Download Year 1 - Health Star Rating

Report on the monitoring of
the implementation of the
Health Star Rating system – Year 1
Prepared for the Commonwealth Department of Health
Submitted by the National Heart Foundation of Australia, April 2016
Reporting period: June 2014 to June 2015 (Year 1)
For enquiries about this report, please contact:
Front-of-Pack Labelling Secretariat
Department of Health
GPO Box 9848, Canberra, ACT, 2601
Phone: 1800 099 658
Email: [email protected]
© 2016 National Heart Foundation of Australia, ABN 98 008 419 761
Suggested citation: National Heart Foundation of Australia. Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system – Year
1. Commissioned by the Commonwealth Department of Health. Melbourne, Australia: National Heart Foundation of Australia, 2016.
Disclaimer: This material has been developed by the Heart Foundation for general information. The statements and recommendations it contains
are, unless labelled as ‘expert opinion’, based on independent review of the available evidence.
While care has been taken in preparing the content of this material, the Heart Foundation and its employees cannot accept any liability,
including for any loss or damage, resulting from the reliance on the content, or for its accuracy, currency and completeness. The information is
obtained and developed from a variety of sources including, but not limited to, collaborations with third parties and information provided by
third parties under licence. It is not an endorsement of any organisation, product or service.
This material may be found in third parties’ programs or materials (including, but not limited to, show bags or advertising kits). This does not imply
an endorsement or recommendation by the National Heart Foundation of Australia for such third parties’ organisations, products or services,
including their materials or information. Any use of National Heart Foundation of Australia materials or information by another person or
organisation is at the user’s own risk.
The entire contents of this material are subject to copyright protection. Enquiries concerning permissions should be directed to copyright@
heartfoundation.org.au
COR-212
Contents
Figures and tables
Acknowledgements
Abbreviations and acronyms
Year 1 of the Health Star Rating System at a glance
Executive summary
ii
vi
vii
ix
xi
Background and objectives
Agreement to develop the HSR system
What is the HSR system?
Objective of the HSR system
Implementation of the HSR system
Monitoring and evaluation of the HSR system: Areas of Enquiry
Project objective
xiii
xiii
xiii
xiii
xiii
xiii
xiv
Program Logic Framework
xiv
General methodology
Food composition data and products displaying the HSR system graphic: FoodTrackTM
Customising FoodTrackTM for this project
xvi
xvi
xvi
Chapter 1. Area of enquiry 1
Label implementation and consistency with the Health Star Rating system Style Guide
1.1 Chapter summary
1.2 Methodology
1.3 Results
1
3
4
6
Chapter 2. Area of enquiry 2
Consumer awareness and ability to use the HSR system correctly
2.1 Chapter summary
2.2 Methodology
2.3 Results
21
25
26
28
Chapter 3. Area of enquiry 3
Nutrient status of products carrying a HSR system graphic
3.1 Chapter summary
3.2 Methodology
3.3 Results
53
55
56
56
References
Appendix 1. Wave 1 uptake report
Appendix 2. Compliance checklist
Appendix 3. Foods that contribute to FVNL values, and examples
for determining FVNL content from incomplete datasets
Appendix 4. Consumer survey questionnaire for AoE 2
62
63
66
72
73
National Heart Foundation of Australia
i
Figures and tables
Figures
Figure I. Program Logic Framework for the monitoring and evaluation of implementation of the HSR system .......... xv
Figure 1.1. Number of products (n) displaying the HSR system graphic, by HSR Category,
by HSR Option, at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015) .................................................................................................... 7
Figure 1.2. Number of products (n) displaying the HSR system graphic, by manufacturers
and retailers, by HSR Option, at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015) .............................................................................. 9
Figure 1.3. Number of products (n) displaying the HSR system graphic, by HSR Category,
by major manufacturers and retailers, at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015) ............................................................... 11
Figure 1.4. Comparison of the uptake of the HSR system to the uptake of the DIG, over time ................................. 13
Figure 1.5. Proportion of products (%) displaying the HSR system graphic, by HSR Option,
at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015) ............................................................................................................................ 13
Figure 1.6. Number of products (n) displaying the HSR system graphic, by manufacturers and retailers,
by HSR Option, at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015) .................................................................................................. 14
Figure 1.7. Number of products (n) displaying the HSR system graphic, by HSR Category, by HSR Option,
at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015) ............................................................................................................................ 15
Figure 1.8. Number of products (n) displaying Option 1, by HSR Category, by HSR Option,
at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015) ............................................................................................................................ 16
Figure 1.9. Proportion of products (%) displaying HSR Option 1, by optional nutrient,
at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015) ............................................................................................................................ 17
Figure 1.10. Number of products (n) displaying the optional nutrient icon, by HSR Category,
by optional nutrient, at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015) ........................................................................................... 17
Figure 1.11. Proportion of products (%) displaying the optional nutrient icon, by manufacturers
and retailers, at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015) ...................................................................................................... 17
Figure A1. When buying food at the supermarket, what is the main thing that influences your
choice between two similar products? (Sample: 2,036) ............................................................................................. 29
Figure A2. Which supermarkets have you visited in the past month? (Sample: 2,036) ............................................. 29
Figure A3. When choosing a new food during grocery shopping, how often do you compare
how healthy products are? (Sample: 2,036) ............................................................................................................... 29
Figure A4. On average, when at the supermarket, do you look at the nutrition information
panel on…? (Sample: 2,036) ...................................................................................................................................... 31
Figure B1. Apart from brand names, thinking about different logos that help customers choose
the food they buy in the supermarket, which ones are you aware of? (Sample: 2,036)............................................. 31
Figure B2. Which of the following are you aware of on food packaging? (Sample: 2,036) ........................................ 33
Figure B3. Prompted awareness of the HSR system over time (Sample: 2,036) ...................................................... 33
Figure C1. When the HSR system graphic is on the packaging of food, what do you think it means?
(Sample: 1,084) .......................................................................................................................................................... 34
Figure C2. In your opinion, how is the number of stars on a product determined? (Sample: 1,084) ......................... 36
Figure C3. How would you use the HSR system? (Sample: 1,084) ........................................................................... 37
Figure C4. If a food product has one star, what do you think this means? (Sample: 1,084) ...................................... 37
ii
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system – Year 1
Figure C5. If a food product has five stars, what do you think this means? (Sample: 1,084) ................................... 37
Figure C6. Why do you prefer that option? (Sample: 1,084) ...................................................................................... 40
Figure D1. Why didn’t the HSR system influence your choice? (Sample: 180)......................................................... 42
Figure D2. Please select which foods and/or beverages you purchased in the supermarket
which had the HSR system graphic on them? (Sample: 507) .................................................................................... 44
Figure D3. Please select which foods and/or beverages you believe it is important to have the
HSR system graphic on them? (Sample: 1,084) ....................................................................................................... 45
Figure E1. Where had you seen or heard about the HSR system? (Sample: 217)................................................... 46
Figure E2. Which organisation or company did the advertising or promotion(s)? (Sample: 217) .............................. 47
Figure E3. What product or products were being advertised or promoted? (Sample: 217) ...................................... 47
Figure F1. Overall, what level of confidence do you have in the HSR system? (Sample: 1,084) .............................. 49
Figure G1. Which of the following changes have you made in the past six months to your diet? (Sample: 794) ...... 51
Figure G2. For which of the following reasons did you make changes to your diet? (Sample: 794).......................... 51
Figure 3.1. Number of products (n) displaying each HSR on pack, at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015) .................. 56
Figure 3.2. Mean HSR displayed on pack, by HSR Category Class, at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015) ................ 57
Figure 3.3. Number of products (n) displaying each HSR on pack, by HSR Category Class,
at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015) ............................................................................................................................ 57
Figure 3.4. Mean energy content of HSR vs non-HSR products, by HSR Category Class
at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015) ............................................................................................................................ 59
Figure 3.5. Mean saturated fat content of HSR vs non-HSR products, by HSR Category Class
at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015) ............................................................................................................................ 59
Figure 3.6. Mean sugars content of HSR vs non-HSR products, by HSR Category Class
at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015) ............................................................................................................................ 60
Figure 3.7. Mean sodium content of HSR vs non-HSR products, by HSR Category Class
at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015) ............................................................................................................................ 60
Figure 3.8. Mean protein content of HSR vs non-HSR products, by HSR Category Class
at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015) ............................................................................................................................ 61
Figure 3.9. Mean fibre content of HSR vs non-HSR products, by HSR Category Class
at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015) ............................................................................................................................ 61
Tables
Table I. Key features of data coverage and data collection using the FoodTrackTM platform ..................................... xvi
Table 1.1. HSR Calibration Category and associated HSR Category Class ................................................................ 5
Table 1.2. HSR Categories that had 2% or less of products displaying the HSR system graphic
at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015) .............................................................................................................................. 6
Table 1.3. Proportion of products (%) for each manufacturer and retailer displaying the
HSR system graphic at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015) ............................................................................................ 8
Table 1.4. Manufacturers and retailers with more than 10 products displaying the
HSR system graphic at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015) .......................................................................................... 10
Table 1.5. Manufacturers and retailers in the four HSR breakfast cereal categories, displaying the HSR system
graphic, and their respective volume market shares (% tonnes) within the breakfast cereal category, according to
Retail World8,9,*, at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)……………………………………………………………….………12
National Heart Foundation of Australia iii
Table 1.6. Technical errors identified when assessing consistency in implementation of the
HSR system graphic with the Style Guide, at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015) ........................................................ 18
Table 2.1. Sample characteristics of the population surveyed for Wave 1.................................................................. 27
Table A1. On average, how often do you visit a supermarket to do your grocery shopping? (Sample: 2,036) ......... 28
Table A2. On average, how much do you spend in one visit to the supermarket? (Sample: 2,036) .......................... 28
Table B1. Age group ................................................................................................................................................... 30
Table B2. Gender ........................................................................................................................................................ 30
Table B3. Household income ...................................................................................................................................... 30
Table B4. BMI.............................................................................................................................................................. 30
Table B5. Indigenous status ........................................................................................................................................ 30
Table B6. Language .................................................................................................................................................... 32
Table B7. Residential location..................................................................................................................................... 32
Table B8. Children at home ........................................................................................................................................ 32
Table B9. Age group ................................................................................................................................................... 32
Table B10. Gender ...................................................................................................................................................... 32
Table B11. Household income .................................................................................................................................... 32
Table B12. BMI............................................................................................................................................................ 32
Table B13. Indigenous status ...................................................................................................................................... 34
Table B14. Language .................................................................................................................................................. 34
Table B15. Residential location ................................................................................................................................... 34
Table B16. Children at home ...................................................................................................................................... 34
Table C1. Age group ................................................................................................................................................... 35
Table C2. Gender ........................................................................................................................................................ 35
Table C3. Household income ...................................................................................................................................... 35
Table C4. BMI ............................................................................................................................................................. 35
Table C5. Language .................................................................................................................................................... 35
Table C6. Residential location .................................................................................................................................... 35
Table C7. Children at home ........................................................................................................................................ 35
Table C8. How strongly do you agree or disagree that the HSR system? (Sample: 1,084) ....................................... 36
Table C9. How strongly do you agree or disagree that a product with more stars means…? (Sample: 1,084) ........ 38
Table C10. The HSR system graphic can be displayed in five different ways. Please select the style you
believe is the easiest to understand? (Sample: 1,084) ............................................................................................... 38
Table C11. The HSR system graphic can be displayed in five different ways. Please select the style
you believe is the easiest to recognise? (Sample: 1,084) .......................................................................................... 39
Table C12. The HSR system graphic can be displayed in five different ways. Please select the style
you believe provides sufficient information? (Sample: 1,084) .................................................................................... 39
Table C13. Overall, please select the style you prefer the most? (Sample: 1,084) .................................................... 40
Table D1. In the past three months have you purchased a product that had the HSR system graphic? (Sample:
1,084) 41 Table D2. Age group ................................................................................................................................... 41
Table D3. BMI ............................................................................................................................................................. 41
iv
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system – Year 1
Table D4. Household income ...................................................................................................................................... 41
Table D5. Gender ........................................................................................................................................................ 41
Table D6. Language.................................................................................................................................................... 41
Table D7. Children at home ........................................................................................................................................ 41
Table D8. Residential location .................................................................................................................................... 41
Table D9. Did the HSR system graphic on the product influence your choice? (Sample: 489) ................................. 41
Table D10. How did it influence your choice? (Sample: 273) ..................................................................................... 42
Table D11. Have you continued or will continue to buy the product? (Sample: 273) ................................................. 42
Table D12. Have you continued or will continue to buy the product? (Sample: 1,084) .............................................. 43
Table D13. Please select which you think is a healthier option in each pair? (Sample: 1,084) ................................. 43
Table D14. Please select which you think is a healthier option in each pair? (Sample: 1,084) ................................. 43
Table D15. Please select which you think is a healthier option in each pair? (Sample: 1,084) ................................. 43
Table D16. Please select which you think is a healthier option in each pair? (Sample: 1,084) ................................. 43
Table D17. Please select which you think is a healthier option in each pair? (Sample: 1,084) ................................. 43
Table E1. In the last three months, do you remember seeing, hearing or reading any advertising
or promotions about the HSR system? (Sample: 1,084) ............................................................................................ 46
Table E2. After seeing or hearing this advertising or promotion(s) for products with a HSR system graphic,
did it influence you to buy a product or products you normally wouldn’t buy? (Sample: 217) ................................... 47
Table F1. How strongly do you agree or disagree that the HSR system…? (Sample: 1,084) ................................... 48
Table F2. How strongly do you agree or disagree that the HSR system…? (Sample: 1,084) ................................... 48
Table F3. How strongly do you agree or disagree that the HSR system…? (Sample: 1,084) ................................... 48
Table F4. Age group.................................................................................................................................................... 49
Table F5. BMI .............................................................................................................................................................. 49
Table F6. Household Income ...................................................................................................................................... 49
Table F7. Children at home ........................................................................................................................................ 49
Table F8. Language .................................................................................................................................................... 49
Table F9. Gender ........................................................................................................................................................ 49
Table F10. Residential location ................................................................................................................................... 49
Table G1. In general, thinking about all the food you buy, how concerned are you about how healthy
the food is for you? (Sample: 2,036) .......................................................................................................................... 50
Table G2. Thinking about your diet, would you say that what you usually eat is? (Sample: 2,036) ........................... 50
Table G3. Over the past six months, have you made any changes to your diet? (Sample: 2,036) ............................ 50
Table G4. In general, would you say your overall health is? (Sample: 2,036) ........................................................... 52
Table G5. In a typical week, on how many days would you do moderate or vigorous physical activity
for at least 30 minutes? (Sample: 2,036) .................................................................................................................... 52
Table G6. How many serves of fruit (including fresh, dried, frozen and tinned fruit) do you usually eat each day?
(Sample: 2,036) ......................................................................................................................................................... 52
Table G7. How many serves of vegetables (including fresh, frozen and tinned vegetables) do you
usually eat each day? (Sample: 2,036) ...................................................................................................................... 52
Table 3.1. Number of products (n) in each HSR Category Class, by HSR vs non-HSR products,
for each nutrient, at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015) ................................................................................................ 58
National Heart Foundation of Australia
v
Acknowledgements
Project team
Project staff
Project Manager – Ms Xenia Cleanthous, Manager
Nutrition Data & Analysis, Health Outcomes Division,
National Heart Foundation of Australia
Ms Theresa Pham and Ms Emily Scott, Nutrition
Field Officers, Health Outcomes Division, National
Heart Foundation of Australia
Ms Melanie Chisholm, National Manager, Health
Outcomes Division, National Heart Foundation of
Australia
Casual Nutrition Data Collection team for FoodTrackTM
Ms Rachael Reynolds, Nutrition Data Officer,
Health Outcomes Division, National Heart
Foundation of Australia
Professor Manny Noakes, Research Program
Director, Food and Nutrition, CSIRO
Dr Jill Freyne, Principle Research Scientist, Health
and Biosecurity, CSIRO
Associate Professor Sarah McNaughton, Discipline
Leader Nutrition & Dietetics, Deakin University
Mr Bill Stavreski, National Director Data &
Evaluation, Health Outcomes Division, National
Heart Foundation of Australia
Ms Cliona Fitzpatrick, Research and Evaluation
Consultant, Health Outcomes Division, National Heart
Foundation of Australia
Mr Simon Gibson, Software Engineer, Health and
Biosecurity, CSIRO
Ms Karen Harrap, Senior Engineer, Health and
Biosecurity, CSIRO
Funding
The National Heart Foundation of Australia was awarded
the funding for the Tender number Health/74/1415;
monitoring and evaluation of the implementation of the
Health Star Rating system, in May 2015.
vi
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system – Year 1
Abbreviations and acronyms
AFGC
Australian Food and Grocery Council
AoE
Area of Enquiry
AoEs
Areas of Enquiry
App
Smartphone application
BMI
Body Mass Index
Checklist
The Compliance Checklist developed by the Heart Foundation for assessment
against the Style Guide
conc. FVNL
Concentrated fruit, vegetable, nut, legume
CSIRO
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
Ct
Compared to
Department
The Department of Health
FoP
Front-of-pack
FoPL
Front-of-pack labelling
Forum
Australia and New Zealand Ministerial Forum on Food Regulation
Framework
Program Logic Framework
FSANZ
Food Standards Australia and New Zealand
FVNL
Fruit, vegetable, nut, legume as defined in the Food Standards Australia and New
Zealand Food Standards Code
Heart Foundation
The National Heart Foundation of Australia
HSR
Health Star Rating – a star rating scale of ½ to 5 stars (with ½ star increments)
HSR system
Health Star Rating system – a star rating scale of ½ to 5 stars (with ½ star
increments, underpinned by the Health Star Rating Calculator) and the display of
information icons for energy and specific nutrients
HSR system graphic
Health Star Rating system graphic – a display of the Health Star Rating +/- information
icons for energy, saturated fat, sugars and sodium, and can include one optional positive
nutrient (such as calcium or fibre).
HSRAC
Health Star Rating Advisory Committee
HSRC
Health Star Rating Calculator
NIP
Nutrition information panel
Style Guide
Health Star Rating Style Guide
Year 1
The first year of implementation of the Health Star Rating system (June 2014 to June
2015)
Year 2
The second year of implementation of the Health Star Rating
system (June 2015 to June 2016)
National Heart Foundation of Australia vii
Health Star Rating system graphics
Option 1
HSR + energy icon + 3
prescribed nutrient icons +
optional nutrient
Option 3
HSR + energy
icon
viii
Option 2
HSR + energy icon + 3
prescribed nutrient icons
Option 4
HSR
only
Option 5
Energy icon
only
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system – Year 1
Year 1 of the Health Star
Rating system at a glance
Key achievements

Uptake of the Health Star Rating (HSR)
system is tracking well, with presence on
1,526 products at Month 15 of
implementation - nearly 3.5 times that of
the Daily Intake Guide, for the
corresponding time-point.

The majority of manufacturers and
retailers (92% of products) are
implementing the HSR system
graphic consistent with the HSR Style
Guide.

The majority of manufacturers and
retailers (at least 95%) are displaying
the correct HSR on pack.

There have been significant increases
in awareness, both unprompted and
prompted, in a short time frame
(comparing April 2015 to September
2015).

Based on those aware of the HSR
system, 45% of consumers reported
purchasing a product with the HSR
system graphic on it – more than a
five-fold increase in a six-month
period. It is also having an influence
on purchasing habits: more than one
in two reported that the HSR played
a factor in which product they
purchased.
National Heart Foundation of
Australia
For the future

Although uptake of the HSR system is
tracking well, the number of products
on which it has been implemented to
date represents a low proportion of
the food supply. To optimise the
impact of the HSR system, it is
important to maintain continued
uptake by the manufacturers and
retailers.

