I suppose there must be people out there who rely on this system to tell them how "healthy" food is, but I've certainly never met them. I feel like most people base their opinions off the name and packaging ("it has X, it must be healthy!!!!"), the ingredients list and nutritional information table, or simply don't care at all.

[–] thatKamGuy@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 hours ago

Ever since taking up a low-carb/keto diet back in like ‘18, I’ve defaulted to just checking the nutrition panels on anything pre-packaged and make my judgements based on Sugar, Protein and Sodium content (both per serve, and per 100g).

I have never found these ratings accurate, let alone useful.

[–] zero_gravitas@aussie.zone 10 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

The Health Star Rating system is corrupted and unhelpful.

From https://theconversation.com/parents-find-health-star-ratings-confusing-and-unhelpful-we-need-a-better-food-labelling-system-264881

The Health Star Rating’s own consumer research found 74% of consumers do not understand that the rating cannot be used to compare dissimilar products.

There's no reason it shouldn't be comparable across categories, either. I think originally it was designed so to be, and then the lobbyists got to it. People's intake of each category isn't some fixed ratio, and how are they supposed to get a signal to cut down on one category if they can't compare products across categories?

Even if people are aware that products can only be compared within categories, do we expect everyone to know what those categories are and which one any particular product fits into? The HSR panel doesn't contain any category information!

From https://theconversation.com/australias-food-labelling-system-isnt-working-heres-how-we-can-fix-it-275673

So, is there an alternative?

Yes – warning labels.

Using simple statements or symbols, warning labels are designed to inform consumers if a food product is high in fat, sugar or salt. In future, they may also indicate whether a product is an ultra-processed food.

...

A global study published in late 2025 suggests warning labels are the most effective way to reduce the consumption of ultra-processed foods. This is compared to other ranking-style labelling schemes such as Health Star Ratings.

Seems like a pretty simple and reasonable approach to me. Also, it seems like it can be applied comparably across all categories of packaged food.

I can see people arguing that an incremental scale like the HSR allows for companies to compete on small differences (unlike a simple binary 'high in sugar' warning label) and that little differences would help over time. I'm pretty sceptical of that, though, and I think encouraging people to eat fewer chocolate biscuits is likely more important than slightly reducing the amount of sugar in the biscuits. (If anyone's seen good research on the topic, let me know!)

It's not like the 'warning label' approach stops people from making a comparison on the details anyway. If you see a 'high in sugar' label on something it might prompt you to check the nutrition panel to see just how much sugar is in that biscuit, and its competitors.

[–] Dasus@lemmy.world 2 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

I've got mainly two things to say.

First I agree with your comment. The profile will sort of assume a general bodytype and diet and thus make wild assumptions. For one I have some sort of undiagnosed GI issue which causes in my opinion a bit of malabsorption. I'm literally half the mass of my younger brother even though he tries watching his weight and doesn't eat candies or sugary or fatty treats whereas I actually try to get my weight up and have a pound of candy as a nightly snack and eat fatty burgers and meats, along with veggies ofc, but like as far as macros go my sugar, fat and protein intake are rather high and I still have trouble gaining weight.

So yeah it's gonna be hard giving things a flat healthiness rating as what is healthy for one may not be for the other.

Secondly saw some video from Rory Sutherland, where he discusses how a company put "now with less fat/sugar" in a package and got less sales. Even after they'd done extensive research to make sure it still tasted just as good. If they had just changed the recipe but not told anyone, or marketed differently, they would've had more success.

Edit Oh yeah I found the short I meant

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0Xk3UAnT3g

[–] Longmactoppedup@aussie.zone 16 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (2 children)

Fuck star rating systems. Every single one we have in this country has been corrupted by letting industry contribute to the rules.

I would rather see a minimum font size for the ingredients list and nutritional info panels. The ingredients list can also state percentages and country of origin for each too. Also no other text font on the packaging may be larger than the ingredients list.

[–] Nottalottapies@aussie.zone 9 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

100% agree. I'd also like to see realistic serving sizes mandated as well.

[–] Tanoh@lemmy.world 9 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Or just skip them completly just list per 100g/100ml. The only reason to have serving size is to fudge the numbers.

[–] SaneMartigan@aussie.zone 5 points 13 hours ago

Having an "entire packet" column would be useful for when someone eats the whole tub of ice cream or packet of biscuits. Eg, last time I checked a large Big M counted as two serves.

[–] MisterFrog@aussie.zone 2 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

country of origin for each too

This probably wouldn't reasonably fit on the packet. There ought to be a QR code on their that links to an Australian government website where they provide all this fine detail though.

[–] Longmactoppedup@aussie.zone 3 points 11 hours ago

I think for most stuff in supermarkets it would fit just fine. They would just have to compromise on space dedicated to branding, and that is part of the point.

Much like cigarettes, sugar laden, processed, food like products deserve to be in plain packaging too.

[–] OriginEnergySux@lemmy.world 6 points 13 hours ago

That rating can be so misleading so i just try and make everything myself - it's also way fucking cheaper!

[–] Tau@aussie.zone 4 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

I don't think the star system actually does much, particularly with how it operates per category rather than overall. For example the packet of chips I'm eating right now is apparently 3.5/5 stars. That rating both fails to reflect the actual healthiness of said chips and didn't play any part in me buying them (I'm under no illusion that chips are healthy, I just like eating them on occasion). In fact I can't think of a single time I've cared about the star rating when buying something.

[–] halcyoncmdr@piefed.social 3 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

I'd argue that the stars working that way is the optimal choice. People are going to buy chips anyway, they're not going to stop just because every chip bag has 1 star on it. You even admit that in your own comment. That just makes the ratings pointless and is how you get people to ignore all ratings entirely.

The rating should compare how that item compares to similar options so you can see which of those similar options is better. It also incentivizes a manufacturer to make adjustments to their product to compete side by side.

[–] zero_gravitas@aussie.zone 1 points 13 hours ago

If you had a unified scale of 1-100 instead, you would have the granularity to make comparisons between both similar and dissimilar products.

[–] naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 14 hours ago

I'm not really a fan of the system but consider:

Every chip bag is labelled, one is 4 star, one is 1 star, maybe that makes someone pause and make a better choice? They were going to buy a chip bag anyway.

Alternatively you stand before a wall of chips, they are all one star, are you going to not buy a bag of chips?

[–] Fleur_@aussie.zone 1 points 11 hours ago

Nice, only ever used them to piss take my mates though.