then, while in store, the spokesperson explained, 'the Health Star Rating complements this by offering quick, product specific guidance at the point of purchase.'
'A useful rule of thumb is to use the dietary guidelines to write your shopping list, and the Health Star Rating to help choose between similar products in store,' they suggested.
The Department of Health spokesperson advised that the Health Star Rating is 'designed to compare similar products' with the aim of helping shoppers make better choices when they're in store
The spokesperson added that the Health Star Rating system is 'designed to align with the dietary guidelines in Australia and New Zealand' - but also noted that 'the Australian Dietary Guidelines are currently under review'.
'Once the revised guidelines are released, consideration will be given to whether changes to the Health Star Rating System are required.'
The comment section of Jaylee's widely viewed video erupted online, with a huge number of replies coming from Aussies who agreed that the rating system seemed arbitrary and nonsensical.
'I never look at Health Star Ratings for this reason,' declared one reply.
However, other responses claimed that they were aware that the rating system was designed to compare like-for-like products - and that Jaylee's video failed in doing that.
'This isn't how the star rating is meant to work. It's meant to compare within the same category to provide a healthier option within that category, e.g. soda vs soda, cereal vs cereal.'
But to this point, many Aussies claimed they had no idea that the rating system was only meant to be used for same category comparisons - and wasn't a standardised rating system across all products.
'It's so insanely deceptive by design and I cannot believe there are so many folks defending it in the comments,' read one reply.
Accordingly, many called for better communication around how the system is meant to be used.
One reply supplied a lengthy explanation of how products are classified by the Health Star Rating system, concluding: 'I'm not saying it's perfect but I'm not agreeing with how you've come at it.'