Trust and relevance are the two key
drivers that influence use and
understanding of the HSR system.
Although there has been a significant
jump in the past six months, one in two
consumers aware of the HSR system
still don’t see it as personally relevant
or trust the system. Both are critical
factors to ensure usage rates continue
to rise and influence purchasing
decisions.
ix
x
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system – Year 1
Executive summary
This interim report details the results
from the first year of monitoring and
evaluation of the Health Star Rating
(HSR) system (June 2014 to June 2015)
under the three specified Areas of
Enquiry (AoEs).
AoE 1: Label implementation
and consistency with the HSR
system Style Guide
AoE 1 was assessed under three sub-sections: uptake of
the HSR system by manufacturers and retailers,
consistency in implementation of the HSR system graphic
against the HSR Style Guide (the Style Guide), and a
comparison of the HSR system value displayed on pack
to that determined by the Health Star Rating Calculator
(HSRC).
At Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015), the HSR system
graphic was displayed on 363 products out of an
eligible 12,176 products from the FoodTrack TM
database (3% of total product suite), and on at least
one product in 37/81 (46%) HSR Categories. Only 22
manufacturers and retailers, from the 665 recorded in
FoodTrackTM, displayed the HSR system graphic (3%).
Private Label – Coles displayed the HSR system
graphic on the greatest number of products (132/363,
36%) in a variety of categories. The ‘Ready-to-eat
breakfast cereals’ HSR Category had the highest
number of products displaying the HSR system graphic
(n = 59), followed by ‘Mueslis’ (n = 37), however it was
displayed on the greatest proportion of products in the
‘Hot cereals – flavoured’ HSR Category (46%).
In September 2015, 1,526 products were identified
in-store (Coles and Woolworths) as displaying the HSR
system graphic (Month 15 since implementation of the
HSR system). At Month 15, uptake of the Daily Intake
Guide (DIG) was 448 products compared to 1,526
products at the equivalent time point for the HSR
system (nearly 3.5 times higher).
Option 1 (refer to key at end of this section) of the
HSR system graphic was displayed on the greatest
number of products (121/363, 33%), 93 of which were
from the four breakfast cereals categories (‘Readyto-eat breakfast cereals’, ‘Mueslis’, ‘Hot cereals –
flavoured’, ‘Hot cereals – plain’). Within products
displaying Option 1, 50% displayed fibre as the
optional nutrient. Of the 121 products displaying
Option 1, 101 were by Private Label – Coles and
Nestle Australia.
The majority (92%) of products displaying the HSR
system graphic were consistent with the Style Guide.
Of the 28 products identified as having a technical
error, 13 products displayed a serving size as part of
the HSR system graphic that was not part of the
industry-agreed standard serving size range outlined in
the Style Guide.
For 95% of products (314/331, excludes those displaying
the energy icon only) the HSR displayed on pack
matched the output from the HSRC. Of the 17 products
for which the HSR did not match, 16 were out by +/- 0.5
star and one by 1.0 star, however 11 of these products
did not have sufficient data on pack to be able to fully
calculate the HSR.
AoE 2: Consumer awareness
and ability to use the HSR
system correctly
AoE 2 was assessed under four sub-sections:
awareness of the HSR system, consumer knowledge
and understanding of the HSR system, correct use the
HSR system and the level of trust consumers have in
the HSR system. This assessment was conducted via
an online survey with a sample of 2,036 Australian
adults.
Of those surveyed, unprompted awareness of the HSR
system has increased from 3% in April 2015 to 11% in
September 2015. Likewise, prompted awareness of the
HSR system has increased significantly from 33% in
April 2015 to 53% in September 2015.
Close to 90% of respondents understand that a product
with one star means that it is less healthy compared to a
product with more stars, and likewise, that a product
with five stars represents the healthiest choice.
Of those aware of the HSR system, almost two in three
respondents were aware that the HSR system is a rating
scale of the healthiness of a food product or a
comparison between two products in the same category.
More than two in five reported that they have purchased
a product with the HSR system graphic in the past three
months, which is significantly higher compared to April
2015 (8%). Of those who had reported purchasing a
product with the HSR system graphic, more than one in
two reported that the rating scale had influenced their
purchasing decision; 37% reported that the rating scale
influenced them to purchase a product that they
normally wouldn’t purchase because it had more stars.
The proportion of respondents who reported they trust
the HSR system has increased from 38% in April 2015
to 51% in September 2015. More than 70% of
respondents also reported that the HSR system is easy
to use and easy to understand.
Option 1 of the HSR system graphic was the most
preferred Option and was reported to be the easiest to
understand, the easiest to recognise and the Option that
was perceived to provide sufficient information.
National Heart Foundation of Australia
xi
AoE 3: Nutrient status of
products carrying a HSR system
graphic
The most commonly displayed HSR on pack was 4.0,
which was on 30% of products, and was also the mean
HSR. The ‘2 – Food’ Category Class had the majority of
products displaying the HSR system graphic (86%). For
each nutrient that underpins the HSRC (energy, saturated
fat, sugars, sodium, protein and fibre), the mean nutrient
content per 100 g/100 mL was similar between HSR
products and non-HSR products across all HSR Category
Classes.
Option 1
HSR + energy icon + 3
prescribed nutrient icons +
optional nutrient
Option 3
HSR + energy
icon
Option 2
HSR + energy icon + 3
prescribed nutrient icons
Option 4
HSR
only
Option 5
Energy icon
only
xii Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system – Year 1
Background and objectives
Agreement to develop
the HSR system
In December 2011, the Australia and New Zealand
Ministerial Forum on Food Regulation (the Forum)
agreed to support Recommendation 50 of Labelling
Logic: Review of Food Labelling Law and Policy1 namely
that an interpretive Front-of-Pack Labelling (FoPL)
scheme should be developed.
At its 14 June 2013 meeting, the Forum agreed to
develop and implement a FoPL scheme – the Health
Star Rating (HSR) system – that, except for agreed
exemptions, applies to all packaged, manufactured or
processed foods presented ready for sale to the
customer in the retail sector.
What is the HSR system?
The HSR system comprises a star rating scale of onehalf star to five stars (with half star increments) and the
display of information icons for energy and specific
nutrients.
The HSR system is a joint initiative of Australian, state
and territory, and New Zealand governments, and was
developed in partnership with industry, public health
and consumer groups.
Objective of the HSR system
The objective of the HSR system is to provide
convenient, relevant and readily understood nutrition
information and/ or guidance on food packs to assist
consumers to make informed food purchases and
healthier eating choices.3
Implementation of the HSR
system
The HSR Advisory Committee (HSRAC) is
responsible for overseeing the monitoring and
evaluation of the HSR system and for providing advice
to the FoPL Steering Committee, and in turn to the
Forum on related matters. The Department of Health
(the Department) provides independent secretariat
support to the HSRAC.
The star rating component of the HSR system is
underpinned by the HSR Calculator (HSRC), which was
developed by the former FoPL Technical Design
Working Group in consultation with Food Standards
Australia New Zealand (FSANZ). The HSRC comprises
a modified version of the Nutrient Profiling Scoring
Criterion that was developed by FSANZ for the purpose
of Standard 1.2.7 – Nutrition, Health and Related
Claims.2 The Forum endorsed the HSRC on 13
December 2013. Foods with more stars are considered
a healthier choice than similar products with less stars.
At its meeting on 27 June 2014, the Forum agreed
that the HSR system should be voluntarily
implemented over five years (27 June 2014 to 26
June 2019) with a review of the progress of
implementation after two years. Implementation of
the HSR system officially began on
27 June 2014.
Along with the HSR, the HSR system graphic displays
information icons for energy, saturated fat, sugars and
sodium, and can include one optional positive nutrient
(such as calcium or fibre). The HSRC, however, takes
into account a greater number of food components
than those displayed. These other components
include fruit, vegetable, nut and legume (FVNL)
content and, in some instances, calcium, fibre and
protein. The latter considerations recognise the role of
cereals, lean meat, dairy products, fish, fruit,
vegetables, nuts and legumes as important
components of a healthy diet. Taking these
components into account, points are allocated based
on the nutritional composition of 100 g or 100 mL,
based on the units used in the nutrition information
panel (NIP) of a food product. Energy, saturated fat,
sugars and sodium were chosen for presentation
because they contribute to overweight and obesity,
and diet-related chronic disease (e.g. cardiovascular
disease and Type 2 diabetes), as well as being
nutrients of interest to consumers (as indicated by
market research).
At its 15 July 2014 meeting, the HSRAC agreed that
the Areas of Enquiry (AoEs) for the purposes of
monitoring and evaluating the HSR system would be:
Monitoring and evaluation of the
HSR system: Areas of Enquiry
1. Label implementation and consistency with the
HSR system Style Guide (AoE 1)
2. Consumer awareness and ability to use the
HSR system correctly (AoE 2)
3. Nutrient status of products carrying a HSR
system graphic (AoE 3).
In March 2015, the Department put out a request
for tender for the provision of services to monitor
and evaluate the implementation of the HSR
system. The National Heart Foundation of Australia
(the Heart Foundation) submitted a request for
tender and was awarded this in May 2015 (Tender
number Health/74/1415).
National Heart Foundation of Australia xiii
Project objective
The objective of this project is to objectively monitor
and evaluate the implementation, awareness and use,
and changes in the food supply, of the HSR system
over a two-year period (27 June 2014 to 26 June 2016).
This objective will be addressed under the three AoEs
described above.
In addition, the Heart Foundation was required to
conduct more regular monitoring of the uptake of the
HSR system over three time points within the two-year
period. The results from this additional monitoring
work are included in this report.
Program Logic Framework
To assess the implementation and impact of the
HSR system, a Program Logic Framework
(Framework) was developed under the required
deliverables:
 Outline key outcomes desired from the monitoring
and evaluation of the HSR system and relevant
indicators of achievement.
 Address the three AoEs and detail all activities to
be carried out and data to be obtained to
successfully report against each AoE.
 Identify data sources and methods to be used for
the purpose of the ongoing collection of all data and
information necessary for successful monitoring for
the HSR system implementation period (27 June
2014 to 26 June 2019).
For completeness, the Framework includes the
outcomes up to 26 June 2016 (i.e. the two-year period)
and also the impact thereafter for the two-to-five-year
period (up to 26 June 2019). Note that the work for this
project is for the first two years of the implementation
period only (June 2014 to June 2016), and this document
only reports on Year 1 (the first year of implementation of
the HSR system, June 2014 to June 2015).
The Framework was implemented to specifically
address the monitoring, evaluation and reporting for
the implementation of the HSR system against the
three AoEs.
The Framework developed by the Project Team
and agreed to by the HSRAC at the 2 October
2015 teleconference is outlined in Figure I.
The general principle of a Framework is to provide a
visual representation, usually linear, of a sequence of
steps that need to occur for a project to meet its desired
outcomes. The general flow of a Framework is inputs,
activities and output, outcomes and impact.4
xiv
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system – Year 1
Figure I. Program Logic Framework for the monitoring and evaluation of implementation of the HSR system
National Heart Foundation of Australia xv
General methodology
Table I. Key features of data coverage and data
collection using the FoodTrackTM platform
Food composition data and
products displaying the HSR
system graphic: FoodTrackTM
To meet the requirements of assessment against
AoE 1 and AoE 3 it was necessary to have
access to retrospective and current food
composition data for products displaying the HSR
system graphic, as well as data for those that do
not, for comparison.
TM
TM
We used FoodTrack to address this. FoodTrack
is a food composition database that contains
nutrient and other information (e.g. manufacturer,
brand, ingredients and FoPL) on food products
sold in major Australian supermarkets (Coles and
Woolworths). It is a joint initiative between the Heart
Foundation and the Commonwealth Scientific
Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) and was
first implemented in February 2014.
Data is collected using the FoodTrackTM platform on a
rolling annual collection schedule, i.e. every category
is collected every year. The collection process
involves trained field officers with a background in
nutrition and/ or dietetics. The field officers use a
custom-designed application (app) for an iPad mini to
collect the data and selected images. Once the data
is collected, it is uploaded into a remote database.
Data can then be accessed through a web portal
and extracted and audited in-house by Heart
Foundation staff. Auditing of the whole product suite
is conducted continuously throughout the year.
The first year of data collection was completed in early
2015, with nutrient and product data collected for more
than 13,000 products. The second year of data
collection is due for completion in early 2016, and
annually thereafter. FoodTrackTM houses data for more
than 80 fresh and packaged food and beverage
categories, across more than 90% of the Australian
retail market.
Data for products displaying the HSR system graphic
has been recorded using FoodTrackTM since its inception
in 2014. This includes the presence (or absence) of a
HSR system graphic on pack, and any required
accompanying information such as the ingredients list,
the nutritional information panel and the product
descriptor information.
Table I outlines a summary of the key features of
the FoodTrackTM platform.
xvi
Feature
Information
Number of categories collected
> 80 food and beverage categories,
including some fresh foods
Category coverage
> 90% national market coverage
within each category
Product coverage
> 13,000 products annually
Stores visited
Collection frequency
Collection schedule
Key exclusions from dataset
Nationally representative sample
across major Coles and Woolworths in
metropolitan Victoria
All data updated annually, new
products also recorded
Rolling collection throughout the year,
seasonality factored in to schedule,
where possible
Baby formula, supplements (vitamins
and minerals), alcohol
Customising FoodTrackTM
for this project
To meet the project requirements, FoodTrackTM
was customised to include additional variables
for reporting. A Glossary was developed in
consultation with the Department to map
products in FoodTrackTM to a categorisation
system specifically for this project, including key
inclusions and exclusions within each category. All
products that fell within the required time frame
for reporting were allocated according to the
Glossary definitions, and mapped to the four
variables described below.
1. HSR Primary Category – This is a primary
categorisation system that is matched closely to
the primary categories used in the Australian
Health Survey.5 Each HSR Primary Category
encompasses multiple HSR Categories. For
example the Non- alcoholic beverages HSR
Primary Category contains the following HSR
Categories: ‘Fruit and vegetable juices’, ‘Breakfast
drinks’, ‘Milk modifiers and flavourings’, ‘Sugar (or
artificially) – sweetened beverages’ and ‘Tea and
coffee’.
2. HSR Category – This is the main categorisation
system used specifically for this project and is based
primarily on the definitions outlined in the Glossary.
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system – Year 1
3. HSR Category Class – This is the categorisation
system of products displaying the HSR system
graphic as outlined in the HSR Guide for Industry to
the Health Star Rating Calculator,6 whereby every
product displaying the HSR system graphic is
categorised into one of the following six Category
Classes:
- 1 – Beverages
- 1D – Dairy beverages
- 2 – Food
- 2D – Dairy food
- 3 – Oils and spreads
- 3D – Cheese and processed cheese.
Each Category Class aligns with a different
algorithm that underpins the HSRC – a tool that
manufacturers and retailers can use to determine
the HSR of their product(s).
4. HSR Year – This is the time frame that relates
specifically to the year of implementation of the
HSR system:
- Year 1 – the first year of implementation of the
HSR system (June 2014 to June 2015)
- Year 2 – the second year of implementation of
the HSR system (June 2015 to June 2016).
All technical changes to the FoodTrack TM platform were
performed by senior software engineers at CSIRO in
consultation with the Project Manager.
National Heart Foundation of Australia xvii
xviii Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system – Year 1
Chapter 1
Area of Enquiry 1
Label implementation and consistency with
the Health Star Rating system Style Guide
National Heart Foundation of Australia
1
National Heart Foundation of Australia 1
National Heart Foundation of Australia 19
xix
Chapter 1 – Area of Enquiry
1
1.1 Chapter summary
3
1.1.1
1.1.2
1.1.3
1.1.4
3
3
3
3
Uptake of the HSR system
Comparison of uptake of the HSR system to the Daily Intake Guide (DIG)
Consistency in implementation of the HSR system graphic with the HSR Style Guide
Assessment of the HSR displayed on pack using the HSRC
1.2 Methodology
4
1.2.1 Uptake of the HSR system by manufacturers and retailers
1.2.2 Consistency in implementation of the HSR system graphic with the HSR system Style Guide
1.2.3 Assessment of HSR displayed on pack against that determined by the HSRC
Table 1.1. HSR Calibration Category and associated HSR Category Class
1.2.4 Data analysis
4
5
5
5
6
1.3 3 Results
6
1.3.1 Uptake of the HSR system at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)
6
Table 1.2. HSR Categories that had 2% or less of products displaying the HSR system graphic
at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)
6
Figure 1.1. Number of products (n) displaying the HSR system graphic, by HSR Category,
by HSR Option, at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)
7
Table 1.3. Proportion of products (%) for each manufacturer and retailer displaying the HSR
system graphic at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)
8
Figure 1.2. Number of products (n) displaying the HSR system graphic, by manufacturers and r
etailers, by HSR Option, at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)
9
Table 1.4. Manufacturers and retailers with more than 10 products displaying the HSR system
graphic at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)
10
Figure 1.3. Number of products (n) displaying the HSR system graphic, by HSR Category,
by major manufacturers and retailers, at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)
11
Table 1.5. Manufacturers and retailers in the four HSR breakfast cereal categories, displaying the
HSR system graphic, and their respective volume market shares (% tonnes) within the breakfast cereal category,
according to Retail World8,9,*, at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)
1.3.2 Results from Wave 1 of additional uptake monitoring (September 2015)
Figure 1.4. Comparison of the uptake of the HSR system to the uptake of the DIG, over time
1.3.3 Consistency in implementation of the HSR system graphic with the HSR Style Guide
12
12
13
13
Figure 1.5. Proportion of products (%) displaying the HSR system graphic, by HSR Option,
at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)
13
Figure 1.6. Number of products (n) displaying the HSR system graphic, by manufacturers and retailers,
by HSR Option, at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)
14
Figure 1.7. Number of products (n) displaying the HSR system graphic, by HSR Category, by HSR Option,
at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)
15
Figure 1.8. Number of products (n) displaying Option 1, by HSR Category, by HSR Option,
at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)
16
Figure 1.9. Proportion of products (%) displaying HSR Option 1, by optional nutrient,
at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)
17
Figure 1.10. Number of products (n) displaying the optional nutrient icon, by HSR Category,
by optional nutrient, at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)
17
Figure 1.11. Proportion of products (%) displaying the optional nutrient icon, by manufacturers
and retailers, at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)
17
Table 1.6. Technical errors identified when assessing consistency in implementation of the
HSR system graphic with the Style Guide, at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)
1.3.4 Assessment of HSR displayed on pack against that determined by the HSRC at Year 1 (June 2014 to
1.3.5 June 2015)
2
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system – Year 1
18
19
Chapter 1 – Area of Enquiry
1
1.1 Chapter summary
All sections below relate to Year 1 (June 2014
to June 2015) unless otherwise specified.
1.1.3 Consistency in implementation of
the HSR system graphic with the HSR
Style Guide

Option 1 was displayed on the greatest
number of products (121/363, 33%).

Option 5 was displayed on the least
number of products (9%).

 Ninety-one per cent of products displaying the HSR
system graphic used Options 1 to 4 (refer to key at
end of this section).
Twenty products displayed a HSR system
graphic that was a combination of Option 3 and
Option 5 of the HSR system graphic.

 Option 5 (energy icon only) of the HSR system
graphic was exclusively displayed on products in
both the ‘Confectionary’ and ‘Relishes, chutneys
and pastes’ categories.
Fourteen out of 20 manufacturers and retailers
displayed a single option of the HSR system
graphic, with Option 4 being the most popular
(9/14).

In 18/37 HSR Categories, exclusive use of one
Option was observed.
 ‘Ready-to-eat breakfast cereals’ had the highest
number of products displaying the HSR system
graphic (n = 59), followed by ‘Mueslis’ (n = 37).

Option 1 was implemented on the greatest
number of products in the four breakfast cereal
categories (n = 93).
 The HSR system graphic was displayed on the
greatest proportion of products in the ‘Hot cereals –
flavoured’ HSR Category (46%).

Within products displaying Option 1, 50%
displayed fibre as the optional nutrient.

Use of Option 1 was dominated by Private
Label Coles and Nestle Australia, which,
combined, displayed this Option on 101 of
the 121 products (83%) displaying Option 1.

Only 28 of the 363 products displaying the
HSR system graphic (8%) were identified
as having a technical error.

The most common technical error was that
13 products displayed a serving size as
part of the HSR system graphic that was
not an approved industry- agreed
standard serving size as outlined in the
Style Guide.
1.1.1 Uptake of the HSR system
 The HSR system graphic was displayed on 363
products out of an eligible 12,176 products from
the FoodTrackTM database (3% of the total product
suite), and on at least one product in 37/81 (46%)
HSR Categories.
 The four breakfast cereal categories (‘Ready-to-eat
breakfast cereals’, ‘Mueslis’, ‘Hot cereals – plain’,
‘Hot cereals – flavoured’) were the only HSR
Categories to have representation of the HSR
system on more than 25% of their products.
 Within the four breakfast cereal categories, Nestle
Australia had the highest number of products
displaying the HSR system graphic (n = 56, 79%
of their breakfast cereals product suite in
FoodTrackTM).
 Twenty-two manufacturers and retailers (3%), from
the 665 recorded in FoodTrackTM, displayed the
HSR system graphic.
 Out of all retailers and manufacturers, Private Label
– Coles displayed the HSR system graphic on the
greatest number of products (132/363, 36%) in a
variety of categories.
1.1.2 Comparison of uptake of the HSR
system to the Daily Intake Guide (DIG)

In September 2015, 1,526 products were
identified in-store (Coles and Woolworths) as
displaying the HSR system graphic (Month 15
since implementation of the HSR system).

