Food giant Kellogg’s has announced it will voluntarily sign on to the Health Star Rating system, a food labelling program initiated by the previous Labor government. The original intention was for Health Star Ratings to be mandatory, but the current government’s Assistant Minister for Health, Fiona Nash, decided to make the system optional.
This announcement from Kellogg’s is both bad and revealing. Bad, because the Health Star Rating system is fundamentally flawed. As nutritionists have pointed out, the simplistic metrics used to assign these ratings lead to strange anomalies like frozen pizza getting more stars than yoghurt and potato chips getting more than apples.
The truth is that very few foods are healthy or unhealthy in and of themselves, considered in isolation from the overall diet of which they are a part. It is all a matter of balance.
The lobby group that has pushed hardest for the star ratings, CHOICE, accuses holdouts of “refusing to serve up the information consumers need.” But consumers already have all the information they need in the form of nutritional labels. To supplement this information with star ratings would be more distracting — or even misleading — than helpful.
The silver lining of Kellogg’s decision is what it reveals about the dynamics of nanny state regulation. The public health groups that call for these kinds of regulations often paint a picture of greedy mega-corporations bent on cramming Australian bellies with as much of their unhealthy products as possible, using irresistible advertising tricks to prey on our appetites.
In fact, large corporations are usually the ones most willing to adopt the latest regulatory fashions. It is the smaller companies that have a hard time budgeting for label redesigns, food testing, and other expenses associated with the food nannies’ demands.
But the rhetorical device of the nefarious mega-corporation is still useful, so don’t expect this latest move from Kellogg’s to make it any less popular.
Helen Andrews is a Policy Analyst at the Centre for Independent Studies.
Home > Commentary > Opinion > Are Health Star Ratings good for us?
Are Health Star Ratings good for us?
This announcement from Kellogg’s is both bad and revealing. Bad, because the Health Star Rating system is fundamentally flawed. As nutritionists have pointed out, the simplistic metrics used to assign these ratings lead to strange anomalies like frozen pizza getting more stars than yoghurt and potato chips getting more than apples.
The truth is that very few foods are healthy or unhealthy in and of themselves, considered in isolation from the overall diet of which they are a part. It is all a matter of balance.
The lobby group that has pushed hardest for the star ratings, CHOICE, accuses holdouts of “refusing to serve up the information consumers need.” But consumers already have all the information they need in the form of nutritional labels. To supplement this information with star ratings would be more distracting — or even misleading — than helpful.
The silver lining of Kellogg’s decision is what it reveals about the dynamics of nanny state regulation. The public health groups that call for these kinds of regulations often paint a picture of greedy mega-corporations bent on cramming Australian bellies with as much of their unhealthy products as possible, using irresistible advertising tricks to prey on our appetites.
In fact, large corporations are usually the ones most willing to adopt the latest regulatory fashions. It is the smaller companies that have a hard time budgeting for label redesigns, food testing, and other expenses associated with the food nannies’ demands.
But the rhetorical device of the nefarious mega-corporation is still useful, so don’t expect this latest move from Kellogg’s to make it any less popular.
Helen Andrews is a Policy Analyst at the Centre for Independent Studies.
• Subscribe
Subscribe now and stay in the loop with our giving appeals, event alerts, newsletters and research updates.
We are always pleased to hear from you. If you have any questions or feedback, please contact us here: