Almost 13 years ago – and after a decade-long battle between health experts and the food industry – state and federal ministers voted to introduce a health star rating system to help consumers make healthier food choices.
It was voluntary, thanks to the food industry being at the bargaining table and the decision-makers being largely food, trade and agriculture ministers (rather than health).
At the time, there was an expectation that if uptake of the label among food manufacturers was low, the food industry would be forced to adopt it through legislation.
More than a decade on, state and federal ministers finally voted on Friday to make the label mandatory, showing the persistence of public health experts in the face of a powerful food and agriculture industry that continues to influence health policy.
Since the health star label’s introduction, food and grocery lobbyists have bemoaned the high cost to the industry of implementation, conveniently ignoring the billions in health costs associated with diet-related diseases. In the meantime, the industry seems to have expansive budgets for marketing the most unhealthy foods, often towards children.
Sign up: AU Breaking News email
The voluntary uptake of health star ratings sits at just 39%.
The industry has also gamed the system.
Because high calories, saturated fat, sugars and sodium decrease the rating while ingredients such as fibre, protein, fruit, nuts, legumes and vegetables increase it, producers began to strategically reformulate products to disguise unhealthy ingredients and boost their star rating. That is why plain milk might display a lower star rating than a sugary, processed breakfast drink with fibre added.
And factors like whether the foods are ultraprocessed, or contain additives such as emulsifiers and artificial flavourings, are not even part of the star calculation.
Because the system is voluntary, food manufacturers could simply choose not to display an unhealthy rating on their packaging at all.
While many public health groups, including the Australian Medical Association and Dieticians Australia, rightly celebrate the decision to mandate the star, some experts say the system should be scrapped altogether in favour of clear warning labels on unhealthy food.
But the majority of health groups agree that given the decades-long battle just to introduce – and now mandate – the health star rating, starting again will only lead to another protracted and nasty fight from an industry they say has too much power and influence.
As it is, the legislation to mandate the star will take about a year to draft and approve, and the food industry will attempt to negotiate a long lead-in time to make the changes.
There is no doubt the health star calculation needs to be reformed to better take into account manufacturing processes and to ensure it fairly reflects overall health. As science on ultraprocessed food develops, this calculation will need to be regularly reviewed.
It won’t be enough. The federal government is currently developing a national food policy with heavy influence from profit-driven food and agriculture industries, and little input from independent public health experts.
There remains a lack of transparency around who funds the people that lobby politicians and policymakers on health, including a failure by the government to compel harmful industries and their representatives to disclose who funds them when they appear before government inquiries or make budget submissions.
Despite consuming more than 2.2bn litres in sugary drinks each year, Australia also lags behind other countries which have taxed sugar-sweetened beverages, a measure international evidence shows is effective and benefits health. Yet the measure has faced fierce opposition from the food industry and from both major parties.
In the face of such influence, any claim that people just need to make wiser food choices is misguided and outdated.
Talk to anyone trying to feed a family a varied diet full of whole, healthy foods and you will find the least healthy options are often the cheapest, while relentless marketing and obscure additives muddy the waters, making it harder to make informed choices amid a cost-of-living crisis.
Our food environments and overall living conditions are engineered in ways that prioritise profit over health, and expecting individuals to overcome that without stronger regulation and corporate accountability ignores the structural forces shaping what ends up in our mouths, known as the commercial determinants of health.
Mandating health stars is a win. But without political will for transparency and meaningful corporate accountability, diets of cheap, unhealthy foods – and the ill health and inequities they drive – will only become more entrenched.