At Month 15, uptake of the DIG was 448
products compared to 1,526 products at the
equivalent time point for the HSR system
(nearly 3.5 times higher).
1.1.4 Assessment of the HSR displayed
on pack using the HSRC
 For 95% of products (314/331, excludes those
displaying the energy icon only), the HSR displayed
on pack matched the output from the HSRC.
 Of the 17 products for which the HSR did not match:
- 16 were out by +/- 0.5 star and one by 1.0 stars
- 11 did not have sufficient data on pack to be
able to fully calculate the HSR and six products
had all required data available but still did not
match.
National Heart Foundation of Australia 3
Chapter 1 – Area of Enquiry
1
Option 1
HSR + energy icon + 3
prescribed nutrient icons +
optional nutrient
Option 3
HSR + energy
icon
Option 2
HSR + energy icon + 3
prescribed nutrient icons
Option 4
HSR
only
1.2 Methodology
Outputs for AoE 1 were specifically divided into three
key components, as per the Framework:
1. Uptake of the HSR system by manufacturers
and retailers
Option 5
Energy icon
only
1.2.1 Uptake of the HSR system by
manufacturers and retailers
To conduct this assessment, CSIRO software
engineers developed automated reporting scripts in
FoodTrackTM that provided reports relating to uptake of
the HSR system. The scripts included the following
parameters:
2. Assessment of the implementation of the HSR
system graphic against the HSR system Style
Guide (the Style Guide)
 Whole Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015) product
suite in FoodTrackTM
3. Assessment of the HSR displayed on pack against
that determined by the HSRC.
 HSR Primary Category, HSR Category, HSR
Category Class
There are five different ways (‘Options’) in which the
HSR system graphic can be displayed on pack. These
are outlined in the Style Guide, along with their
respective images:7
 Those displaying Option 5 of the HSR system graphic
 Option 1 – HSR + energy icon + 3 prescribed
 Manufacturers and retailers.
nutrient icons (saturated fat, sugars, and sodium) + 1
optional nutrient icon
 Option 2 – HSR + energy icon + 3 prescribed
nutrient icons
 Option 3 – HSR + energy icon
 Option 4 – HSR only
 Option 5 – Energy icon only.
An example of each Option of the HSR system graphic
is outlined in the ‘Chapter summary’ above.
4
 Those displaying Options 1 to 4 of the HSR
system graphic
For categories that had a large market presence of
products displaying the HSR system graphic at Year 1
(June 2014 to June 2015), indication of market share
for major manufacturers and retailers was provided,
where available, to allow for a more specific
assessment of the impact on the food supply. The
2014 and 2015 Retail World Annual Reports8,9 were
used to source such content and categories mapped
as closely as possible to their respective HSR
Category(ies).
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system – Year 1
Chapter 1 – Area of Enquiry
1
Comparison of the uptake of the HSR system
to the uptake of the DIG
Following development of the Framework, the Heart
Foundation was required to conduct more regular
monitoring of the HSR system uptake over three
waves. The Heart Foundation conducted the first
wave in September 2015, and subsequent waves will
be conducted in January and May of 2016. This work
mainly aimed to capture the number of products
displaying the HSR system graphic at a given time
point (refer to Appendix 1 for the Wave 1 Report).
The results from Wave 1 of this work were used to
compare uptake of the HSR system to that of the DIG*
over time. Data on the uptake of the DIG was sourced
from the Daily Intake Guide Audit Report May 2013 and
personal communication with the Australian Food and
Grocery Council (AFGC).10
1.2.2 Consistency in implementation of
the HSR system graphic with the HSR
system Style Guide
For this assessment, Version 3.3 of the Style
Guide,7 released on 25 March 2015 was used.
Additional supplementary materials that are
referenced in the Style Guide were also used,
including the Food Standards Code.11
To assess the products at Year 1 (June 2014 to June
2015) that displayed the HSR system graphic against
the guidelines outlined in the Style Guide, a
Compliance Checklist (Checklist) was developed by the
Heart Foundation. The Checklist consolidated content
from the Style Guide into a systematic series of
Yes/No questions, where possible, to make the
assessment as objective as possible (refer to
Appendix 2 for the Checklist).
The Checklist was divided into five sections, one for
each of the five different options for which the HSR
system graphic can be displayed on pack, as there
were some assessment criteria specific to each Option.
This analysis was conducted on an individual product
basis using the front-of-pack (FoP) and nutrition
information panel (NIP) images extracted from
FoodTrackTM.
Assessment of products displaying the HSR system
graphic against the Style Guide was conducted against
the following parameters:
 Those displaying each Option of the HSR
system graphic
 Manufacturers and retailers
 HSR Category
 Variation to the Style Guide
 Within those displaying Option 1 of the HSR
system graphic, optional nutrient by:
- HSR Category
- type of optional nutrient
- manufacturers and retailers.
1.2.3 Assessment of HSR displayed
on pack against that determined by
the HSRC
For this assessment, Version 3.3 of the HSRC (20
January 2015) was used in the available Microsoft
Excel format.12
The HSRC has three sections that must be
populated to determine the HSR:
1. The categorisation system underpinning the algorithms
2. The NIP data for the relevant nutrients
3. The percentage of fruit, vegetable, nut, legume
(% FVNL) and percentage of concentrated
(conc) FVNL values (% conc FVNL).
For Part 1, products were categorised according to the
six HSR Category Classes, and further to the HSR
Calibration Category provided in the HSRC.6,12 Table 1.1
summarises the mapping process.
Table 1.1. HSR Calibration Category and associated
HSR Category Class
HSR Calibration Category
HSR Category Class
Beverages, non-dairy
1 – Beverages
Core dairy – beverages
1D – Dairy beverages
Core cereals
2 – Food
Fruit
2 – Food
Non-core foods
2 – Food
Protein
2 – Food
Vegetables
2 – Food
Core dairy – yoghurt, soft cheese
2D - Dairy Food
Fats, oils
3 – Oils and spreads
Core dairy – cheese
3D – Cheese and processed cheese
For Part 2, the relevant nutrient data from product
NIPs was extracted from FoodTrackTM and
transferred into the Excel version. These nutrients
include energy, saturated fat, sugars, sodium,
protein and fibre. All of these nutrients, except fibre,
are mandatory on the NIP. To determine the fibre
content, the NIP data was used, where available.
Where fibre was not available on the NIP, it was
treated as missing data.
The HSRC requires the NIP values to be entered per
100 g/100 mL, and should apply to the form of the food
‘as consumed’, in most cases.6 As this data must be
numerical for the HSRC to identify it, the following rules
were created:
 Any NIP data with ‘<’ values was treated as a
whole number, e.g. ‘<1’ treated as 1.
 Any data that was missing (N/A) was treated as
missing data, not zero.
*The DIG is an FoPL system introduced in 2006 to provide consumers with at-a-glance nutritional information on food products.10
National Heart Foundation of Australia 5
Chapter 1 – Area of Enquiry
1
For Part 3, the % FVNL and % conc FVNL values were
determined from the ingredients images, where
available. For some products where the data required to
determine the % FVNL and % conc FVNL contents was
incomplete, this was noted, and assumptions made,
where deemed suitable (refer to Appendix 3 for a
definition of foods that contribute to FVNL values and
for examples on managing incomplete datasets).
For each product at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)
displaying the HSR system graphic, the HSR
determined by using the HSRC was compared to the
HSR displayed on pack and, where differences were
observed, these differences were grouped into
themes, where possible. As the aim of this activity was
to determine if the HSR displayed on pack matched
that determined by the HSRC, products displaying
Option 5 (the energy icon only) were excluded from
this analysis.
1.2.4 Data analysis
1.3 Results
1.3.1 Uptake of the HSR system at
Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)
At Year 1, the HSR system graphic was displayed on
363 products out of an eligible 12,176 products from the
FoodTrackTM database. This represented 3% of the total
product suite.
Of these 363 products, the majority (91%) displayed
Options 1 to 4 and the remaining smaller percentage
displayed Option 5. Forty-six per cent (37/81) of
eligible HSR Categories in FoodTrack TM had at least
one product that displayed the HSR system graphic as
illustrated in Figure 1.1.
Seventeen HSR Categories had 2% or less of
products that displayed the HSR system graphic at
Year 1. These categories are listed in Table 1.2, and
are excluded from Figure 1.1.
Unless specified, all analyses for AoE 1 were conducted
in Microsoft Excel 2013. Automated reporting scripts
were developed for use in FoodTrackTM, a cloud-based
SQL database.
Table 1.2. HSR Categories that had 2% or less of products displaying the HSR system graphic at Year 1 (June 2014
to June 2015)
Breakfast spreads
Number of products (n) displaying
HSR system graphic
3
Number of products (n) without
HSR system graphic
180
Proportion of products (%)
displaying HSR system graphic
2
Cooking sauces
7
279
2
Dairy milks – plain
2
107
2
Grains – processed
1
55
2
Pasta and noodles – plain
5
249
2
Seafood – canned
4
248
2
Spreads – nut and seeds
1
59
2
Cereal-based bars
1
120
1
Cheese – hard and processed
2
350
1
Cream and cream alternatives
1
69
1
Smallgoods
3
207
1
4
443
1
2
177
1
Vegetables – plain
3
384
1
Cheese – soft
1
218
0
Meat – plain
1
203
0
Ready meals
1
275
0
HSR Category Name
Sugar (or artificially) – sweetened
beverages
Vegetable oils
6
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system – Year 1
Chapter 1 – Area of Enquiry
1
Figure 1.1. Number of products (n) displaying the HSR system graphic, by HSR Category, by HSR Option, at
Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)
The four breakfast cereal categories (‘Ready-to-eat
breakfast cereals’, ‘Mueslis’, ‘Hot cereals – plain’, ‘Hot
cereals – flavoured’) were the only HSR Categories to
have representation of the HSR system graphic on
more than 25% of their products, each (Figure 1.1).
‘Ready-to-eat breakfast cereals’ also had the highest
number of products displaying the HSR system
graphic at Year 1 (n = 59), and this was followed by
‘Mueslis’ (n = 37). Combined, these two categories
had around one-quarter of all products displaying the
HSR system graphic at Year 1 (96/363). In the ‘Fruit
and vegetable juices’ and ‘Soups’ categories,
although having over 20 products each that displayed
the HSR system graphic, this represented less than
10% coverage within each of these categories.
The HSR system graphic was displayed on 19 products
in the ‘Hot cereals – flavoured’ category, which
represented the greatest proportion of products within
any category (46%). A similar trend was observed for
‘Hot cereals – plain’, for which the HSR system graphic
was displayed on only eight products, but this
represented 30% of the whole category.
Most categories displayed only Options 1 to 4 of the
HSR system graphic, however Option 5 was
exclusively displayed in both the ‘Confectionary’ and
the ‘Relishes, chutneys and pastes’ HSR Categories.
In both of these categories this number of products
represented a small proportion of the whole category
(4% and 3%, respectively).
National Heart Foundation of Australia 7
Chapter 1 – Area of Enquiry
1
Table 1.3. Proportion of products (%) for each manufacturer and retailer displaying the HSR system graphic at
Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)
Manufacturers and retailers
Number of products (n) displaying
the HSR system graphic
Total manufacturer and retailer
product count (n)
Proportion of retailer and
manufacturer products (%)
displaying the HSR system graphic
The Wrigley Company
13
13
100
Spreyton Fresh Tasmania
1
1
100
Betta Foods Australia
8
8
100
Emma & Tom Foods
7
8
88
Monster Health Food Co
4
5
80
Food For Health
5
9
56
Popina Foods
3
7
43
Rinoldi Pasta
5
16
31
Freedom Nutritional Products
11
36
31
Chris Dips
4
16
25
Nestle Australia
59
296
20
Vitality Brands Worldwide
3
16
19
Sanitarium Health Foods Company
17
94
18
Mayvers Health Time
1
6
17
Private Label – Coles
132
1531
8
Lion – Dairy & Drinks
20
302
7
HJ Heinz Company Australia
11
276
4
Frucor Beverages
1
23
4
SPC Ardmona Operations
4
119
3
Private Label – Woolworths
51
1811
3
Simplot Australia
2
354
1
Greens General Foods
1
72
1
Twenty-two manufacturers and retailers, from the 665
recorded in FoodTrackTM, displayed the HSR system
graphic on their products at Year 1 (3% of product
suite). Table 1.3 outlines, for each manufacturer and
retailer, the proportion of their products in FoodTrackTM
that displayed the HSR system graphic at Year 1.
Figure 1.2 displays the number of products in each
HSR Category that displayed the HSR system
graphic, by manufacturers and retailers, at Year 1.
At Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015), Private Label –
Coles alone contributed to 36% of total products
displaying the HSR system graphic (132/363), however
the HSR system graphic was displayed on only 8% of
their total product suite. This was followed by Nestle
Australia (n=52), which displayed the HSR system
graphic on 17% of their products at Year 1, and then
Private Label – Woolworths (n = 51, only 3% of their
products). Although the following manufacturers
displayed the HSR system graphic on only one of their
8
products at Year 1, this represented between 1% and
100% of their product suite, depending on the
manufacturer: Frucor Beverages (n = 1, 4%), Green’s
General Foods (n = 1, 1%), Spreyton Fresh Tasmania
(n = 1, 100%), and Mayver’s Health Time (n = 1, 17%).
Monster Health Food Co and Emma & Tom Foods
both had seven or less products displaying the HSR
system graphic, but this represented 80% or more of
their total product count, each.
Eighteen of 22 manufacturers and retailers used Options
1 to 4 of the HSR system graphic on their products.
Private Label – Coles was the only retailer (and
manufacturer) to use all five options of the HSR system
graphic on their products. Three manufacturers
exclusively used Option 5 of the HSR system graphic:
Frucor Beverages, Betta Foods Australia and The
Wrigley Company. The latter two’s HSR products
represented 100% coverage for these manufacturers.
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system – Year 1
Chapter 1 – Area of Enquiry
1
Figure 1.2. Number of products (n) displaying the HSR system graphic, by manufacturers and retailers, by HSR
Option, at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)
Note: Lion – Dairy & Drinks and Frucor Beverages products have been classified according to the dominant HSR option displayed on pack,
despite slight variance (refer to the Style Guide assessment work).
National Heart Foundation of Australia 9
Chapter 1 – Area of Enquiry
1
Table 1.4. Manufacturers and retailers with more than 10 products displaying the HSR system graphic at Year
1 (June 2014 to June 2015)
Manufacturers and retailers
Number of products (n)
products displaying HSR
system graphic
Number of HSR
Categories (n)
Number and proportion (n,%) of HSR
Categories with products displaying HSR
system graphic
The Wrigley Company
13
1
1 (100)
Private Label – Coles
132
72
27 (38)
Sanitarium Health Foods Company
17
8
3 (38)
Freedom Nutritional Products
11
12
3 (25)
Nestle Australia
59
21
5 (24)
Private Label – Woolworths
51
76
10 (13)
Lion – Dairy & Drinks
20
11
1 (9)
HJ Heinz Company Australia
11
22
1 (5)
There were eight manufacturers and retailers that had
greater than 10 products displaying the HSR system
graphic at Year 1. These are summarised in Table 1.4.
Of the eight manufacturers and retailers listed in Table
1.4, two had presence in a single category: Lion – Dairy
& Drinks (‘Fruit and vegetable juices’) and HJ Heinz
Company Australia (‘Soups’). The Wrigley Company
(‘Confectionary’) also displayed the HSR system
graphic on one category, however this was their only
HSR Category in FoodTrackTM, i.e. they displayed the
HSR system graphic on 100% of the categories on
which they were present at Year 1 (June 2014 to June
2015).
Both Private Label – Coles and Sanitarium Health
Foods Company had products displaying the HSR
system graphic at Year 1 in 38% of their categories.
Nestle Australia, Sanitarium Health Foods Company
and Freedom Nutritional Products all had the
greatest presence in the ‘Ready-to-eat breakfast
cereal’ HSR Category (n = 28, 14 and 9,
respectively). No presence of Private Label –
Woolworths was observed in the ‘Ready-to-eat
breakfast cereal’ HSR Category.
The four breakfast cereal categories (‘Ready-to-eat
breakfast cereals’, ‘Mueslis’, ‘Hot cereals – plain’, ‘Hot
cereals – flavoured’) contributed to one-third (123/363)
of all products displaying the HSR system graphic at
Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015). Presence of the top
five manufacturers and retailers was observed across
these four categories (Figures 1.1, 1.3).
The spread of HSR Categories in which the top five
manufacturers and retailers (i.e. those from Table 1.4
that were present in more than one HSR Category)
displayed the HSR system graphic at Year 1 is
displayed in Figure 1.3.
Private Label – Coles displayed the HSR system
graphic across the greatest variety of HSR
Categories at Year 1 (n = 27), which represented 38%
of their HSR Category count (Table 1.4). They had
greatest coverage in the ‘Mueslis’ and ‘Dips’ HSR
Categories (n = 19 and 13, respectively).
Private Label – Woolworths had coverage across
seven of these same HSR Categories, and
exclusive coverage in the ‘Butter’ category. The
greatest number of Private Label – Woolworths
products displaying the HSR system was observed
in ‘Meat – processed’ and ‘Vegetarian – processed’
(n = 15, both).
10
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system – Year 1
Chapter 1 – Area of Enquiry
1
Figure 1.3. Number of products (n) displaying the HSR system graphic, by HSR Category, by major
manufacturers and retailers, at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)
Table 1.5 summarises the number and proportion of
products displaying the HSR system graphic at Year 1
(June 2014 to June 2015), for the four manufacturers and
retailers that, combined, made up more than 89% volume
market share (tonnes) of the breakfast cereals
category†.8,9
Sanitarium Health Foods Company held the greatest
volume market share in both 2014 and 2015 in the
breakfast cereals category (34.9% and 38.1%,
respectively), and the HSR system graphic was displayed
on 67% of their breakfast cereal product suite in
FoodTrackTM.
Kellogg (Australia), although holding the second highest
volume market share in both years (refer to Table 1.5),
did not have any products displaying the HSR system
graphic at Year 1. This would be expected given that
products in the four breakfast cereal categories were
collected in April–May 2015 using FoodTrackTM, which
was prior to the implementation of the HSR system
graphic by Kellogg (Australia) on their products.
Nestle Australia, with the third highest volume market share
in this category, had the greatest proportion of products in
their breakfast cereal product suite displaying the HSR
system graphic (79%). Conversely, Private Label combined
(Coles and Woolworths) displayed the HSR system
graphic on only 36% of their breakfast cereal product suite.
Data for Private Label – Coles and Private Label –
Woolworths is presented combined in Table 1.5, as their
market share could not be separated when using the
available Retail World data.
Some manufacturers, such as Freedom Nutritional
Products, Monster Health Food Co, Popina Foods and
Food For Health, appeared to have a low number of
products displaying the HSR system graphic but this
represented 61–100% of their breakfast cereals
product suite (sales data was not available in the same
format, for these smaller manufacturers).
†The category as defined in Retail World is called Breakfast Cereals, which also includes breakfast drinks. The market share figures reported could not be adjusted to
account for breakfast drinks. No breakfast drinks products displayed the HSR system at Year 1. Sales data from a smaller sub-category Retail World, Health Foods –
Cereals, has been excluded as it was not available to report in the same format as that of the Breakfast Cereals category.
National Heart Foundation of Australia 11
Chapter 1 – Area of Enquiry
1
Table 1.5. Manufacturers and retailers in the four HSR breakfast cereal categories, displaying the HSR system
graphic, and their respective volume market shares (% tonnes) within the breakfast cereal category, according to
Retail World8,9,* at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)
Food For Health
4
0
Proportion of products
(%) in the HSR
breakfast cereals
categories
displaying the HSR system
graphic
100
Monster Health Food Co
4
1
56
Manufacturers and retailers
Number of products
(n) without the
HSR system in the
breakfast cereals
categories
Number of products
(n) displaying the HSR
system in the breakfast
cereals categories
Volume market share
(% tonnes) within the
breakfast cereal category
Year: 2014
Year: 2015
N/A
N/A
80
N/A
N/A
15
79
17.1
17.5
3
1
75
N/A
N/A
Sanitarium Health Foods Company
14
7
67
34.9
38.1
Freedom Nutritional Products
11
7
61
N/A
N/A
Private Label (combined)
30
53
36
13.6
12.7
1
16
6
N/A
N/A
0
63
0
24.4
23.6
N/A
N/A
N/A
10.1
8.1
Nestle Australia
Popina Foods
†
Greens General Foods
Kellogg (Australia)
‡
Others§
*The category as defined in Retail World is called Breakfast Cereals, which also includes breakfast drinks. The market share figures reported could not be adjusted to
account for breakfast drinks. No breakfast drinks products displayed the HSR system at Year 1. Sales data from a smaller sub-category Retail World, Health Foods –
Cereals, has been excluded as it was not available to report in the same format as that of the Breakfast Cereals category. †Private Label – Coles represented 25 of the
30 Private Label products displaying the HSR system graphic (68% of their breakfast cereals product suite), Private Label – Woolworths displayed the HSR system on
5 of their 46 products in the breakfast cereals categories (11%). ‡Kellogg Australia did not have any products displaying the HSR system graphic at Year 1. This would be
expected given that products in the four breakfast cereal categories were collected in April-May 2015 using FoodTrackTM, which was prior to the implementation of the
HSR system graphic by Kellogg Australia on their products. §Number of products cannot be identified as individual manufacturers not available in Retail World for Others.
1.3.2 Results from Wave 1 of additional
uptake monitoring (September 2015)
In September 2015, the Heart Foundation
conducted an in-store audit in metropolitan
Victorian Coles and Woolworths stores to identify
the number of products at a given time point that
displayed the HSR system graphic (refer to
Appendix 1 for the Report).
A total of 1,513 products were recorded for this given
time point. In addition, there were 13 multipack products
that displayed more than one HSR system graphic on
pack to reflect the different flavour variants. This brought
the total number of products to 1,526.
Comparison to uptake of the DIG
When comparing uptake of the HSR system to that of
the DIG over time, there was a greater number of
products displaying the HSR system graphic at the
corresponding time point (Month 15, refer to Figure
1.4). At Month 15, uptake of the DIG was 448 products
compared to 1,526 products for the HSR system – this
represented nearly a 3.5 times greater presence of
HSR vs the DIG for the corresponding time point.
12
The following should be noted for Figure 1.4:
 Data for uptake of the DIG was available as a
whole number encompassing ALDI, IGA, Coles
and Woolworths whereas data for uptake of the
HSR system relates to Coles and Woolworths
only. It is therefore likely this represents an
underestimation.
 As the two time points of implementation and uptake
of the DIG and the HSR system differed (i.e. the
dates and years), uptake has been reported in
months post implementation, as a standard measure,
where zero (0) on the x-axis represents the point of
implementation for both the HSR system and the
DIG, and each time point thereafter represents
months 1, 2 and 3 etc. post-implementation.
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system – Year 1
Chapter 1 – Area of Enquiry
1
Figure 1.4. Comparison of the uptake of the HSR system to the uptake of the DIG, over time
1.3.3 Consistency in implementation
of the HSR system graphic with the
HSR Style Guide
Figure 1.5. Proportion of products (%) displaying
the HSR system graphic, by HSR Option, at
Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)
During assessment of consistency with the Style
Guide, it was identified that 21 products displayed an
HSR system graphic that was a combined version of
one or more of the five Options. For the purposes of
reporting against consistency with the Style Guide,
these have been reported in this section as
‘Combined’.
The most popular Option of the HSR system graphic
displayed on pack at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)
was Option 1 (33%). A similar proportion displayed
Option 2 (13%) and Option 3 (14%), and 25%
displayed Option 4. Nine per cent displayed Option 5,
and the remaining 21 products displayed a combined
version of the HSR system graphic (Figure 1.5).
National Heart Foundation of Australia 13
Chapter 1 – Area of Enquiry
1
The 21 products that were identified as displaying a
combined version of the HSR system graphic were
displayed by Lion – Dairy & Drinks (n = 20) and Frucor
Beverages (n = 1). All 21 products were part of the
‘Fruit and vegetable juices’ HSR Category. The
combined version of the HSR system graphic
displayed on the 20 Lion – Dairy & Drinks products
was a combination of Option 3 and Option 5, and the
combined version displayed on the Frucor Beverages
product was a combination of Option 5 and an
optional nutrient icon. For simplicity, these products
have been excluded from Figure 1.6.
As shown in Figure 1.6, most manufacturers and
retailers (14/20) selected to display only a single Option
on their products at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015).
Option 4 was the most popular when a single Option
was used (9/14). Four manufacturers used two Options
on their products and there were no obvious trends for
combining Options, e.g. Nestle Australia used Options 1
and 3, Sanitarium Health Foods Company used Options
1 and 4. Private Label – Woolworths was the only
retailer (and manufacturer) to use three Options (2, 3
and 4), and Private Label – Coles was the only retailer
(and manufacturer) to display all Options of the HSR
system graphic.
Figure 1.6. Number of products (n) displaying the HSR system graphic, by manufacturers and retailers, by HSR
Option, at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)
14
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system – Year 1
Chapter 1 – Area of Enquiry
1
In Figure 1.7, in 18/37 HSR Categories, exclusive use of
one Option of the HSR system graphic was observed.
This was greatest for Option 4 in which six categories
used Option 4 only, followed by Option 1 which was
used exclusively in four categories. Options 3 and 5
were used exclusively in three categories each, and
Option 2 in two categories. Eight categories used two of
the Options, ten categories used three Options. Only
one category (‘Meat – processed’) used four Options,
and no category at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)
used all five options of the HSR system graphic.
Option 1 was observed in the greatest number in the
four breakfast cereal categories (‘Ready-to-eat
breakfast cereals’ n =47, ‘Mueslis’ n = 25, ‘Hot cereals –
plain’ n = 6, ‘Hot cereals – flavoured’ n= 15).
Conversely, Option 5 was observed in the greatest
number in ‘Confectionary’ and ‘Relishes, chutneys and
pastes’ categories (n = 21 and 7, respectively), and
was used exclusively in both of these categories also.
Figure 1.7. Number of products (n) displaying the HSR system graphic, by HSR Category, by HSR Option, at
Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)
National Heart Foundation of Australia 15
Chapter 1 – Area of Enquiry
1
Specifically looking at Option 1, there were a total of
121 products that displayed this Option of the HSR
system graphic, across 15 HSR Categories (Figure 1.7.).
Within these 15 categories, the four breakfast cereal
categories (‘Ready-to-eat breakfast cereals’, ‘Mueslis’,
‘Hot cereals flavoured’, ‘Hot cereals – plain’) alone made
up 77% of the products (93/121). The remaining 11
categories all had less than five products each
displaying Option 1. Figure 1.8 outlines the number of
products in each HSR Category that displayed Option
1.
Figure 1.9 shows that among products displaying
Option 1 of the HSR system graphic, 50% of them
displayed fibre as the optional nutrient. This was
followed by protein (17%) and iron (10%) while
magnesium and Vitamin A were displayed by one
product each.
Figure 1.10 shows that use of fibre as the optional
nutrient was most prominent in three of the four
breakfast cereal HSR Categories (‘Ready-to-each
breakfast cereals’, ‘Mueslis’, ‘Hot cereals – flavoured’),
and was also used exclusively in the ‘Grains – plain’
category. Use of Calcium was observed mainly in the
dairy or dairy alternative categories (‘Milk substitutes –
plain and flavoured’, ‘Cheese – hard and processed’,
‘Dairy milks – plain’). Use of folate, iron, magnesium and
Vitamin E were exclusive to the ‘Ready-to-eat breakfast
cereals’ category.
Figure 1.11 shows that use of Option 1 at Year 1
(June 2014 to June 2015) was dominated by Private
Label – Coles and Nestle Australia, which each
contributed to more than 40% of products (within
Option 1) using the optional nutrient icon (n = 49 and
52, respectively).
Consistency in implementation of the HSR system
graphic with the Style Guide on products at Year 1
(June 2014 to June 2015) was also assessed. Overall,
minimal variation to the Style Guide was observed; only
28 of 362 (8%) of products displaying the HSR system
graphic were identified as having a technical error‡
(Table 1.6).
The most common technical error was that 13 products
displayed a serving size as part of the HSR system
graphic that was not part of the industry-agreed standard
serving size range as outlined in the Style Guide,7 at the
time of this assessment. Eight of these were from one
manufacturer in the same category, and the serving size
used was that displayed on the NIP, as determined by
the manufacturer.
Figure 1.8. Number of products (n) displaying Option 1, by HSR Category, by HSR Option, at Year 1
(June 2014 to June 2015)
‡This component of the assessment excludes one product displaying Option 5 as the images were incomplete in FoodTrack (i.e.: n = 362).
16
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system – Year 1
Chapter 1 – Area of Enquiry
1
Figure 1.9. Proportion of products (%)
displaying HSR Option 1, by optional nutrient,
at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)
Figure 1.11. Proportion of products (%) displaying
the optional nutrient icon, by manufacturers and
retailers, at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)
Figure 1.10. Number of products (n) displaying the optional nutrient icon, by HSR Category, by optional
nutrient, at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)
National Heart Foundation of Australia 17
Chapter 1 – Area of Enquiry
1
Table 1.6. Technical errors identified when assessing
consistency in implementation of the HSR system
graphic with the Style Guide, at Year 1 (June 2014 to
June 2015)
Section of the Style Guide
Number of
products*
Energy and nutrient icons, including %DI
%DI implemented differently to recommended
guidelines
3
nutrient(s) values displayed with decimal place different
to guidelines
3
value displayed on nutrient icon different to that in the
NIP
2
nutrient order varies to recommended guidelines
1
nutrients displayed in different units to recommended
guidelines
1
nutrient displayed as ‘<1g’ with a ‘low’ claim – cannot
confirm this meets requirements of ‘low’ claim for that
nutrient (<0.75 g)
1
Nominated reference measure
does not use industry agreed standard serving size (fruit
and vegetable juices (9), cheese – aged and processed
(1), meat – plain (1), pasta and noodles – plain (1),
mueslis (1))
There were also other observations during assessment
against the Style Guide:
 Thirty-five products from the same retailer, across
various categories, displayed a design variation
compared to the recommended HSR system
graphic.
 Twenty products from the same manufacturer, in
the ‘Fruit and vegetable juices’ category, displayed
a combination of Option 3 and Option 5 of the
HSR system graphic.
 One product in the ‘Fruit and vegetable juices’
category displayed a combination of Option 5 of
the HSR graphic and an optional nutrient icon.
 Three products by the same manufacturer within
the ‘Mueslis’ category displayed an older version of
the HSR system graphic, which was implemented
at the time in line with an earlier version of the HSR
Style Guide (not shown here).
 There were 18 multipack products identified at Year
1 (June 2014 to June 2015):
13
- For six of them, the HSR system graphic and
the NIP reflected an average of all flavours in
the packaging
values based on food ‘per 100 g’ as sold (i.e. uncooked)
which matches NIP, intended to be eaten ‘as prepared’
(single manufacturer, pasta & noodles – plain)
4
- For the remaining 12, the HSR system graphic
reflected a single flavour in pack (i.e. the
multipack contained only one flavour variant).
uses reference measure of ‘per 60g serve’ – varies
to recommended reference measure for products
presented as multipacks
2
uses reference measure of ‘per 180 g serve’ – varies
to recommended reference measure for products
presented in single serve packages
1
 Two products were identified for which the
manufacturer placed a sticker over one nutrient
value in the HSR system graphic, with the
correct information.
*Total count adds up to 31. This is because one product had four technical
errors and was therefore reflected four times in Table 1.6. The majority of products
(27/28) had one technical error.
18
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system – Year 1
Chapter 1 – Area of Enquiry
1
1.3.4 Assessment of HSR displayed on
pack against that determined by the
HSRC at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)
The available data for the 331 products displaying a HSR
system graphic, from FoodTrackTM, was entered into the
HSRC and the output was compared to the HSR
displayed on pack. Note this excludes products
displaying Option 5 of the HSR system graphic (the
energy icon only).
For 95% (314/331) of products assessed, the HSR
displayed on pack matched the output from the HSRC.
The remaining 17 products were from six HSR
Categories: ‘Dips’ (n = 8), ‘Nut and seed bars’ (n = 4),
‘Mueslis’ (n = 2), and n= 1 for ‘Vegetarian – processed’,
‘Ready-to-eat breakfast cereals’ and ‘Cereal-based
bars’.
Of these 17 products, 10 displayed a HSR on pack
which was 0.5 stars higher than that calculated by the
HSRC, one product displayed 1.0 stars more on pack,
and six products displayed 0.5 stars less on-pack than
those calculated by the HSRC.
Eleven of these 17 products did not have sufficient data
on pack to be able to completely determine the HSR
(fibre unavailable on the NIP and/or not possible to fully
quantify the FVNL values (% FVNL and % conc FVNL)
from the ingredients list. For the remaining six
products, the HSR did not match despite all required
data available on pack and able to be quantified.
There were also instances observed where either the
fibre content was missing or the quantity of key
ingredients was unavailable on pack, yet modelling
based on similar product profiles showed these were
likely to be in too small amounts to affect the overall star
rating.
National Heart Foundation of Australia 19
Chapter 1 – Area of Enquiry
1
20
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system – Year 1
Chapter 2
Area of Enquiry 2
Consumer awareness and ability
to use the HSR system correctly
National Heart Foundation of Australia 21
National Heart Foundation of Australia 21
2
Chapter 2 – Area of Enquiry
2
2.1 Chapter summary
2.1.1 Awareness of the HSR system
2.1.2 Understanding what the HSR system represents
2.1.3 Use of the HSR system
2.1.4 Perceptions and attitudes towards the HSR system
25
25
25
25
25
2.2 Methodology
26
2.2.1 Survey design and sample
2.2.2 Online panel partner
2.2.3 Survey questionnaire
2.2.4 ample characteristics
Table 2.1. Sample characteristics of the population surveyed for Wave 1
2.2.5 Data analysis
2.3 3 Results
2.3.1 Section A: General supermarket shopping
Table A1. On average, how often do you visit a supermarket to do your grocery shopping? (Sample: 2,036)
Table A2. On average, how much do you spend in one visit to the supermarket? (Sample: 2,036)
26
26
26
27
27
27
28
28
28
28
Figure A1. When buying food at the supermarket, what is the main thing that influences your choice
between two similar products? (Sample: 2,036)
Figure A2. Which supermarkets have you visited in the past month? (Sample: 2,036)
29
29
Figure A3. When choosing a new food during grocery shopping, how often do you compare how
healthy products are? (Sample: 2,036)
2.3.2 Section B: Awareness of food logos
Table B1. Age group
Table B2. Gender
Table B3. Household income
Table B4. BMI
Table B5. Indigenous status
29
30
30
30
30
30
30
Figure A4. On average, when at the supermarket, do you look at the nutrition information panel on…?
(Sample: 2,036)
31
Figure B1. Apart from brand names, thinking about different logos that help customers choose the food
they buy in the supermarket, which ones are you aware of? (Sample: 2,036)
31
Table B6. Language
32
Table B7. Residential location
32
Table B8. Children at home
32
Table B9. Age group
32
Table B10. Gender
32
Table B11. Household income
32
Table B12. BMI
32
Figure B2. Which of the following are you aware of on food packaging? (Sample: 2,036)
33
Figure B3. Prompted awareness of the HSR system over time (Sample: 2,036)
33
Table B13. Indigenous status
34
Table B14. Language
34
Table B15. Residential location
34
Table B16. Children at home
34
2.3.3 Section C: Knowledge and understanding of the Health Star Rating system
34
Figure C1. When the HSR system graphic is on the packaging of food, what do you think it means? (Sample: 1,084)34
Table C1. Age group
35
22
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system – Year 1
Chapter 2 – Area of Enquiry
2
Table C2. Gender
Table C3. Household income
Table C4. BMI
Table C5. Language
Table C6. Residential location
Table C7. Children at home
Figure C2. In your opinion, how is the number of stars on a product determined? (Sample: 1,084)
Table C8. How strongly do you agree or disagree that the HSR system? (Sample: 1,084)
Figure C3. How would you use the HSR system? (Sample: 1,084)
Figure C4. If a food product has one star, what do you think this means? (Sample: 1,084)
Figure C5. If a food product has five stars, what do you think this means? (Sample: 1,084)
Table C9. How strongly do you agree or disagree that a product with more stars means…? (Sample: 1,084)
35
35
35
35
35
35
36
36
37
37
37
38
Table C10. The HSR system graphic can be displayed in five different ways. Please select the style you believe
is the easiest to understand? (Sample: 1,084)
38
Table C11. The HSR system graphic can be displayed in five different ways. Please select the style you believe
is the easiest to recognise? (Sample: 1,084)
39
Table C12. The HSR system graphic can be displayed in five different ways. Please select the style you believe
provides sufficient information? (Sample: 1,084)
Table C13. Overall, please select the style you prefer the most? (Sample: 1,084)
Figure C6. Why do you prefer that option? (Sample: 1,084)
2.3.4 Section D. Purchasing behaviour
Table D1. In the past three months have you purchased a product that had the HSR system graphic?
(Sample: 1,084)
Table D2. Age group
Table D3. BMI
Table D4. Household income
Table D5. Gender
Table D6. Language
Table D7. Children at home
Table D8. Residential location
Table D9. Did the HSR system graphic on the product influence your choice? (Sample: 489)
Table D10. How did it influence your choice? (Sample: 273)
Figure D1. Why didn’t the HSR system influence your choice? (Sample: 180)
Table D11. Have you continued or will continue to buy the product? (Sample: 273)
Table D12. Have you continued or will continue to buy the product? (Sample: 1,084)
Table D13. Please select which you think is a healthier option in each pair? (Sample: 1,084)
Table D14. Please select which you think is a healthier option in each pair? (Sample: 1,084)
Table D15. Please select which you think is a healthier option in each pair? (Sample: 1,084)
Table D16. Please select which you think is a healthier option in each pair? (Sample: 1,084)
Table D17. Please select which you think is a healthier option in each pair? (Sample: 1,084)
39
40
40
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
42
42
42
43
43
43
43
43
43
Figure D2. Please select which foods and/or beverages you purchased in the supermarket which had
the HSR system graphic on them? (Sample: 507)
44
Figure D3. Please select which foods and/or beverages you believe it is important to have the HSR system
graphic on them? (Sample: 1,084)
2.3.5 Section E. Advertising awareness
45
46
Table E1. In the last three months, do you remember seeing, hearing or reading any advertising or promotions
about the HSR system? (Sample: 1,084)
Figure E1. Where had you seen or heard about the HSR system? (Sample: 217)
Figure E2. Which organisation or company did the advertising or promotion(s)? (Sample: 217)
46
46
47
National Heart Foundation of Australia 23
Chapter 2 – Area of Enquiry
2
Figure E3. What product or products were being advertised or promoted? (Sample: 217)
47
Table E2. After seeing or hearing this advertising or promotion(s) for products with a HSR system graphic,
did it influence you to buy a product or products you normally wouldn’t buy? (Sample: 217)
47
2.3.6 Section F: Attitudes and perceptions about the HSR system
Table F1. How strongly do you agree or disagree that the HSR system…? (Sample: 1,084)
Table F2. How strongly do you agree or disagree that the HSR system…? (Sample: 1,084)
Table F3. How strongly do you agree or disagree that the HSR system…? (Sample: 1,084)
Table F4. Age group
Table F5. BMI
Table F6. Household Income
Table F7. Children at home
Table F8. Language
Table F9. Gender
Table F10. Residential location
Figure F1. Overall, what level of confidence do you have in the HSR system? (Sample: 1,084)
2.3.7 Section G: Health attitudes and behaviours
48
48
48
48
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
50
Table G1. In general, thinking about all the food you buy, how concerned are you about how healthy
the food is for you? (Sample: 2,036)
50
Table G2. Thinking about your diet, would you say that what you usually eat is? (Sample: 2,036)
Table G3. Over the past six months, have you made any changes to your diet? (Sample: 2,036)
Figure G1. Which of the following changes have you made in the past six months to your diet? (Sample: 794)
Figure G2. For which of the following reasons did you make changes to your diet? (Sample: 794)
Table G4. In general, would you say your overall health is? (Sample: 2,036)
50
50
51
51
52
Table G5. In a typical week, on how many days would you do moderate or vigorous physical activity
for at least 30 minutes? (Sample: 2,036)
52
Table G6. How many serves of fruit (including fresh, dried, frozen and tinned fruit) do you usually
eat each day? (Sample: 2,036)
52
Table G7. How many serves of vegetables (including fresh, frozen and tinned vegetables) do you usually
eat each day? (Sample: 2,036)
52
24
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system – Year 1
Chapter 2 – Area of Enquiry
2
2.1.3 Use of the HSR system
2.1 Chapter summary
2.1.1 Awareness of the HSR system
 Unprompted awareness of the HSR system
has increased from 3% in April 2015 to 11% in
September 2015.
 Unprompted awareness was higher among
females, persons aged under 35, those with an
annual household income of more than $50,000
or with a body mass index (BMI) in the healthy
weight range.
 Likewise, prompted awareness of the HSR
system has also increased significantly from
33% in April 2015 to 53% in September 2015.
 Prompted awareness was higher among persons
aged under 35, those with an annual household
income of more than $50,000 or with a BMI in the
healthy weight range.
2.1.2 Understanding what the HSR
system represents
 Close to two in three were aware that the HSR
system is a rating scale of the healthiness of a food
product or a comparison between two products in
the same category.
 Females, persons aged 35 and over or those with
an annual household income of more than $50,000
were more likely to know what the HSR system
represents than their counterparts.
 Close to 90% of respondents understand that a
product with one star means that it is less healthy
compared to a product with more stars, and
likewise, that a product with five stars represents
the healthiest choice.
Option 1
HSR + energy icon + 3
prescribed nutrient icons +
optional nutrient
Option 3
HSR + energy
icon
 Of those aware of the HSR system, more than two in
five reported that they have purchased a product with
the HSR system graphic in the past three months.
The latest result is significantly higher compared to
April 2015, where only 8% reported that they had
purchased a product with the HSR system graphic on
it.
 Males, persons aged under 55, those with a BMI in
the healthy weight/overweight range or an annual
household income of more than $50,000 were
more likely to report that they had purchased a
product in the past three months with the HSR
system graphic.
 More than one in two who had purchased a product
with the HSR system reported that the rating scale
had influenced their purchasing decision. In fact, 37%
reported that the rating scale influenced them to
purchase a product with more stars that they
normally wouldn’t purchase.
2.1.4 Perceptions and attitudes towards
the HSR system
 Compared to April 2015, the proportion of people who
reported they trust the HSR system has increased
from 38% to more than 51% in September 2015.
Similarly, more than 70% reported that the HSR
system is easy to use and easy to understand, both
significantly up compared to the April 2015 result.
 Notably, more than one in two see the HSR
system as either relevant to their family or
relevant to them personally.
 Option 1 (refer to key below) of the HSR system
graphic was the most preferred Option; it was
reported to be the easiest to understand, the easiest
to recognise and the Option perceived to provide
sufficient information.
Option 2
HSR + energy icon + 3
prescribed nutrient icons
Option 4
HSR
only
Option 5
Energy icon
only
National Heart Foundation of Australia 25
Chapter 2 – Area of Enquiry
2
2.2 Methodology
Outcomes for AoE 2 were specifically divided into four
key areas, as per the Framework:
1. Awareness (unprompted and prompted) of the HSR
system
2. Consumer knowledge and understanding of the HSR
system, including what the HSR system graphic
represents and what it means on product packaging
3. Whether consumers are utilising the HSR system
accurately and effectively
4. The level of trust, reliability and credibility consumers
have in the HSR system.
These four key areas were measured at the total
population level and by agreed select population groups,
age, household income, BMI, gender and language
spoken at home.
2.2.1 Survey design and sample
In September 2015, the Heart Foundation conducted an
online survey with a sample of 2,036 Australians. This was
‘Wave 1’ of the survey, and will be repeated at two more
time points in 2016 (Wave 2 in February 2016 and Wave 3
in July 2016). The survey questionnaire is provided in
Appendix 4.
To be eligible to participate in the survey, participants
were required to be the main or shared grocery buyer in
their household and be 18 years of age or over.
2.2.3 Survey questionnaire
The initial two consumer surveys of the HSR system,
conducted in September 2014 and April 2015 were
undertaken by the market research group, Pollinate.
These surveys evaluated the roll-out of the HSR system
and its impact on consumers.12,13
For the current survey, changes were made to the
original questionnaire used in the first two surveys
conducted by Pollinate. The overall length and the
breadth of the questionnaire used in the current survey
was expanded, with changes including:
 broadening the questions on unprompted logos/labels
 increasing the number of other food
logos/labels included for testing of prompted
awareness
 increasing the number of factors
influencing purchasing decision
 new questions relating to what consumers believe
the HSR system represents, how it is calculated
and what the rating means on a product
 new questions for those who have used the HSR
system, with particular focus on actual and
intended behaviours
 a new question on the level of importance
consumers place on the HSR across food products
 broadening the number of questions on trust,
reliability and credibility of the HSR system
The sample of consumers was based on a cross-section  a question on whether the HSR system is meeting
the needs of consumers.
of Australian adults, and was stratified to include sufficient
sample sizes by:
These changes to the questionnaire have limited the
direct comparability of the current survey with the two
 age group (under 35 years of age, 35 to 54 years of
previous surveys conducted by Pollinate, however,
age and those aged 55 and over)
where directly comparable, time series data and/or
 household income per annum (less than $50,000,
analysis has been included in the reporting.
between $50,000 to $99,000 and $100,000 or greater)
The questionnaire used in this survey consisted of
 gender (male/female)
seven main sections:
 BMI (underweight/normal weight, overweight or obese)
 Demographics
 language spoken at home (English spoken only at
- Gender, age, household income, household
home or language other than English spoken at home)
structure, educational attainment, activity
 location (respondent resides in metropolitan area or in
status, Indigenous status and language spoken
regional/rural area).
at home.
2.2.2 Online panel partner
The survey was conducted in September 2015, in
conjunction with the market research company Research
Now®, and the sample was obtained through their online
research panel. Research Now operates in 38 countries
and has more than 6 million panellists internationally.
They are one of the leading online sampling and data
collection organisations in Australia and worldwide.
26
 Awareness of food logos
- Unprompted and prompted awareness of the
HSR system graphic and other food logos.
 Purchasing behaviours
- Main influencing factor when purchasing
products at the supermarket, frequency of
visits to supermarket and average spend,
supermarkets visited.
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system – Year 1
Chapter 2 – Area of Enquiry
2
 Understanding of the HSR system
- What the HSR system graphic on a product
means, how the number of stars is determined,
comparison of a product with one and five stars.
 Use of the HSR system
- Whether a particular food with the HSR system
graphic has been purchased and whether the
HSR system graphic influenced the purchasing
decision.
 Perceptions towards the HSR system
- Whether the HSR system is credible, trusted,
easy to use, easy to understand and overall
confidence in the HSR system.
 General health and food attitudes and
behaviours
- Concern about healthiness of food and diet,
change in dieting behaviour, daily intake of fruit
and vegetables and physical activity levels.
2.2.5 Data analysis
For AoE 2, data was analysed using the statistical
software package, SPSS (version 23), with independent
samples t-tests used to determine whether the means
of two groups were statistically different from each other
(significance level set at p<0.05). Where relevant, the
survey population was grouped by gender, age, BMI,
annual household income, place of residence,
Indigenous status and language spoken at home, for
analysis.
The survey conducted for AoE 2 was based on a
sample of Australian adults, i.e. not a census population,
as such some level of error was inherent in the results.
This margin of error was quantified statistically such that,
with 95% confidence, a given range contains the true
result at a population level; the error margin was 2.2%,
i.e. with 95% confidence, a result, plus or minus the error
margin (i.e. 50% ± 2.2%), contains the true result at the
population level.
2.2.4 Sample characteristics
Table 2.1 outlines the sample characteristics of the
population surveyed for Wave 1.
Table 2.1. Sample characteristics of the population
surveyed for Wave 1
Characteristic
Respondents (%)
Gender
Male
51
Female
49
Age group
Under 35
30
35 to 54
32
55 or over
38
Location
Metropolitan
72
Regional/rural
28
Annual household income
Below $50,000
36
Between $50,000 to $99,999
37
$100,0000 or higher
27
Speak language other than English
Yes
18
No
81
Household structure
Children in the household
32
No children in the household
68
Indigenous status
Indigenous
2
Non-Indigenous
98
National Heart Foundation of Australia 27
Chapter 2 – Area of Enquiry
2
Average spend per visit to the supermarket
2.3 Results
2.3.1 Section A: General supermarket
shopping
Main influence when choosing between
two products
When purchasing food at the supermarket and
choosing between two similar products, price was by
far the most common factor that influenced purchasing
decisions (Figure A1). This was followed by quality of
the product and personal or family preference.
One in seven respondents reported that the nutritional
value or the healthiness of a product primarily influences
their purchasing decisions. However, females were more
likely than males to focus on the healthiness of a
product or its nutritional value (18% ct 12%, p=0.01).
Although respondents with an annual household income
of less than $50,000 were more likely to focus on price,
those with an annual income of more than $100,000
were more likely to be influenced by product quality.
Frequency of visits to the supermarket
The majority of respondents reported that they visit a
supermarket at least once a week to do their grocery
shopping. Of those who grocery shop at least once a
week, more than one in two reported they shop several
times a week or every day.
Respondents with an annual household income of
more than $50,000 were significantly more likely to
visit the supermarket at least several times a week
compared to those with an annual income of less than
$50,000 (52% ct 45%, p=0.01).
Table A1. On average, how often do you visit
a supermarket to do your grocery
shopping? (Sample: 2,036)
Everyday
Respondents
(%) Sep-15
3
Several times a week
47
Once a week
42
Once a fortnight
7
Once a month
1
The average expenditure per visit to the supermarket
varied greatly. For those who reported visiting a
supermarket ‘at least once a week’, almost two-thirds
(63%) stated that they spend less than $100 per visit.
More than two in five (46%) stated they spend between
$100 and $199 and a further 13% stated they spend
$200 or more.
Respondents with an annual household income of more
than $100,000 were significantly more likely to spend at
least $100 per visit to the supermarket compared to
those with an annual household income of less than
$50,000 (44% ct 29%, p<0.001).
Table A2. On average, how much do you spend in
one visit to the supermarket? (Sample: 2,036)
Respondents
(%) Sep-15
Under $20
3
$20 to $49
27
$50 to $99
31
$100 to $149
22
$150 to $199
8
$200 or more
5
It varies
4
Comparing the healthiness of products
Close to three in five respondents stated that they
‘always’ or ‘most of the time’ compare the healthiness of
products when grocery shopping, while an additional
30% reported that they sometimes compare the
healthiness of products (Figure A3).
More than 60% of females reported that they ‘always’
or ‘most of the time’ compare how healthy products
are, significantly higher than males, at 50% (p<0.01).
Those with a university education were more likely to
‘always’ or ‘most of the time’ compare the healthiness
of food products compared to those with a lower level
of education (63% ct 49%, p<0.01).
Supermarkets visited in the past month
Woolworths and Coles were the supermarkets most
visited by respondents; close to all respondents (96%)
reported that they had visited a Woolworth and/or Coles
supermarket in the past month (Figure A2).
28
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system – Year 1
Chapter 2 – Area of Enquiry
2
Figure A1. When buying food at the supermarket, what is the main thing that influences your choice
between two similar products? (Sample: 2,036)
Figure A2. Which supermarkets have you visited in the past month? (Sample: 2,036)
Figure A3. When choosing a new food during grocery shopping, how often do you compare how healthy products
are? (Sample: 2,036)
National Heart Foundation of Australia 29
Chapter 2 – Area of Enquiry
2
Use of the nutrition information panel
More than two in five respondents reported that they
look at the NIP on ‘all’ or ‘most’ food products, when at
the supermarket (Figure A4). Significantly, more
females than males stated that they look at the nutrition
information panel on ‘all’ or ‘most’ food products, when
at the supermarket (44% ct 39%; p<0.02).
Respondents in the 35 to 54 year age group were much
more likely to report they look at the nutrition information
panel on ‘all’ or ‘most’ food products (74%), compared to
their younger (18 to 34, 49%) or older counterparts (55
years +, 39%). Those with a university education were
more likely to look at the nutrition information panel on
‘all’ or ‘most’ food products compared to those without a
university education (48% ct 34%, p<0.01).
2.3.2 Section B: Awareness of food
logos
Unprompted awareness of food logos
Respondents were asked about their awareness of
different logos that help customers choose the food they
buy in the supermarket (Figure B1).
Apart from the ‘Heart Foundation Tick’ logo, which
was mentioned by 40% of respondents, awareness of
such front-of-pack logos/logos was relatively low.
‘Australian Made’ was mentioned by 15% of
respondents, followed by the ‘Health Star Rating’
system graphic at 11%.
Almost two in five respondents were ‘Unsure’ what
front- of-pack logos/logos exist to help consumers
choose the food they buy at the supermarket.
Unprompted awareness of the HSR system has more
than tripled since April 2015, when only 3% nominated
the HSR system graphic as a logo.
Unprompted awareness of the HSR system*
Age group
Unprompted awareness of the HSR system was
significantly higher among respondents under the age
of 35, as they are nearly twice as likely to mention the
HSR system compared to those aged 55 and over.
Table B1. Age group
Age group
Respondents (%)
Under 35
15.9
Between 35 to 54
10.5
55 or over
8.7
Gender
Unprompted awareness of the HSR system was more
widespread among females than males.
Table B2. Gender
Gender
Respondents (%)
Females
14.7
Males
8.4
Household income
Respondents with a household income of at least
$50,000 per annum were significantly more likely to be
aware of the HSR system, compared to respondents
with an annual income of less than $50,000.
Unprompted awareness was relatively consistent for any
income level above $50,000.
Table B3. Household income
Gross household income
Respondents (%)
<$50,000
6.6
$50,000 to $99,999
14.1
$100,000 or more
13.4
BMI
Unprompted awareness of the HSR system was
negatively correlated with BMI; respondents within the
normal or underweight range were significantly more
likely to be aware of the HSR system than those who
are obese.
Table B4. BMI
BMI
Respondents (%)
<25.0
13.7
25.0 to 29.9
10.4
30.0
8.1
Indigenous status†
Respondents of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
background were significantly less likely to have
nominated the HSR system graphic as a food logo
than non-Indigenous Australians.
Table B5. Indigenous status
Indigenous status
Respondents (%)
Indigenous
4.4
Non-Indigenous
11.7
* Tables B1 to B8: Apart from brand names, thinking about different logos that help customers choose the food they buy in the supermarket, which ones
are you aware of? Sample: Age Group – Under 35 (n=610), 35 to 54 (n=655), 55 and over (n=771). Gender – Females (n=989), Males (n=1,047). Gross
Household Income – <$50,000 (n=636), $50,000 to $99,999 (n=652), $100,000 or more (n=471). Body Mass Index – Less than 25.0 (n=731), 25.0 to 29.9
(n=588), ≥ 30.0 (n=395). Indigenous status – Indigenous (n=45), Non-Indigenous (n=1,942). Language – English only (n=1,651), Language other than
English (n=358). Location Metro (n=1,467), Regional / Rural (n=568). Children at Home – With Children (n=661), No Children (n=1,335).
†Caution in using this result, due to small sample size.
30
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system – Year 1
Chapter 2 – Area of Enquiry
2
Figure A4. On average, when at the supermarket, do you look at the nutrition information panel on…? (Sample: 2,036)
Figure B1. Apart from brand names, thinking about different logos that help customers choose the food
they buy in the supermarket, which ones are you aware of? (Sample: 2,036)
National Heart Foundation of Australia 31
Chapter 2 – Area of Enquiry
2
Language spoken at home
The level of unprompted awareness of the HSR
system was not influenced by whether a person
speaks only English at home or a language other
than English.
Age group
Respondents under the age of 35 were significantly
more likely to be aware of the HSR system than
those aged 35 or over (p<0.001).
Table B9. Age group
Table B6. Language
Language
Respondents (%)
Age group
Respondents (%)
English only
11.4
Under 35
63.8
Other than English
10.6
Between 35 to 54
50.5
55 or over
47.2
Location – metropolitan vs regional/rural
Respondents living in metropolitan areas were
significantly more likely to nominate the HSR system
graphic as a food logo than those living in regional or
rural areas of Australia.
Table B7. Residential location
Location
Respondents (%)
Metro
12.5
Regional/rural
8.8
Household structure – children
Respondents who have children living at home were
slightly more likely to have nominated the HSR
system graphic as a food logo than those without
children.
Table B8. Children at home
Gender
Although not statistically significant, females were slightly
more likely than males to be aware of the HSR system.
Table B10. Gender
Gender
Respondents (%)
Females
55.3
Males
51.3
Household income
Similar to unprompted awareness, respondents with
a household income of less than $50,000 were the
least likely to be aware of the HSR system.
Awareness of the system was highest among
respondents with an annual income of $50,000 to
$99,999.
Table B11. Household income
Children at home
Respondents (%)
With children
13.0
No children
10.7
Prompted awareness of logos on packaging
Compared to prompted awareness of other logos on
food packaging, the HSR system graphic was the
eleventh most recognised logo from the selected list
(Figure B2).
Prompted awareness of the HSR system‡
In just a 12-month period, prompted awareness of the
HSR system has increased four-fold. More than one in
two respondents surveyed in September 2015 were
aware of the HSR system (Figure B3).
Gross household income
Respondents (%)
<$50,000
48.7
$50,000 to $99,999
58.7
$100,000 or more
53.5
BMI
Awareness of the HSR system was highest among
respondents who have a BMI <25. There was a
marginal difference in awareness among respondents
who are overweight or obese (BMI >25).
Table B12. BMI
BMI
Respondents (%)
<25.0
57.2
25.0 to 29.9
51.0
30.0
49.4
‡Tables B9 to B16: Which of the following are you aware of on food packaging? Sample: Age Group – Under 35 (n=610), 35 to 54 (n=655), 55 and over
(n=771). Gender – Females (n=989), Males (n=1,047). Gross Household Income – <$50,000 (n=636), $50,000 to $99,999 (n=652), $100,000 or more
(n=471). Body Mass Index – Less than 25.0 (n=731), 25.0 to 29.9 (n=588), ≥ 30.0 (n=395). Indigenous status – Indigenous (n=45), Non-Indigenous (n=1,942).
Language – English only (n=1,651), Language other than English (n=358). Location – Metro (n=1,467), Regional/rural (n=568). Children at Home – With
Children (n=661), No Children (n=1,335).
32
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system – Year 1
Chapter 2 – Area of Enquiry
2
Figure B2. Which of the following are you aware of on food packaging? (Sample: 2,036)
Figure B3. Prompted awareness of the HSR system over time (Sample: 2,036)
National Heart Foundation of Australia 33
Chapter 2 – Area of Enquiry
2
Household structure – children
Respondents who have children living at home were
more likely to be aware of the HSR system than those
without children.
Indigenous status§
Respondents of Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander background were more likely to be aware
of the HSR system graphic as a food logo than
non-Indigenous Australians.
Table B16. Children at home
Table B13. Indigenous status
Children at home
Respondents (%)
Indigenous status
Respondents (%)
With children
57.8
Indigenous
62.2
No children
51.3
Non-Indigenous
53.0
2.3.3 Section C: Knowledge and
understanding of the Health Star
Rating system
Language spoken at home
Respondents who speak a language other than
English at home were slightly more likely to be aware of
the HSR system.
Table B14. Language
Language
Respondents (%)
English only
52.8
Other than English
55.0
Location – metropolitan vs regional/rural
Respondents living in metropolitan areas were
slightly more likely to be aware of the HSR system
than those living in regional or rural areas of
Australia.
Understanding of what the HSR system means
For respondents who were aware of the HSR
system (n = 1,084), around two in three were
aware that the HSR system is a rating scale of the
healthiness of a food product or a comparison
between two products in the same category
(Figure C1).
However, one in 10 respondents who were aware of
the HSR system were unsure about what the HSR
system graphic represents on the packaging of a food
product.
Table B15. Residential location
Location
Respondents (%)
Metro
54.4
Regional/rural
50.4
Figure C1. When the HSR system graphic is on the packaging of food, what do you think it means? (Sample: 1,084)
§
Caution in using this result, due to small sample size (Indigenous).
34
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system – Year 1
Chapter 2 – Area of Enquiry
2
Knowledge of what the HSR system
represents±
Age group
While as a proportion of respondents under the age of
35 were most likely to be aware of the HSR system
compared to those aged 35 and over, they were
however less likely to know that the HSR system is a
comparative rating scale of the healthiness of food.
Table C1. Age group
Age group
Respondents (%)
Under 35
61.2
Between 35 to 54
68.3
55 or over
67.3
Gender
Not only were females more likely than males to be
aware of the HSR system, females were also more likely
than males to know what the HSR system represents.
Table C2. Gender
Gender
Respondents (%)
Female
68.9%
Males
61.8%
Household income
Respondents with an annual household income of less
than $50,000 were the least likely to be aware of the
HSR system, and if they were aware of the HSR
system, they were least likely to know what the rating
system represents.
Table C3. Household income
Income
Respondents (%)
<$50,000
61.9
$50,000 to $99,999
66.1
$100,000 or more
67.5
BMI
Despite respondents with a BMI of at least 25 being
less likely to be aware of the HSR system, they were
more likely to know what it represents on food
packaging compared to those with a BMI of <25.
Language spoken at home
Respondents who speak English only at home were
significantly more likely to know that the HSR system
is a comparative rating scale of the healthiness of
food.
Table C5. Language
Language
Respondents (%)
English only
66.6
Other than English
59.9
Location – metropolitan vs regional/rural
A respondent’s place of residence has little influence on
whether they know what the HSR system represents on
a food product.
Table C6. Residential location
Location
Respondents (%)
Metro
65.2
Regional/rural
66.1
Household structure – children
There was minimal difference in the level of knowledge
of the HSR system between respondents who have
children living at home and those without any children in
the household.
Table C7. Children at home
Children at home
Respondents (%)
With children
66.0
No children
65.0
Understanding about how the number of
stars on a product is determined
Respondents were asked their opinion about how the
number of stars on a product is determined (Figure C2).
Almost one-third of respondents believed the number of
stars is determined through nutritional analysis.
However, one in three were unsure about how the
number of stars on a product is determined.
Table C4. BMI
BMI
Respondents (%)
<25.0
64.8
25.0 to 29.9
69.0
30.0
67.2
Tables C1 to C7: When the HSR system is on the packaging of food, what do you think it means? Sample: Age Group – Under 35 (n=389), 35 to 54 (n=331), 55
and over (n=364). Gender – Females (n=547), Males (n=537). Gross Household Income – <$50,000 (n=310), $50,000 to $99,999 (n=383), $100,000 or more
(n=252). Body Mass Index – Less than 25.0 (n=418), 25.0 to 29.9 (n=300), ≥ 30.0 (n=195). Language – English only (n=872), Language other than English
(n=197). Location – Metro (n=798), Regional/rural (n=286). Children at Home – With Children (n=382), No Children (n=685).
±
National Heart Foundation of Australia 35
Chapter 2 – Area of Enquiry
2
Figure C2. In your opinion, how is the number of stars on a product determined? (Sample: 1,084)
Statements about the HSR system
The majority of respondents believed the HSR system
makes it easier to identify the healthier option within a
category (74%) and to compare products that are in the
same category in the supermarket (73%). Both results
are on par with the earlier results from April 2015.
Seven in 10 respondents agreed the HSR system
helps them think about the healthiness of food, and
approximately three in five stated the system helps
them make decisions about which foods to buy
(61%) and makes them want to buy healthier
products (58%).
Just over one-quarter of respondents (28%) believed
the HSR system graphic is just another logo that
makes shopping more confusing, while a further 30%
sit on the fence, neither agreeing nor disagreeing with
this statement.
Using the HSR system
reported that they would use the HSR system to either
compare the healthiness of products, to select the
product that is healthier or use it as a quick reference
guide. However, more than one-third of respondents were
either unsure how they would use the HSR system or
reported that they wouldn’t use it at all.
Understanding what one star or five stars means
Respondents were asked about their understanding of
what one star on a product means (Figure C4).
More than three-quarters reported they believe that one
star represents an unhealthy product or a product of
little nutritious value. One in 10 reported they believe
one star signifies a product that is less healthy than
products with more stars.
Respondents were also asked what they believe five
stars on a product means (Figure C5). The majority
(88%) stated it represents a product that is the ‘the
healthiest choice’ and one that is ‘good for your health’.
Respondents were asked how they would use the HSR
system (Figure C3). More than 60% of respondents
Table C8. How strongly do you agree or disagree that the HSR system? (Sample: 1,084)
Strongly agree/agree
(%)
Apr-15
73
Strongly agree/agree
(%)
Sep-15
74
Makes it easier for me to compare products that are in the same category in the supermarket
74
73
Helps me think about the healthiness of food
73
71
Makes it easier for me to identify the healthier option across all categories
n/a
68
Helps me make decisions about which foods to buy
67
61
Makes it easier for me to compare products that are in the different categories in the supermarket
51
58
Makes me want to buy healthier products
62
57
It’s just another thing on a pack that makes shopping more confusing
24
28
Makes it easier for me to identify the healthier option within a category
36
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system – Year 1
Chapter 2 – Area of Enquiry
2
Figure C3. How would you use the HSR system? (Sample: 1,084)
Figure C4. If a food product has one star, what do you think this means? (Sample: 1,084)
Figure C5. If a food product has five stars, what do you think this means? (Sample: 1,084)
National Heart Foundation of Australia 37
Chapter 2 – Area of Enquiry
2
Statements about HSR system – a product
with more stars…
Respondents were asked a series of statements about
products with the HSR system graphic (Table C9).
Table C10. The HSR system graphic can be displayed in
five different ways. Please select the style you believe is
the easiest to understand? (Sample: 1,084)
In comparison with products that have less stars, more
than three-quarters of respondents agreed a product
with more stars is a healthier option.
Almost one-third of respondents (30%) were uncertain
(neither agreed nor disagreed or were unsure)
whether a product with more stars is healthy. Similarly,
there was some ambiguity around whether a product
with more stars was more expensive than a product
with less stars.
More than half of the respondents disagreed with the
statement that you can consume a product with
more stars ‘as much as you like’ compared to a
product with less stars, with more than one-quarter
‘uncertain’. Similarly, almost half disagreed that a
product with more stars does not taste as good as a
product with less stars. Again, a proportion of
respondents were ambiguous to whether they
agreed or disagreed with this statement.
The HSR system graphic was displayed in the five
different options available. Respondents were asked
which they believe is easiest to understand (Table
C10), to recognise (Table C11) and which provides
sufficient information (Table C12).
Easiest to understand
More than half of respondents choose the most detailed
HSR system graphic (Option 1) with additional nutrient
information as the ‘easiest to understand’, followed by
the next most detailed HSR system graphic (Option 2,
21%) and the single circle HSR system graphic (Option
4, 20%).
Table C9. How strongly do you agree or disagree that a product with more stars means…? (Sample: 1,084)
Strongly agree/
Agree (%)
Neither (%)
Strongly disagree/
Disagree (%)
Unsure (%)
It is a healthier option compared to a similar food product with less stars
78
16
5
1
It is a healthier option compared to a food product with less stars
76
16
6
2
It is healthy
63
28
8
2
It is more expensive than a product with less stars
26
39
30
5
You can eat it as much as you like compared to a product with less stars
17
26
55
2
It does not taste as good as a product with less stars
14
33
49
4
38
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system – Year 1
Chapter 2 – Area of Enquiry
2
Easiest to recognise
Provides sufficient information
Similar to ease of understanding, the HSR system
graphic with the most detailed nutrient information
(Option 1) was also selected by respondents as the
easiest to recognise. Almost one-third believed the
single circle HSR system graphic (Option 4) was the
easiest to recognise.
Along with being the easiest to understand and
recognise, the HSR system graphic with the most detailed
nutrient information (Option 1) was the favourite, most
commonly identified as providing sufficient information, at
62%.
Table C11. The HSR system graphic can be displayed
in five different ways. Please select the style you
believe is the easiest to recognise? (Sample: 1,084)
Table C12. The HSR system graphic can be displayed in
five different ways. Please select the style you believe
provides sufficient information? (Sample: 1,084)
Provides sufficient information
Easiest to recognise
HSR graphic
Respondents
(%)
HSR graphic
Respondents
(%)
45%
62%
32%
21%
16%
11%
7%
5%
1%
1%
National Heart Foundation of Australia 39
Chapter 2 – Area of Enquiry
2
Preferred option
Not surprisingly, the HSR system graphic voted
easiest to understand, easiest to recognise and
provides the most sufficient information (Option 1),
was chosen as the preferred choice by a significant
proportion of respondents (57%).
Table C13. Overall, please select the style you
prefer the most? (Sample: 1,084)
Preferred choice
HSR graphic
The other HSR system graphic that also provides
additional information was selected by one in five as their
most preferred option (Option 2).
Respondents
(%)
57%
Reasons for preference
Providing detailed information and ease of understanding
were the two most common reasons for preference
(Figure C6). More than two in three respondents who
selected the two HSR system graphics that include
nutrient information (Option 1, Option 2) reported that
their selection was based on the HSR system graphic
providing detailed information.
Nine in 10 respondents who selected the HSR system
graphic with just the single circle graphic (Option 4)
reported that it was their preferred choice as it was easy
to understand or simple.
21%
16%
5%
1%
Figure C6. Why do you prefer that option? (Sample: 1,084)
40
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system – Year 1
Chapter 2 – Area of Enquiry
2
2.3.4 Section D. Purchasing behaviours¶
Of those aware of the HSR system, more than two in five
reported that in the past three months they had
purchased a product with the HSR system graphic.
Even though there were no significant differences by age,
educational attainment and annual household income
range, males were significantly more likely than females
to have purchased a product displaying the HSR system
graphic (49% ct 41%; p=0.008).
Those who spoke a language other than English at home
were more likely to have purchased a product displaying
the HSR system graphic than those who spoke English
only at home (56% ct 42%; p=0.000).
Even though not significant, those with a BMI in the
normal weight range (<25) were more likely to have
purchased a product that had the HSR system than
those with a BMI in the overweight or obese range (≥25).
Table D1. In the past three months have you purchased a
product that had the HSR system graphic? (Sample:
1,084)
Yes
Respondents
(%) Apr-15
8
Respondents
(%) Sep-15
45
No
41
10
Unsure
51
45
Table D2. Age group
Age group
Respondents (%)
Under 35
46.5
Between 35 to 54
48.9
55 or over
40.1
Table D3. BMI
BMI
Respondents (%)
<25.0
48.6
25.0 to 29.9
45.3
30.0
38.5
Table D4. Household income
Gross household income
Respondents (%)
<$50,000
40.6
$50,000 to $99,999
48.0
$100,000 or more
46.8
Table D5. Gender
Gender
Respondents (%)
Females
41.4
Males
48.8
Table D6. Language
Language
Respondents (%)
English only
42.3
Other than English
55.8
Table D7. Children at home
Children at home
Respondents (%)
With children
48.7
No children
42.7
Table D8. Residential location
Location
Respondents (%)
Metro
45.9
Regional/rural
43.0
HSR system influenced choice
More than half of respondents reported having the
HSR system graphic on a product influenced their
purchasing choice.
Those with a BMI in the healthy range were
significantly more likely to state that the HSR system
on a product influenced their purchasing choice than
those with a BMI in the overweight and obese range
(61% ct 51%; p=0.04).
Similar to purchasing a product with the HSR system
graphic, those who were born overseas were more
likely to state having the HSR system graphic on the
product influenced their purchasing choice (53% ct
63%; p=0.04).
Similarly, those who spoke a language other than
English at home were more likely to state the HSR
system influenced their purchasing choice than those
who spoke English only at home (77% ct 50%;
p<0.001).
Table D9. Did the HSR system graphic on the
product influence your choice? (Sample: 489)
Respondents
(%) Sep-15
Yes
56
No
37
Unsure
7
Tables D2 to D8: In the past three months have you purchased a product that had the HSR system? Sample: Age Group – Under 35 (n=389), 35 to 54
(n=331), 55 and over (n=364). Gender – Females (n=547), Males (n=537). Gross Household Income – <$50,000 (n=310), $50,000 to $99,999 (n=383),
$100,000 or more
(n=252). Body Mass Index – Less than 25.0 (n=418), 25.0 to 29.9 (n=300), ≥ 30.0 (n=195). Language – English only (n=872), Language other than English
(n=197). Location – Metro (n=798), Regional/rural (n=286). Children at Home – With Children (n=382), No Children (n=685).
¶
National Heart Foundation of Australia 41
Chapter 2 – Area of Enquiry
2
How the HSR system influenced choice
Continue to buy the product
More than two in five respondents who reported the
HSR system influenced their purchasing choice stated
it confirmed they should buy their usual products. More
than one-third of respondents chose a product with
more stars that they don’t often buy.
Nine in 10 respondents who reported choosing a
product (that they don’t often buy or have never tried
before) because it had more stars, stated they have
continued or will continue to buy the products in the
future.
Table D10. How did it influence your choice?
(Sample: 273)
Table D11. Have you continued or will continue to buy
the product? (Sample: 273)
Respondents
(%) Sep-15
Yes
Respondents
(%) Sep-15
90
No
2
Unsure
8
It confirmed I should buy my usual product
45
I chose a product with more stars that I don’t
often buy
37
I chose a product with more stars that I’ve
never tried before
11
I chose not to buy my usual product because
it had fewer stars than other options
Likelihood of the HSR system influencing
choices in the future
7
Almost three-quarters of those who purchased a
product with the HSR system graphic reported the
rating system will likely influence the choices they
make in the future when buying food.
Reasons why the HSR system didn’t influence
choice
For those who stated the HSR system did not
influence their purchasing choice, more than half
stated it was because they choose their preferred
choice.
Other reasons were they were confident in choosing
healthy food, issues surrounding the HSR system and
there are more important factors when shopping
(Figure D1).
Males were more likely than females to state the HSR
system will influence the choices they make in the
future when buying food (74% ct 68%, p=0.03).
Those who spoke a language other than English at
home were more likely to state the HSR system will
influence the choices they make in the future when
buying food, compared to those who only speak English
at home (83% ct 69%; p=0.001).
Figure D1. Why didn’t the HSR system influence your choice? (Sample: 180)
42
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system – Year 1
Chapter 2 – Area of Enquiry
2
Table D12. Have you continued or will continue to buy
the product? (Sample: 1,084)
Very likely
Respondents
(%) Sep-15
19
Likely
53
Unlikely
14
Very unlikely
7
Unsure
7
HSR system graphic comparison – which is
the healthier option?
For the first two scenarios, nine in 10 respondents
were able to choose the healthier option. In scenario
three, when the information icons were added,
respondents were slightly less likely to choose the
healthier option.
Table D15. Please select which you think is a
healthier option in each pair? (Sample: 1,084)
Scenario 3
These are the same
Respondents
(%) Apr-15
Respondents
(%) Sep-15
3
5
Scenario 4
These are the same
90
*Results
for September
These are
the same 2015 add to 101%
7 due to rounding.
91
5
Respondents
(%) Apr-15
Respondents
(%) Sep-15
4
3
89
93
Scenario 5
7
4
These are the same
These are the same
11
10
81
83
8
7
Respondents
(%) Apr-15
Respondents
(%) Sep-15
6
9
6
12
87
78
Table D17. Please select which you think is a
healthier option in each pair? (Sample: 1,084)
Table D14. Please select which you think is a
healthier option in each pair? (Sample: 1,084)
Scenario 2
Respondents
(%) Sep-15
Table D16. Please select which you think is a
healthier option in each pair? (Sample: 1,084)
Table D13. Please select which you think is a
healthier option in each pair? (Sample: 1,084)*
Scenario 1
Respondents
(%) Apr-15
Respondents
(%) Apr-15
Respondents
(%) Sep-15
67
56
8
13
25
31
National Heart Foundation of Australia 43
Chapter 2 – Area of Enquiry
2
Foods and/or beverages purchased in the
supermarket displaying the HSR system
graphic
The most popular food and/or beverages purchased
in the supermarket displaying the HSR system
graphic was breakfast cereals, with almost three in
five respondents reported that they purchased
breakfast cereals with the HSR system graphic. This
was followed by ‘yoghurt and dairy desserts’ (34%),
‘cereal bars, nut/seed bars/ fruit bars’ (33%) and
‘margarines and spreads (including butter)’ (33%).
Figure D2. Please select which foods and/or beverages you purchased in the supermarket which had the HSR system
graphic on them? (Sample: 507)
44
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system – Year 1
Chapter 2 – Area of Enquiry
2
Foods and/or beverages on which it is
important to display the HSR system graphic
Breakfast cereals were most commonly identified
as important food products to display the HSR
system graphic, at 73%. This was followed by
‘cereal bars, nut/seed bars/fruit bars’ (67%) and
‘ready meals/meal kits’ (64%) and ‘yoghurt and
dairy desserts’ (63%).
Figure D3. Please select which foods and/or beverages you believe it is important to have the HSR system graphic on
them? (Sample: 1,084)
National Heart Foundation of Australia 45
Chapter 2 – Area of Enquiry
2
2.3.5 Section E. Advertising awareness
Source of HSR system advertising
Awareness of HSR system advertising
When asked where they had seen, heard or read the
advertising, half of respondents reported they saw a
‘TV advertisement’ about the HSR system. This was
followed by ‘on food packaging’ and ‘in a supermarket
catalogue’.
Respondents were asked if they had seen, heard or
read any advertising or promotions about the HSR
system in the last three months. Only one in five
respondents reported that they were aware of any
advertising or promotions related to the HSR system.
Respondents under the age of 55 were significantly more
likely to be aware of HSR system advertising or
promotions than those aged 55 and over (24% ct 12%,
p<0.0001).
Those with a university education were more likely to
be aware of the advertising or promotions than
respondents without a university education (23% ct
17%; p=0.014).
Those who spoke a language other than English at
home were more likely to be aware of HSR system
advertising or promotional activity compared to those
who only speak English at home (33% ct 17%;
p<0.0001).
Organisation that conducted the advertising
More than half of respondents reported that they
were ‘unsure’ who was responsible for the
advertising or promotion in relation to the HSR
system that they had seen or heard (Figure E2).
Other responses include ‘product/brand specified’,
‘supermarket chain’ and the ‘Government’.
Product advertised or promoted
Almost two in five respondents reported that they were
‘unsure’ what product or products were being
advertised (Figure E3). Breakfast cereals were most
commonly mentioned by respondents, at 26%.
Table E1. In the last three months, do you remember
seeing, hearing or reading any advertising or
promotions about the HSR system? (Sample: 1,084)
Yes
Respondents
(%) Sep-15
20
No
59
Unsure
21
Figure E1. Where had you seen or heard about the HSR system? (Sample: 217)
46
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system – Year 1
Chapter 2 – Area of Enquiry
2
Influence advertising had on purchasing
a product with the HSR system graphic
Almost half of respondents stated that they purchased a
product with the HSR system graphic that they wouldn’t
normally buy, as a result of seeing, hearing or reading
the advertisement.
Table E2. After seeing or hearing this advertising or
promotion(s) for products with a HSR system graphic,
did it influence you to buy a product or products you
normally wouldn’t buy? (Sample: 217)
Yes
Respondents
(%) Sep-15
48
No
45
Unsure
7
Figure E2. Which organisation or company did the advertising or promotion(s)? (Sample: 217)
Figure E3. What product or products were being advertised or promoted? (Sample: 217)
National Heart Foundation of Australia 47
Chapter 2 – Area of Enquiry
2
2.3.6 Section F: Attitudes and
perceptions about the HSR system
Statements about the HSR system –
perceptions and attitudes
Respondents were provided with a series of statements
about the HSR system. The majority of respondents
(almost three-quarters) agreed that the HSR system is
‘easy to use’ and ‘easy to understand’.
Even though around three in five respondents agreed
that the HSR system ‘makes choosing food easier’
and is personally relevant to them and their family,
some level of ambiguity exists with just over onequarter neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the
statements.
Similarly, approximately one in three respondents
were uncertain whether the HSR system is credible,
reliable, trustworthy, open and transparent.
Table F1. How strongly do you agree or disagree that the HSR system…? (Sample: 1,084)
Strongly agree/
Agree (%)
Sep-14
Strongly agree/
Agree (%)
Apr-15
Strongly agree/
Agree (%)
Sep-15
34
38
51
Is easy to understand
67
59
72
Is easy to use
n/a
58
72
Is a system I trust
Table F2. How strongly do you agree or disagree that the HSR system…? (Sample: 1,084)
Strongly agree/
Agree (%)
Neither (%)
Strongly disagree/
Disagree (%)
Unsure
(%)
Is relevant to my family
60
27
12
1
Is personally relevant to me
58
28
13
1
Table F3. How strongly do you agree or disagree that the HSR system…? (Sample: 1,084)
Strongly agree/Agree
(%)
Neither (%)
Strongly disagree/
Disagree (%)
Unsure
(%)
Makes choosing food easier
62
27
10
1
Is a credible system
57
29
11
3
Is a reliable system
54
32
10
3
Is open and transparent
50
35
12
3
Is hard to see on the package
26
35
36
2
Is confusing
19
27
53
1
Has a poor reputation
17
34
42
6
48
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system – Year 1
Chapter 2 – Area of Enquiry
2
Trust in the HSR system**
Table F8. Language
Respondents aged 55 or over were significantly less
likely than those under the age of 55 to trust the HSR
system.
Similarly, respondents with a household income of less
than $50,000 per annum, those with a BMI of 30 or
higher or those who speak English only at home were
also significantly less likely to trust the HSR system.
Table F4. Age group
Age group
Respondents (%)
Under 35
46.5
Between 35 to 54
48.9
55 or over
40.1
Respondents (%)
<25.0
48.6
25.0 to 29.9
45.3
30.0
38.5
English only
42.3
Other than English
55.8
Table F9. Gender
Gender
Respondents (%)
Females
41.4
Males
48.8
Location
Respondents (%)
Metro
45.9
Regional/rural
43.0
Level of confidence in the HSR system
Three in five respondents who were aware of the
HSR system reported they have a ‘high’ or
‘somewhat high’ level of confidence in the rating
system (Figure F1). There was no real difference by
gender and age categories, BMI range, educational
attainment or household income status.
Table F6. Household
Income
Gross household income
Respondents (%)
Table F10. Residential location
Table F5. BMI
BMI
Language
Respondents (%)
<$50,000
40.6
$50,000 to $99,999
48.0
$100,000 or more
46.8
Those who speak a language other than English at
home were significantly more likely to have a high or
somewhat high level of confidence in the HSR system
than those who speak English only at home (72% ct
57%; p=0.001).
Table F7. Children at home
Children at home
Respondents (%)
With children
48.7
No children
42.7
Figure F1. Overall, what level of confidence do you have in the HSR system? (Sample: 1,084)
** Tables F4 to F10: How strongly do you agree or disagree that the HSR system is a system that I trust? Sample: Age Group - Under 35 (n=389), 35 to 54
(n=331), 55 and over (n=364). Gender – Females (n=547), Males (n=537). Gross Household Income - <$50,000 (n=310), $50,000 to $99,999 (n=383),
$100,000 or more (n=252). Body Mass Index – Less than 25.0 (n=418), 25.0 to 29.9 (n=300), ≥ 30.0 (n=195). Language – English only (n=872), Language
other than English (n=197). Location – Metro (n=798), Regional / Rural (n=286). Children at Home – With Children (n=382), No Children (n=685).
National Heart Foundation of Australia 49
Chapter 2 – Area of Enquiry
2
2.3.7 Section G: Health attitudes and
behaviours
Concern about the healthiness of food
purchased
Almost two in five respondents reported they were
‘extremely’ or ‘very’ concerned about the healthiness
of the food they buy. Older respondents (55 years
and over) were significantly more likely than their
younger counterparts to report they were ‘extremely’
or ‘very’ concerned (44% ct 31%; p=<0.0001).
Females were markedly more likely than males to be
concerned about the healthiness of food they buy (43%
ct 33%; p=0.005).
Those with a university education were significantly
more likely to be concerned with the healthiness of the
food they purchase compared to those without a
university education (42% ct 34%; p=0.0002).
There was no significant difference between BMI
range, annual household income, language spoken at
home and whether born in Australia or overseas.
Respondents aware of the HSR system were
significantly more likely to be ‘extremely’ or ‘very’
concerned about their health, but there was very little
difference between respondents who purchased
products with the HSR system graphic or not, and
whether they are ‘extremely’ or ‘very’ concerned about
their health.
Table G1. In general, thinking about all the food you
buy, how concerned are you about how healthy the food
is for you? (Sample: 2,036)
Extremely concerned
Respondents
(%) Sep-15
13
Very concerned
26
Moderately concerned
37
A little concerned
20
Not at all concerned
4
Unsure
1
Those with a university education were significantly
more likely than those without one to perceive their diet
as ‘healthy’ or ‘very healthy’ (68% ct 61%; p=0.001).
Respondents aware of the HSR system and those who
reported purchasing products with the HSR system
graphic were significantly more likely to report that
their diet is either ‘healthy’ or ‘very healthy’.
Table G2. Thinking about your diet, would you say that
what you usually eat is? (Sample: 2,036)
Very healthy
Respondents
(%) Sep-15
8
Healthy
56
Neither healthy nor unhealthy
30
Unhealthy
4
Very unhealthy
1
Unsure
1
Changes to diet over the last six months
Just below two in five respondents made changes to
their diet over the last six months.
Females were significantly more likely to report having
made changes to their diet over the last six months
compared to males (44% ct 35%; p<0.0001). Older
respondents (aged 55 years and over) were
significantly more likely to report having made changes
to their diet over the last six months than their younger
counterparts (48% ct 32%; p<0.0001).
No significant differences existed between
socioeconomic status, language spoken at home and
BMI range.
Respondents aware of the HSR system and those who
had purchased products with the HSR system graphic
were significantly more likely to report that they had
made changes to their diet in the past six months (49%
ct 32%, p<.001).
Table G3. Over the past six months, have you made
any changes to your diet? (Sample: 2,036)
Respondents
(%) Sep-15
Perceived healthiness of diet
Almost two-thirds of respondents perceived their diet
to be ‘healthy’ or ‘very healthy’. Almost one-third of
respondents (31%) were uncertain or unsure whether
their diet is ‘healthy’ or ‘unhealthy’. Older
respondents (55 years and over) were more likely to
perceive their diet as ‘healthy’ or ‘very healthy’
compared to younger respondents (18 to 34 years)
(74% ct 57%; p<0.0001). Respondents with a BMI in
the normal weight range were significantly more likely
than those with a BMI in the overweight or obese
range to perceive their diet as ‘healthy’ or ‘very
healthy’ (74% ct 60%; p<0.0001).
50
Yes
39
No
58
Unsure
4
Type of changes made to diet
When asked what changes they made to their diet, the
three most common changes include changing the
types of food they eat (67%), changing the amount of
food they eat (57%) and excluding/cutting out types of
food from their diet (43%).
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system – Year 1
Chapter 2 – Area of Enquiry
2
Figure G1. Which of the following changes have you made in the past six months to your diet? (Sample: 794)
Figure G2. For which of the following reasons did you make changes to your diet? (Sample: 794)
Reasons for making changes to diet
Almost two-thirds of respondents stated they made
changes to their diet ‘to improve their physical health’.
Three in five respondents stated they made changes to
their diet ‘to lose weight’ and almost half of respondents
changed their diet ‘to feel better’.
those with a BMI in the overweight or obese range to
perceive their overall health as ‘excellent’ or ‘very
good’ (48% ct 29%; p<0.001).
More than two in five respondents (44%) with an
annual household income of $100,000 or more
perceived their overall health as ‘excellent’ or ‘very
good’, compared to 30% of those with a lower
Perceived overall health
More than one-third of respondents perceived their overall household income (p<0.001). Similarly, more than two
in five respondents with a university education
health to be ‘excellent’ or ‘very good’, with a further 42%
perceiving their overall health as ‘good’. In contrast, close perceived their overall health as ‘excellent’ or ‘very
good’, compared to 30% of those with a lower
to one-quarter perceived their health to be ‘fair’ or ‘poor’.
education level (p<0.001). Respondents aware of the
There were no notable differences within age and gender HSR system and those who had purchased products
categories and perceived health. Those with a BMI in the displaying the HSR system graphic were significantly
normal weight range were significantly more likely than
more likely to perceive their overall health to be
‘excellent’ or ‘very good’ (46% ct 32%, p<.001).
National Heart Foundation of Australia 51
Chapter 2 – Area of Enquiry
2
Table G4. In general, would you say your overall health
is? (Sample: 2,036)
Respondents
(%) Sep-15
Excellent
6
Very good
30
Good
42
Fair
18
Poor
4
Physical activity levels
Sufficient physical activity for Australians 18 years and
older was measured against the guidelines
recommending 150 minutes from five or more sessions
per week.15
Just below one-quarter of respondents reported
undertaking at least 150 minutes of moderate to
vigorous physical activity per week.
Those with a BMI in the normal weight range were most
likely to meet the recommended guidelines for
moderate to vigorous activity, considerably higher than
those with a BMI in the obese range (28% ct 18%;
p=0.002).
Table G5. In a typical week, on how many days would
you do moderate or vigorous physical activity for at least
30 minutes? (Sample: 2,036)
Daily intake of fruit and vegetables
Intake of fruit and vegetables for Australians ages 18
years and older was measured against the guidelines
recommending at least two serves of fruit and five
serves of vegetables daily.16
Just over half of respondents reported regularly
consuming two or more serves of fruit daily. Females
were significantly more likely to report consuming the
recommended servings of fruit per day than males
(54% ct 48%; p=0.05).
Those with a university education were more likely than
those without to report they consume two or more
serves of fruit daily (57% ct 46%; p<0.0001).
More than half (56%) of respondents with a BMI
in the normal weight range reported consuming
the recommended servings of fruit daily,
compared to 41% of those with a BMI in the
obese range (p<0.0001).
Table G6. How many serves of fruit (including fresh,
dried, frozen and tinned fruit) do you usually eat each
day? (Sample: 2,036)
1–2 serves
Respondents
(%) Sep-15
46
3–4 serves
39
5 serves or more
9
Don’t eat vegetables
2
Meet guideline
9
None
Respondents
(%) Sep-15
16
One day
13
Two days
16
Three days
18
Four days
10
Five days
11
Six days
5
Seven days
8
Unsure
2
1 serves
Respondents
(%) Sep-15
38
Meet guideline
24
2 serves
37
3 serves or more
15
Don’t eat fruit
7
Unsure
4
Meet guideline
51
52
Only one in 11 respondents reported that they
regularly consume five or more serves of vegetables
daily.
Table G7. How many serves of vegetables (including
fresh, frozen and tinned vegetables) do you usually
eat each day? (Sample: 2,036)
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system – Year 1
Chapter 3
Area of Enquiry 3
Nutrient status of products carrying
a HSR system graphic
National Heart Foundation of Australia 53
National Heart Foundation of Australia 53
Chapter 3 – Area of Enquiry
3
3.1 Chapter summary
55
3.1.1 Nutrient status of products displaying the HSR system graphic at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)
3.2 Methodology
55
56
3.2.1 Data analysis
3.3 Results
56
56
3.3.1 Nutrient status of products displaying the HSR system graphic at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)
Figure 3.1. Number of products (n) displaying each HSR on pack, at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)
Figure 3.2. Mean HSR displayed on pack, by HSR Category Class, at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)
56
56
57
Figure 3.3. Number of products (n) displaying each HSR on pack, by HSR Category Class, at Year 1
(June 2014 to June 2015)
57
Table 3.1. Number of products (n) in each HSR Category Class, by HSR vs non-HSR products, for
each nutrient, at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)
58
Figure 3.4. Mean energy content of HSR vs non-HSR products, by HSR Category Class at Year 1
(June 2014 to June 2015)
59
Figure 3.5. Mean saturated fat content of HSR vs non-HSR products, by HSR Category Class at Year 1
(June 2014 to June 2015)
59
Figure 3.6. Mean sugars content of HSR vs non-HSR products, by HSR Category Class at Year 1
(June 2014 to June 2015)
60
Figure 3.7. Mean sodium content of HSR vs non-HSR products, by HSR Category Class at Year 1
(June 2014 to June 2015)
60
Figure 3.8. Mean protein content of HSR vs non-HSR products, by HSR Category Class at Year 1 (
June 2014 to June 2015)
61
Figure 3.9. Mean fibre content of HSR vs non-HSR products, by HSR Category Class at Year 1
(June 2014 to June 2015)
61
54
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system – Year 1
Chapter 3 – Area of Enquiry
3
3.1 Chapter summary
3.1.1 Nutrient status of products
displaying the HSR system graphic at
Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)
 The most commonly displayed HSR on pack was
4.0, which was on 30% of products displaying the
HSR system graphic.
 The lowest star ratings (0.5, 1.0) were displayed on
the least number of products (n = 2, both).
 For products that displayed the HSR system
graphic, the mean HSR was 4.0.
 The mean HSR was greatest for the ‘1 –
Beverages’ Category Class (4.5) and lowest for the
‘3 – Oils and spreads’ Category Class (2.0).
 The ‘2 – Food’ Category Class had the majority
of products displaying the HSR system graphic
(86%).
 For each nutrient that underpins the HSRC (energy,
saturated fat, sugars, sodium, protein and fibre)1, the
mean nutrient content per 100 g/100 mL was similar
between HSR products and non-HSR products
across all HSR Category Classes.
Option 1
HSR + energy icon + 3
prescribed nutrient icons +
optional nutrient
Option 3
HSR + energy
icon
Option 2
HSR + energy icon + 3
prescribed nutrient icons
Option 4
HSR
only
Option 5
Energy icon
only
National Heart Foundation of Australia 55
Chapter 3 – Area of Enquiry
3
3.2 Methodology
To conduct part of this assessment, CSIRO software
engineers developed automated reporting scripts in
FoodTrackTM that provided reports relating to the nutrient
status of products displaying the HSR system. The
following parameters were used:
As there is no comparator, i.e. these were Year 1
measurements (June 2014 to June 2015), no
assessment against changes to the formulation of
products displaying the HSR system graphic over time
was possible. It is anticipated that this additional work
will be able to be conducted for Year 2 reporting.
It should be noted that due to the small sample sizes of
 Descriptive statistics including category and group counts products displaying the HSR system graphic, when
 Distribution of HSR by HSR Category Class and overall broken down by HSR Category Class, no statistical
analysis comparing the groups was able to be
 Mean HSR by HSR Category Class and overall
performed. These results are therefore primarily
 Mean nutrient values, by HSR Category Class, and by descriptive. It is anticipated when the volume of products
displaying the HSR system graphic increases (for Year
the following three groups:
1), statistical comparisons will be able to be conducted
- products displaying the HSR system graphic (‘HSR for some variables.
products’)
- products not displaying the HSR system graphic
(‘non-HSR products’)
- whole HSR Category Class* (‘whole category’).
For the automated reporting, a series of rules was
created in FoodTrackTM:
 all product NIP data was for the product ‘as consumed’
 for categories that have NIP data as ‘dry/undiluted’ only,
these were calculated separately; ‘Hot cereals –
flavoured’, ‘Hot cereals – plain’, ‘Pasta & Noodles –
plain’
 All NIP data to be reported 100 g/100 mL
3.2.1 Data analysis
Unless specified, all analyses for AoE 3 were conducted
in Microsoft Excel 2013. Automated reporting scripts
were developed for use in FoodTrack TM, a cloud-based
SQL database.
3.3 Results
3.3.1 Nutrient status of products
displaying the HSR system graphic
at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)
The number of products displaying each HSR on pack is
outlined in Figure 3.1. The most commonly displayed
 NIP data with ‘<’ values was treated as a whole
HSR on pack was 4.0, which was on 30% of products.
number, eg. ‘<1’ treated as 1
Similar levels of presence were seen for HSRs 3.5, 4.5
 any data that was missing (N/A) was treated as missing and 5.0. The lowest star ratings, 0.5 and 1.0, were
data, not zero.
displayed on the least number of products (n = 2, both).
Figure 3.1. Number of products (n) displaying each HSR on pack, at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)
*It was not possible to conduct this work by HSR Category as the sample sizes were too small.
56
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system – Year 1
Chapter 3 – Area of Enquiry
3
For products that displayed the HSR system
graphic at Year 1, the mean HSR was 4.0.† Figure
3.2 shows the mean HSR by HSR Category
Class. There were no products at Year 1
displaying the HSR system graphic that belonged
to the ‘2D – Dairy food’ Category Class. The
mean HSR was greatest for ‘1 – Beverages’ (4.5),
and lowest for ‘3 – Oils and spreads’ (2.0)‡.
The number of products displaying each HSR on
pack across the five HSR Category Classes is
outlined in Figure 3.3. The majority of products were
observed in the ‘2 – Food’ Category Class across all
HSRs except 0.5 and 1.0. This is reflective of the
fact that 86% of products displaying the HSR system
at Year 1 fell into the ‘2 – Food’ Category Class. The
large majority (27/32) of products in the ‘1 –
Beverages’ Category Class displayed 5.0 stars.
Figure 3.2. Mean HSR displayed on pack, by HSR Category Class, at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)
Figure 3.3. Number of products (n) displaying each HSR on pack, by HSR Category Class, at
Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)
†
Excludes products displaying Option 5, energy icon only, as this cannot be quantified as a single HSR.
‡
Category Class product counts are as follows: n=3, 2, 285, 9 and 32 for Class 3, 3D, 2, 1D and 1, respectively.
National Heart Foundation of Australia 57
Chapter 3 – Area of Enquiry
3
graphic at Year 1 (‘non-HSR products’) varied across
nutrients, this is reflective of missing data on-pack. The
count varied for fibre for both products displaying the HSR
system graphic (‘HSR products’) and those not displaying
the HSR system graphic (‘non-HSR products’) as it is not
mandatory to list fibre on the NIP, and therefore the
counts are lower for fibre than all other nutrients listed
(Table 3.1).
Those products in the ‘1D – Dairy beverages’ Category
Class all displayed 3.0 stars or more, where as those in
the ‘3 – Oils and spreads’ and ‘3D – Cheese and
processed cheese’ all displayed 3.0 stars or less. Note
the small sample size, however, in these latter two HSR
Category Classes (n = 5 in total)‡.
This next section compares the nutrient status of
products displaying the HSR system graphic at Year 1
(June 2014 to June 2015) to that of products without
the HSR system graphic, within each of the five HSR
Category Classes (there were no products at Year 1
displaying the HSR system graphic that belonged to the
‘2D – Dairy food’ Category Class). Specifically,
comparisons were made of the nutrients that are
incorporated into the HSRC, i.e. energy, saturated fat,
sugars, sodium, protein, and fibre.§ All per 100 g or 100
mL as consumed.
The next section compares the mean values of the
nutrients listed in Table 3.1 between HSR products
and non-HSR products, by HSR Category Class.
There was no marked difference in the mean energy
content (per 100 g/100 mL) between each of HSR
products and non-HSR products, within each HSR
Category Class (Figure 3.4). The greatest variance was
observed in ‘3 – Oils and spreads’ for which the HSR
products had a higher mean energy content than the
non- HSR products. However this result should be
interpreted with caution as there were only three
products at Year
1 displaying the HSR system in this HSR Category
Class. A similar observance was seen with ‘3D –
Cheese and processed cheese’, which also had a small
sample size (n = 2) for products displaying the HSR
system graphic at Year 1 (Figure 3.4).
Statistical comparisons were not conducted due to
the small sample size within most of these groups.
In addition, analysis did not specifically look at these
same comparisons by HSR Category due to the
even smaller sample sizes of products displaying
the HSR system graphic at Year 1. It is anticipated
more detailed analysis will be able to be conducted
for Year 2 reporting, which will have a larger number
of products displaying the HSR system graphic, and
will have Year 1 data as a comparator for
assessment of reformulation over time.
Figure 3.5 shows similar trends for the mean saturated
fat content for both ‘3 – Oils and spreads’ and ‘3D –
Cheese and processed cheese’, which although may
appear more marked than the differences observed
within these categories for the mean energy content,
again the small sample sizes at Year 1 should be noted
(n = 3 and n = 2, respectively).
For this next section, the sample size of some groups
was small and should be interpreted with caution. The
product counts are summarised in Table 3.1. Where
product counts for those not displaying the HSR system
Table 3.1. Number of products (n) in each HSR Category Class, by HSR vs non-HSR products, for each
nutrient, at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)
Number of products (n) in each Category Class
Grouping
HSR
products
Non-HSR
products
1 – Beverages
1D – Dairy
beverages
2 – Food
Energy, saturated fat, sugars, protein, sodium
32
9
257
3
2
Fibre
27
9
219
N/A
N/A
Energy
816
282
8,324
292
418
Saturated fat
816
281
8,307
292
417
Sugars
816
282
8,314
289
415
Protein
816
282
8,323
290
418
Sodium
816
282
8,319
269
416
Fibre
319
107
2,573
10
19
Nutrient(s) per 100 g/100 mL
3 – Oils and
spreads
§
Fruit, vegetable, nut, legume (FVNL) content has been excluded from the analyses in this section.
Excludes those displaying Option 5, energy icon. Also excludes 28 products in ‘2 – Food’, for which NIP data was only available
‘dry/undiluted’. All other data is reported per 100 g/100 ml ‘as consumed’.

58
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system – Year 1
3D – Cheese and
processed cheese
Chapter 3 – Area of Enquiry
3
Figure 3.4. Mean energy content of HSR vs non-HSR products, by HSR Category Class at
Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)
Figure 3.5. Mean saturated fat content of HSR vs non-HSR products, by HSR Category Class at
Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)
National Heart Foundation of Australia 59
Chapter 3 – Area of Enquiry
3
The mean sugars content for ‘1D – Dairy Beverages’
and ‘2 – Food’, as shown in Figure 3.6, was visibly less
for HSR products vs non-HSR products. Conversely,
this was the opposite for ‘1 – Beverages’. The sugars
content of ‘3 – Oils and spreads’ and ‘3D – Cheese and
processed cheese’ was minimal across both groups
(HSR products and non-HSR products), which would
be expected given the nutritional profile of these types
of foods.
The mean sodium content of HSR products in ‘2 –
Food’ and ‘3D – Cheese and processed cheese’ was
lower than that of the products without. Conversely, the
opposite was observed in ‘3 – Oils and spreads’, noting
the small product count, n = 2 (Figure 3.7).
The mean protein content of products in ‘2 – Food‘
and ‘3D – Cheese and processed cheese’ was
slightly greater for HSR products compared to nonHSR products compared to those without (Figure
3.8). The opposite was observed with ‘1D – Dairy
beverages’.
Figure 3.6. Mean sugars content of HSR vs non-HSR products, by HSR Category Class at
Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)
Figure 3.7. Mean sodium content of HSR vs non-HSR products, by HSR Category Class at
Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)
60
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system – Year 1
Chapter 3 – Area of Enquiry
3
The mean fibre content, as shown in Figure 3.9, was
greatest in ‘2 – Food’, and there was minimal difference
between HSR and non-HSR products, within this HSR
Category Class. Conversely, the mean fibre content for
both HSR and non-HSR products was much lower for ‘1 –
Beverages’, ‘1D – Dairy beverages’, ‘3 – Oils and spreads’
and ‘3D – Cheese and processed cheese’. This would be
expected, however, due to the nutritional profile of the
foods and beverages in these HSR Category Classes¶.
Figure 3.8. Mean protein content of HSR vs non-HSR products, by HSR Category Class at Year 1
(June 2014 to June 2015)
Figure 3.9. Mean fibre content of HSR vs non-HSR products, by HSR Category Class at Year 1
(June 2014 to June 2015)
¶
Note mean fibre values for Category Classes 3 and 3D, for HSR products, are N/A as fibre not available on the NIPs.
National Heart Foundation of Australia 61
References
1. Commonwealth of Australia. Labelling Logic; Review of Food Labelling Law and Policy. Canberra: Commonwealth of
Australia; 2011. Available at: www.foodlabellingreview.gov.au/internet/foodlabelling/publishing.nsf/Content/labelling-logic.
Accessed 17 March 2016.
2. Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ). Australia and New Zealand Food Standards Code 1.2.7; Nutrition,
Health and Related Claims. Canberra: FSANZ; 2015. Available at:
http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/industry/labelling/Pages/Further- work-related-to-Standard-1.2.7-.aspx. Accessed 17
March 2016.
3. Department of Health. Health Star Rating system. Available at:
http://healthstarrating.gov.au/internet/healthstarrating/publishing.nsf/Content/style-guide. Accessed 17 March 2016.
4. Program Logic 2015. Available at: http://evaluationtoolbox.net.au/. Accessed 17 March 2016.
5. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). Australian Health Survey: First Results, 2011-1’, cat. no. 4364.0.55.001. Canberra:
ABS; 2014. Available at: www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Lookup/4364.0.55.001main+features12011-12. Accessed 17
March 2016.
6. Department of Health. Guide for industry to the Health Star Rating Calculator; Version 3. Canberra: Commonwealth of
Australia; 2015.
7. Department of Health. Health Star Rating System Style Guide: Version 3.3. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2014.
8. Retail Media. Retail World Annual Report December 2014. Sydney: Retail Media; 2015.
9. Retail Media. Retail World Annual Report December 2015. Sydney: Retail Media; 2016.
10. Australian Food and Grocery Council (AFGC). DIG Audit Report May 2013. Canberra: AFGC; 2013.
11. Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ). Australia and New Zealand Food Standards Code. Canberra: FSANZ;
2015. Available at: www.foodstandards.gov.au/code/Pages/default.aspx. Accessed 17 March 2016.
12. Department of Health. Health Star Rating Calculator v 3.3. Available at:
http://healthstarrating.gov.au/internet/healthstarrating/publishing.nsf/Content/excel-calculator. Accessed 17 March 2016.
13. Parker G, Frith R, Polliante Research. Health Star Rating System: Campaign Evaluation Report. Canberra:
Commonwealth of Australia; 2015. Available at:
http://healthstarrating.gov.au/internet/healthstarrating/publishing.nsf/Content/formative-research. Accessed 17 March
2016.
14. Parker G, Souvlis P, Parry-Husbands H, Pollinate Research. Health Star Rating System: Consumer Use and
Understanding. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2015. Available at:
http://www.healthstarrating.gov.au/internet/healthstarrating/
publishing.nsf/Content/DFBB60481884B091CA257F1C000B631B/$File/HSR-Consumer-Use-and-UnderstandingBenchmark- report.pdf. Accessed 17 March 2016.
15. Commonwealth of Australia. Australia’s Physical Activity & Sedentary Behaviour Guidelines for Adults (18–64 years).
Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2014. Available at: www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/content/healthpubhlth-strateg- phys-act-guidelines. Accessed 17 March 2016.
16. National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). Australian Dietary Guidelines 2013. Canberra: NHMRC; 2013.
Available at: www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines-publications/n55. Accessed 17 March 2016.
62
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system – Year 1
Appendix 1.
Wave 1 Uptake Report
Report for Wave 1 of additional uptake monitoring
of the Health Star Rating (HSR) System, in
Australian supermarkets in September 2015
Submission to: Department of
Health (the Department)
Submitted by: National Heart Foundation of
Australia (the Heart Foundation)
Thursday 22 October 2015
Contact: Project Manager – Xenia
Cleanthous Manager, Nutrition Data &
Analysis, Health Outcomes
Tel: (03) 9321 1516
Email: [email protected]
Background
The Department have requested more regular
monitoring of uptake of the Health Star Rating (HSR)
system across products stocked in the two major
retailers (Coles and Woolworths).
In response to this, the Heart Foundation submitted
a proposal in July 2015 to conduct an additional
three waves of data collection to monitor the uptake
of the HSR system in-store. The time frames for
these three waves are:
 Wave 1 – September 2015
 Wave 2 – January 2016
 Wave 3 – May 2016.
This report provides the results for the Wave 1 of this
collection.
Methodology
The Heart Foundation is using the joint Heart Foundation
and CSIRO FoodTrackTM database to conduct the
monitoring and evaluation of the implementation of the
HSR system for a two-year period (retrospective June
2014 to June 2016). The data collection method, to
populate this database, is an annual rolling process
whereby the 80+ categories are collected progressively
throughout the year, across major Australian retailers –
Coles and Woolworths.
The Heart Foundation currently has a team of trained
data collection field officers (qualifications in nutrition
and/or dietetics) who populate the FoodTrack TM
database on an ongoing basis, by collecting data instore using smartphone technology.
This collection methodology does not capture the roll-out
of the HSR system at a given point in time. The Health
Star Rating Advisory Committee (HSRAC) and the
Department of Health (the Department) regularly receive
requests for an update on the number of products
carrying the HSR system at a given time point, and
currently have no methodology in place to capture this on
a regular basis.
To address the request for the additional uptake
monitoring, one of our trained data collection
officers was recruited specifically for this piece of
work.
The activities conducted were as follows:
1. Heart Foundation staff developed a template for
collection of the required data in-store, and an
additional standard operating procedure (SOP)
to ensure standardised collection methodology.
2. The data collection officer was trained for this work
using the developed SOP. Training was conducted by
Heart Foundation staff and the officer was provided
with instructions regarding the data they were
required to collect.
3. Data was collected according to the SOP during
two consecutive weeks in September.
4. The written record of data collected was
transcribed into an existing Excel template.
5. Data collected was audited by Heart Foundation
staff, and supplemented with products in the
FoodTrackTM database that display the HSR system,
that were not captured in-store.
What was collected
(as per original proposal)
 Barcode, manufacturer, brand, item
description (including pack size).
 Presence of a HSR system graphic.
National Heart Foundation of Australia 63
What was not collected
(as per original proposal)
 No additional product information, i.e.: images,
star-type, use of ‘snail’ or not, NIP data,
ingredients, positon on packaging, etc.
Manufacturer, brand
Count of products with
a HSR system graphic
Freedom Nutritional Products
18
Freedom Foods
Go Natural (Manufacturer)
Go Natural
Scope of products
 The data collection officer visited one major Coles
and one major Woolworths in metropolitan Victoria
during the month of September.
Green’s General Foods
Lowan
Hampden Trading
Freelicious
 All Private Label and Branded products
were reviewed, for all FoodTrackTM
categories.
HJ Heinz Company Australia
 Multipacks and variety packs were included.
Kellogg (Aust)
 Products with multiple pack sizes were
included, with one record per pack size.
Results
Table A1.1 outlines the number of products found in-store,
by manufacturer, by brand.
Table A1.1. Products with HSF graphic found in-store
by manufacturer and brand
Al & Dan’s (Manufacturer)
Al & Dan’s
Arnott’s Biscuits
Arnott’s
Australian Wholefoods
Clever Cooks
Count of products with
a HSR system graphic
2
2
5
5
3
3
1
1
1
1
18
18
44
Be Natural
1
Kellogg’s
42
Vogel’s
1
Kez’s Kitchen
A total of 1,513 products were recorded for the given
time point. In addition, there were 13 multipack products
which displayed more than one HSR system graphic on
pack to reflect the different flavour variants.
Manufacturer, brand
Heinz
18
Kez’s
Lion – Dairy & Drinks
1
1
40
Berri
5
Just Juice
8
The Daily Juice Company
17
Vitasoy
2
YoGo
1
Yoplait
7
Lucozade Ribena Suntory
Ribena
Mayver’s Health Time
Health Time
Monster Health Food Co
3
Monster Muesli
3
Nestle Australia
1
1
5
5
5
5
156
8
Allens
23
8
Maggi
18
2
Milo
8
2
Nestle
35
15
Uncle Toby’s
71
Carman’s
15
Wonka
1
Chris’ Dips
4
Norco Foods
3
4
Mighty Cool
3
7
Parilla Fresh
3
Emma & Tom’s
7
Good 4U
3
Fonterra Australia
6
Betta Foods Australia
Capricorn
Campbell Australia
V8
Carman’s Kitchen
Chris’
Emma & Tom Foods
Nestle
6
Food For Health (Manufacturer) 11
Food For Health
64
11
Picot Productions
Pic’s
Popina Foods
2
2
18
Arnold’s Farm
11
Goodness Superfoods
7
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system – Year 1
Manufacturer, brand
Count of products with
a HSR system graphic
Manufacturer, brand
Count of products with
a HSR system graphic
Primo Moraitis Fresh
2
The Juice Lab (Manufacturer)
5
Mrs Crocket’s
Private Label – Coles
2
557
The Juice Lab
5
The Wrigley Company
19
508
Skittles
6
Coles Graze
1
Starburst
13
Coles Grill
16
Coles Made Easy
13
Coles Simply Gluten Free
4
Coles Smart Buy
15
Coles
Private Label – Woolworths
368
Homebrand
31
Macro
52
Macro Organic
28
Woolworths
66
Woolworths Created With Jamie
30
Woolworths Free From Dairy
3
Woolworths Free From Gluten
2
Woolworths Gold
9
Woolworths Select
147
PureBred Bakery
2
Pure Bred
2
Rinoldi Pasta
8
Vetta
8
Sanitarium Health Foods Company 85
Naturally Nood
9
Sanitarium
58
So Good
13
Vegie Delights
5
Simplot Australia
20
John West
5
Lean Cuisine
14
Quorn
3
Ardmona
Spreyton Fresh Tasmania
3
Unilever Australasia
Continental
10
Vitality Brands Worldwide
Well Naturally
3
3
YOLO (Manufacturer)
Total count
10
6
6
1,513
The 13 multipack products that displayed more than
one HSR system graphic on pack include:
 eight x Nestle Australia products (Brand; Nestle –
Ski D’lite) that were multipacks with more than one
HSR system graphic on them (one for each flavour
variant)
 five x Private Label – Woolworths products
(Brand; Woolworths Select) that were multipacks
with more than one HSR system graphic on them
(one for each flavour variant).
1
Sunbeam Foods
4
Sunpork
Tucker’s
3
6
1
Sunpork Fresh Foods
3
Tucker’s Natural
YOLO
3
6
Spreyton Fresh
Sunbeam
Evia
42
Birds Eye
SPC Ardmona Operations
The Yoghurt Co
4
5
5
The Happy Snack Company
(Manufacturer)
2
The Happy Snack Company
2
National Heart Foundation of Australia 65
Appendix 2.
Compliance checklist
#
Question
Answer
Next step
1
Does the product carry a HSR system graphic?
2
Is the product one that can display a HSR
1 = Go to Q2
2 = End of questions
Go to Q3
3
system graphic?
Is the product one that is intended to display
1 = Yes
2 = No
1 = Yes
2 = No
1 = Yes
2 = No
1 = HSR + energy icon + 3 prescribed nutrients + 1
optional nutrient
2 = HSR + energy icon + 3 prescribed nutrients 3
= HSR + energy icon
4 = HSR
5 = Energy icon
1 = Go to Q5
2 = Go to Q6
3 = Go to Q7
4 = Go to Q8
5 = Go to Q9
4
a HSR system graphic?
Which version of the HSR system graphic does
the product display?
Go to Q4
HSR + energy icon + 3 prescribed nutrients + 1 optional nutrient
5A
Which HSR system graphic configuration has been used?
1 = Horizontal
2 = Vertical
Go to Q5B
5B
Is the HSR system graphic on the front of pack?
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q5C
Is the HSR element of the graphic larger than the nutrient
information elements?
Is the HSR system graphic presented with contrasting
background and text?
Is the HSR system graphic a rating of ½ star to 5 stars in
½ star increments?
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q5D
Does the HSR system graphic value match the numerical
rating value?
Are the words ‘Health Star Rating’ displayed prominently
below the HSR element of the graphic?
Has sufficient space been provided to accommodate
energy and nutrient names and values in a clear and
legible way?
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q5G
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q5H
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q5I
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q5J
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q5K
5C
5D
5E
5F
5G
5H
5I
5J
5K
5L
5M
5N
66
Have the correct prescribed nutrients been used?
Are all nutrient icons displayed in conjunction with the
energy icon and does the order of the prescribed nutrient
icons reflect their order in the NIP?
Does the optional nutrient icon provide nutrition
information only?
Do the energy and nutrient values reflect those stated in
the NIP?
Have the energy and nutrient values been recorded in the
correct units?
Have the energy and nutrient values been recorded to
the correct decimal places?
1 = Yes
2 = No
1 = Yes
2 = No
1 = Yes
2 = No
1 = Yes
2 = No
1 = Yes
2 = No
1 = Yes
2 = No
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system – Year 1
Go to Q5E
Go to Q5F
Go to Q5L
Go to Q5M
Go to Q5N
Go to Q5O
HSR + energy icon + 3 prescribed nutrients + 1 optional nutrient
5O
Does the energy icon display %DI?
1 = Yes
2 = No
1 = Go to Q5P
2 = Go to Q5Q
5P
If %DI is used, is the HSR system graphic displayed ‘per
serve’ or ‘per pack’ and according to guidelines?
1 = Yes
2 = No
3 = N/A
Go to Q5Q
Does the product contain the dietary intake guide on
pack? Please note where on pack.
If the dietary intake guide has been used on pack, has it
been displayed in a manner not to mislead the consumer
that the two systems are linked?
1 = Yes
2 = No
1 = Go to Q5R
2 = Go to Q5S
1 = Yes
2 = No
3 = N/A
Go to Q5S
1 = Yes
2 = No
1 = Go to Q5T
2 = Go to Q5U
5Q
5R
5S
Do the nutrients use the terms ‘high’ or ‘low’?
5T
If the nutrients use the terms ‘high’ or ‘low’, have they been 1 = Yes
2 = No
used correctly?
3 = N/A
Go to Q5U
5U
Is the nominated reference measure appropriate?
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q5V
5V
Is the nominated reference measure placed to the right
hand side of the HSR system graphic (for horizontal
graphics) or at the bottom of the HSR system graphic (for
vertical graphics)?
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q5W
5W
Is the serve size specified in the NIP?
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q5X
5X
Is the nominated reference measure legible?
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q5Y
5Y
Is the product a multipack?
5Z
If the product is a multipack, how is the HSR system
graphic displayed?
5AA
What optional nutrient has been used?
1 = Yes
2 = No
1 = One HSR system graphic reflecting a single
variant multipack
2 = One HSR system graphic that is an average
of all flavour variants
3 = One HSR system graphic of one of the flavour
variants
4 = Multiple HSR system graphics for all flavour
variants
5 = Other (please specify)
6F == fibre
N/A
1 = Go to Q5Z
2 = End of questions
End of questions
P = protein
C = calcium
I = iron
M = magnesium
O = omega 3
VE = vitamin E
VC - vitamin C
Fo = folate
VA = vitamin A
National Heart Foundation of Australia 67
HSR + energy icon + 3 prescribed nutrients
6A
Which HSR system graphic configuration has been used?
6B
Is the HSR system graphic on the front of pack?
6C
6D
6E
6F
6G
6H
6I
6J
6K
6L
6M
Is the HSR element of the graphic larger than the nutrient
information elements?
Is the HSR system graphic presented with contrasting
background and text?
Is the HSR system graphic a rating of ½ star to 5 stars in
½ star increments?
Does the HSR system graphic value match the numerical
rating value?
Are the words ‘Health Star Rating’ displayed prominently
below the HSR element of the graphic?
Has sufficient space been provided to accommodate
energy and nutrient names and values in a clear and
legible way?
Have the correct prescribed nutrients been used?
Are all nutrient icons displayed in conjunction with the
energy icon and does the order of the prescribed nutrient
icons reflect their order in the NIP?
Do the energy and nutrient values reflect those stated in
the NIP?
Have the energy and nutrient values been recorded in
the correct units?
Have the energy and nutrient values been recorded to
the correct decimal places?
1 = Horizontal
2 = Vertical
1 = Yes
2 = No
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q6B
Go to Q6C
Go to Q6D
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q6E
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q6F
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q6G
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q6H
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q6I
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q6J
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q6K
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q6L
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q6M
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q6N
6N
Does the energy icon display %DI?
1 = Yes
2 = No
1 = Go to Q6O
2 = Go to Q6P
6O
If %DI is used, is the HSR graphic displayed ‘per serve’
or ‘per pack’ and according to guidelines?
1 = Yes
2 = No
3 = N/A
Go to Q6P
1 = Yes
2 = No
1 = Go to Q6Q
2 = Go to Q6R
6P
6Q
6R
6S
6T
Does the product contain the dietary intake guide on
pack? Please note where on pack.
If the dietary intake guide has been used on pack, has it
been displayed in a manner not to mislead the consumer
that the two systems are linked?
Do the nutrients use the terms ‘high’ or ‘low’?
1 = Yes
If the nutrients use the terms ‘high’ or ‘low’, have they been
2 = No
used correctly?
3 = N/A
1 = Yes
Is the nominated reference measure appropriate?
2 = No
3 = N/A
6U
Is the nominated reference measure placed to the right
hand side of the HSR system graphic (for horizontal
graphics) or at the bottom of the HSR system graphic (for
vertical graphics)?
6V
6W
68
1 = Yes
2 = No
3 = N/A
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q6R
1 = Go to Q6S
2 = Go to Q6T
Go to Q6T
Go to Q6U
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q6V
Is the serve size specified in the NIP?
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q6W
Is the nominated reference measure legible?
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q6X
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system – Year 1
HSR + energy icon + 3 prescribed nutrients
6X
6Y
Is the product a multipack?
If the product is a multipack, how is the HSR system
graphic displayed?
1 = Yes
2 = No
1 = Go to Q6Y
2 = End of questions
1 = One HSR system graphic reflecting a single
variant multipack
2 = One HSR system graphic that is an average of
all flavour variants
3 = One HSR system graphic of one of the flavour
variants
4 = Multiple HSR system graphics for all flavour
variants
5 = Other (please specify)
6 = N/A
End of questions
HSR + energy icon
7A
Which HSR system graphic configuration has been
used?
7B
Is the HSR system graphic on the front of pack?
7C
7D
7E
7F
7G
7H
Is the HSR element of the graphic larger than the
nutrient information elements?
Is the HSR system graphic presented with contrasting
background and text?
Is the HSR system graphic a rating of ½ star to 5 stars in
½ star increments?
Does the HSR system graphic value match the numerical
rating value?
Are the words ‘Health Star Rating’ displayed prominently
below the HSR element of the graphic?
Has sufficient space been provided to accommodate
energy name and value in a clear and legible way?
7I
Does the energy value reflect that stated in the NIP?
7J
Has the energy value been recorded in the correct unit?
7K
7L
Has the energy value been recorded to the correct
decimal place?
Does the energy icon sit to the right of the HSR element
of the system graphic (if horizontal option) or below (if
vertical option)?
7M
Does the energy icon display %DI?
7N
If %DI is used, is the HSR graphic displayed ‘per serve’
or ‘per pack’ and according to guidelines?
7O
7P
7Q
Does the product contain the dietary intake guide on
pack? Please note where on pack.
If the dietary intake guide has been used on pack, has it
been displayed in a manner not to mislead the consumer
that the two systems are linked?
Is the nominated reference measure appropriate?
1 = Horizontal (refer to image)
2 = Vertical (refer to image)
1 = Yes
2 = No
1 = Yes
2 = No
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q7B
Go to Q7C
Go to Q7D
Go to Q7E
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q7F
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q7G
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q7H
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q7I
1 = Yes
2 = No
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q7J
Go to Q7K
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q7L
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q7M
1 = Yes
2 = No
1 = Yes
2 = No
3 = N/A
1 = Go to Q7N
2 = Go to Q7O
1 = Yes
2 = No
1 = Go to Q7P
2 = Go to Q7Q
1 = Yes
2 = No
3 = N/A
Go to Q7Q
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q7R
Go to Q7O
National Heart Foundation of Australia 69
HSR + energy icon
7R
Is the nominated reference measure placed to the right
hand side of the HSR system graphic (for horizontal
graphics) or at the bottom of the HSR system graphic
(for vertical graphics)?
7S
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q7S
Is the serve size specified in the NIP?
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q7T
7T
Is the nominated reference measure legible?
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q7U
7U
Is the product a multipack?
1 = Yes
2 = No
1 = Go to Q7V
2 = End of questions
7V
If the product is a multipack, how is the HSR system
graphic displayed?
1 = One HSR system graphic reflecting a single
variant multipack
2 = One HSR system graphic that is an average of
all flavour variants
3 = One HSR system graphic of one of the flavour
variants
4 = Multiple HSR system graphics for all flavour
variants
5 = Other (please specify)
6 = N/A
End of questions
HSR
8A
Is the HSR system graphic on the front of pack?
8B
Is the HSR system graphic presented with contrasting
background and text?
1 = Yes
2 = No
1 = Yes
2 = No
8C
Is the HSR system graphic a rating of ½ star to 5 stars in
½ star increments?
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q8D
Does the HSR system graphic value match the numerical
rating value?
Are the words ‘Health Star Rating’ displayed prominently
below the HSR element of the graphic?
Does the product contain the dietary intake guide on
pack? Please note where on pack.
If the dietary intake guide has been used on pack, has it
been displayed in a manner not to mislead the consumer
that the two systems are linked?
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q8E
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q8F
1 = Yes
2 = No
1 = Go to Q8G
2 = Go to Q8H
8D
8E
8F
8G
8H
Is the product a multipack?
8I
If the product is a multipack, how is the HSR system
graphic displayed?
70
1 = Yes
2 = No
3 = N/A
1 = Yes
2 = No
1 = One HSR system graphic reflecting a single
variant multipack
2 = One HSR system graphic that is an average of
all flavour variants
3 = One HSR system graphic of one of the flavour
variants
4 = Multiple HSR system graphics for all flavour
variants
5 = Other (please specify)
6 = N/A
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system – Year 1
Go to Q8B
Go to Q8C
Go to Q8H
1 = Go to Q8I
2 = End of questions
End of questions
Energy icon
9A
Is the HSR system graphic on the front of pack?
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q9B
9B
Is the HSR system graphic presented with contrasting
background and text?
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q9C
9C
Has sufficient space been provided to accommodate
energy name and value in a clear and legible way?
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q9D
9D
Does the energy value reflect that stated in the NIP?
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q9E
9E
Has the energy value been recorded in the correct unit?
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q9F
9F
Has the energy value been recorded to the correct
decimal place?
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q9G
9G
Does the energy icon display %DI?
1 = Yes
2 = No
1 = Go to Q9H
2 = Go to Q9I
9H
If %DI is used, is the HSR graphic displayed ‘per serve’ or
‘per pack’ and according to guidelines?
1 = Yes
2 = No
3 = N/A
Go to Q9I
Does the product contain the dietary intake guide on
pack? Please note where on pack.
If the dietary intake guide has been used on pack, has it
been displayed in a manner not to mislead the consumer
that the two systems are linked?
1 = Yes
2 = No
1 = Go to Q9J
2 = Go to Q9K
1 = Yes
2 = No
3 = N/A
Go to Q9K
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q9L
9I
9J
9K
Is the nominated reference measure appropriate?
9L
Is the nominated reference measure above or below the
energy icon?
9M
Is the serve size specified in the NIP?
9N
Is the nominated reference measure legible?
9O
Is the product a multipack?
9P
If the product is a multipack, how is the HSR system
graphic displayed?
1 = Below
2 = Above
1 = Yes
2 = No
1 = Yes
2 = No
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q9M
Go to Q9N
Go to Q9O
1 = Go to Q9P
2 = End of questions
1 = One HSR system graphic reflecting a single
variant multipack
2 = One HSR system graphic that is an average of
all flavour variants
3 = One HSR system graphic of one of the flavour
variants
4 = Multiple HSR system graphics for all flavour
variants
5 = Other (please specify)
6 = N/A
End of questions
National Heart Foundation of Australia 71
Appendix 3.
Foods that contribute to FVNL
values, and examples for
determining FVNL content
from incomplete datasets
According to Standard 1.2.7 in the Food Standards
Code (2), foods that contribute to the %FVNL and %
conc. FVNL values are:
 fruits, vegetables, nuts and legumes
Below is a series of example where the complete
%FVNL and % conc FVNL values cannot be fully
determined from the ingredients list, and assumptions
are required.
 spices, herbs, fungi, seeds, and algae
Example 1 – Tomatoes chopped 400 g
 fresh, cooked, frozen, canned, pickled or preserved
Ingredients: tomatoes 99% (chopped 64%, juice,
paste)
 peeled, diced or cut (or otherwise reduced in
size), pureed or dried
 fruit juice or vegetable juice, including
concentrated juices and purees
 coconut flesh (as a nut) – juiced, dried or
desiccated, water in the centre of the coconut.
What cannot count towards %FVNL
or % conc FVNL
 Processed coconut products such as coconut
milk, coconut cream or coconut oil.
 A constituent, extract or isolate of a food
mentioned above (e.g. peanut oil derived from
peanuts, fruit pectin, de-ionised juices).
 Cereal grains as a class of food in Schedule 4 of
Standard 1.4.2 (e.g. barley, buckwheat, maize,
millet, oats, popcorn, rice, rye, sorghum, triticale,
wheat and wild rice).
 Oils derived from seeds, nuts, vegetables/herbs.
Table A3.1 lists how different products would
be classified.
Table A3.1. Classification system examples
% FVNL
% conc FVNL
Tomato puree
Potato crisps
Dried fruit
Tomato paste
% FVNL / % conc FVNL: paste concentrated,
juice/chopped not, but only chopped quantified
Conclusion: use nutrition expertise to provide a
recommended approach
Example 2 – Coconut milk original 1 L
Ingredients: coconut milk 21% (water, coconut cream)
% FVNL / % conc FVNL: apply technical knowledge of
manufacturing of coconut milk to infer that water is plain
water, not coconut water
Conclusion: % FVNL = 0
Example 3 – Chicken thighs lemon
and herb 450 g
Ingredients: garlic 1%, parsley 0.8%, lemon zest 0.6%,
pepper 0.5%, celery
% FVNL / % conc FVNL: the celery component
does not have a quantity specified, however is at the
end of the ingredient list → assume negligible and
disregard
Conclusion: % FVNL = 2.9%
Example 4 – Mixed frozen vegetables
850 g
Ingredients: broccoli, yellow beans, carrot, sugar
snap peas, water chestnuts, capsicum
% FVNL / % conc FVNL: no percentages have been
assigned to any of the ingredients how they are the only
ingredients listed → assume 100% vegetables
72
Conclusion: % FVNL = 100%
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system – Year 1
Appendix 4.
Consumer survey
questionnaire for AoE 2
HEALTH STAR RATING
TRACKER
September 2015
Survey introduction
Thank you for agreeing to participate in this important survey.
We are conducting research to understand how Australians go about their grocery shopping. Your input will help
shape future aspects of grocery shopping in Australia.
The survey will take about 15 minutes to complete and is being conducted on behalf of a well-known organisation.
Your answers will be de-identified, held in the strictest confidence and the responses of everyone who participates
in this survey will be combined for analysis. Under the Privacy Act, all information provided will only be used for
research purposes.
Thank you again for your time.
SCREENING
ASK ALL
S1.
To begin with could you please confirm your age?
Under 18
[Terminate] 1
18 to 24
1
25 to 29
2
30 to 34
3
35 to 39
4
40 to 44
5
45 to 49
6
50 to 54
7
55 to 59
8
60 to 65
9
Over 65
10
ASK ALL
QS2. Are you the main or shared grocery buyer in your household?
[NB: Main grocery buyer is the person in your household
who does most of the grocery shopping]
Main grocery buyer
1
Shared grocery buyer
2
Not the grocery buyer
[Terminate] 3
Unsure
[Terminate] 98
National Heart Foundation of Australia 73
ASK ALL
QS3. What gender are you?
Male
1
Female
2
NSW
1
VIC
2
QLD
3
SA
4
WA
5
NT
6
TAS
7
ACT
8
ASK ALL
QS4. Where do you live?
ASK ALL
QS5. What is your postcode?
MODULE A: GENERAL SUPERMARKET
SHOPPING
ASK ALL
QA1. When buying food at the supermarket, what is the main thing that
influences your choice between two similar products?
(ROTATE ORDER)
Price
1
Product quality
2
Product taste
3
Product advertising or promotions
4
Personal or family preference
5
Portion size
6
Nutritional value
7
How healthy I think it is
8
Front of pack labelling
9
Other (please specify)
97
Unsure
98
ASK ALL
QA2. On average, how often do you visit a supermarket to do your
grocery shopping?
Every day
1
Several times a week
2
Once a week
3
Once a fortnight
4
Once a month
5
Less often than monthly
6
Unsure
74
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system – Year 1
98
ASK ALL
QA3. Which supermarkets have you visited in the past month?
(MULTIPLE RESPONSE: ROTATE ORDER)
ASK ALL
QA3. On average, how much do you spend in one visit to the
supermarket?
ALDI
1
BI-LO
2
Coles
3
IGA
4
Woolworths/Safeway
5
Foodworks
6
Costco
7
Other (Please specify)
97
Unsure
98
Under $20
1
$20 to $49
2
$50 to $99
3
$100 to $149
4
$150 to $199
5
$200 or more
6
It varies
7
Unsure
98
Always
1
Most of the time
2
Sometimes
3
Just occasionally
4
Never
5
Not sure
6
All food products
1
Most food products
2
Some food products
3
Few food products
4
ASK ALL
QA5. When choosing a new food during grocery shopping, how often
do you compare how healthy products are?
ASK ALL
QA6. On average, when at the supermarket, do you look at the
nutrition information panel on …?
Never
98
Unsure
98
National Heart Foundation of Australia 75
MODULE B:AWARENESS OF
HSR/FOOD LABELS
ASK ALL
QB1. Apart from brand names, thinking about different logos that help
customers choose the food they buy in the supermarket, which
ones are you aware of?
OPEN VERBATIM
(DO NOT LIST: MULTIPLE RESPONSE)
Health Star Rating
1
Glycemic Index
2
No added salt/reduced salt
3
Australian made
4
Country of origin
5
Environment safe
6
Heart Foundation Tick
7
Organic
8
Natural
9
Fat reduced/low fat
10
Lite
11
Fat free
12
Cholesterol free
13
Low joule/low calories
14
Energy/kilojoules
15
Unsweetened/no added sugar/sugar free
16
Weight watchers
17
Gluten free
18
Other
97
Unsure
98
ASK ALL
QB2. Are you aware of the Health Star Rating system?
Yes
1
No
2
Unsure
76
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system – Year 1
98
ASK ALL
QB3. Which of the following are you aware of on food packaging?
(ROTATE ORDER: MULTIPLE RESPONSE)
GI (Glycaemic Index)
1
No added salt / reduced salt
2
Fat reduced/low fat
3
Lite
4
Fat-free
5
Cholesterol free
6
Heart Foundation Tick
7
Low joule/low calories
8
Energy/kilojoules
9
Unsweetened/no added sugar/sugar free
10
Gluten free
11
Weight Watchers
12
% Dietary intake
13
Be treatwise
14
None of the above (Exc)
99
Unsure (Exc)
98
ASK IF QB2 = 1, IF QB2 = 2 OR 3, GO TO QH1
MODULE C: KNOWLEDGE
OF HSR
QC1. When the Health Star Rating system is on the packaging of
Specify
food, what do you think it means?
97
QC2. In your opinion, how is the number of stars on a product
determined?
97
QC3. Below are a series of statements about the Health Star Rating system.
How strongly do you agree or disagree that the Health Star Rating system…?
(ROTATE ORDER)
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neither Agree
nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Unsure
Makes it easier for me to compare products that are in the
same category in the supermarket
1
2
3
4
5
97
Makes it easier for me to compare products that are in different
categories in the supermarket
1
2
3
4
5
97
Makes it easier for me to identify the healthier option within a
category
1
2
3
4
5
97
Makes it easier for me to identify the healthier option across
all categories
1
2
3
4
5
97
Helps me think about the healthiness of food
1
2
3
4
5
97
Helps me make decisions about which foods to buy
1
2
3
4
5
97
Makes me want to buy healthier products
1
2
3
4
5
97
It’s just another thing on a pack that makes shopping more
confusing
1
2
3
4
5
97
National Heart Foundation of Australia 77
QC4. How would you use the Health Star Rating system?
Specify
97
QC5. If a food product has one star, what do you think this means?
Specify
97
QC6. If a food product has five stars, what do you think this means?
Specify
97
MODULE D: UNDERSTANDING OF HSR
QD1. Below are a series of statements about the Health Star Rating system.
How strongly do you agree or disagree that a product with more stars means…?
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neither Agree
nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Unsure
It is a healthier option compared to a similar food product with
less stars
1
2
3
4
5
97
It is a healthier option compared to a food product with less
stars
1
2
3
4
5
97
You can eat it as much as you like compared to a product with
less stars
1
2
3
4
5
97
It is more expensive than a product with less stars
1
2
3
4
5
97
It is healthy
1
2
3
4
5
97
It does not taste as good as a product with less stars
1
2
3
4
5
97
QD2. The Health Star Rating can be displayed in five different ways. Please select the style you believe…?
Is easiest to understandIs easiest to recognise. Provides sufficient information
QD3. Overall, please select the style you prefer the most?
QD4. Why do you prefer that option?
78
Specify
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system – Year 1
97
MODULE E: PURCHASING BEHAVIOUR (POTENTIAL & CURRENT)
QE1. In the past three months have you purchased a product
that had the Health Star Rating system?
Yes
1
No
2
Unsure
98
ASK IF QE1= 1, IF QE1 = 2 OR 98, GO TO MODULE F
QE2. Did the Health Star Rating system on the product influence
your choice?
Yes
1
No
2
Unsure
98
ASK IF QE2= 1, IF QE2 = 2, GO TO QE4. IF QE2=98,
GO TO QE5
QE3. How did it influence your choice?
Yes, it confirmed I should buy my usual product
1
Yes, I chose a product with more stars that I don’t often buy
2
Yes, I chose a product with more stars that I’ve never tried before
3
Yes, I chose not to buy my usual product because it had
fewer stars than other options
4
ASK IF QE3 = 2 TO 4
QE2. Have you continued or will continue to buy the product?
Yes
1
No
2
Unsure
98
GO TO QE5
QE4. Why didn’t the Health Star Rating system influence your choice?
Specify
QE5. How likely or unlikely is the Health Star Rating to influence
choices you make in the future when buying food?
Very likely
1
Likely
2
Unlikely
3
Very unlikely
4
Unsure
97
98
National Heart Foundation of Australia 79
MODULE I: COMPARISON
QI.
Of the Health Star Ratings below, please select which you think is a healthier option in each pair?
A
These are the same
B
These are the same
C
These are the same
D
These are the same
E
These are the same
80
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system – Year 1
MODULE F: HSR & FOOD CATEGORIES
ASK IF QE1= 1, IF QH3 = 2 OR 98, GO TO QF2
QF1. Please select which foods and/or beverages you purchased in
the supermarket which had the Health Star Rating system on
them
Provide list:
MULTIPLE RESPONSE
ROTATE
Bread
1
Breakfast cereals (e.g. ready-to-eat, muesli, oats, breakfast drinks)
2
Cereal bars, nut/seed bars, fruit bars
3
Cheese
4
Confectionary (e.g. lollies, chocolates)
5
Cooking sauces (pasta & other)
6
Crisps and similar snacks
7
Fruit and Vegetables (frozen, fresh, canned, or dried)
8
Finishing sauces
Legumes (canned, e.g. baked beans)
9
Margarines and spreads (including butter)
10
Meat, poultry, seafood (plain, processed, canned, fresh, frozen)
11
Milks (plain and flavoured)
12
Non-alcoholic beverages (e.g. soft drinks, fruit/vegetable juices )
13
Nuts and seeds
14
Pasta & noodles, and products
15
Pastries – sweet or savoury (e.g. pies/pasties, fruit pies, tarts)
16
Ready meals, meal kits
17
Recipe bases
18
Rice & rice products
19
Salad dressings and mayonnaise
20
Savoury biscuits, crackers, crispbreads
21
Spreads (e.g. peanut butter, jam)
22
Sweet biscuits, cakes, muffins
23
Table sauces (e.g. tomato sauce)
24
Vegetable oils
25
Yoghurt & dairy desserts (incl. custards, ice cream, frozen yoghurt)
26
None of the above
97
National Heart Foundation of Australia 81
QF2. Please select which foods and/or beverages you believe it is
important to have the Health Star Rating system on them?
Provide list:
MULTIPLE RESPONSE
ROTATE
82
Bread
1
Breakfast cereals (e.g. ready-to-eat, muesli, oats, breakfast drinks)
2
Cereal bars, nut/seed bars, fruit bars
3
Cheese
4
Confectionary (e.g. lollies, chocolates)
5
Cooking sauces (pasta & other)
6
Crisps and similar snacks
7
Fruit and Vegetables (frozen, fresh, canned, or dried)
8
Finishing sauces
9
Legumes (canned, e.g. baked beans)
10
Margarines and spreads (including butter)
11
Meat, poultry, seafood (plain, processed, canned, fresh, frozen)
12
Milks (plain and flavoured)
13
Non-alcoholic beverages (e.g. soft drinks, fruit/vegetable juices )
14
Nuts and seeds
15
Pasta & noodles, and products
16
Pastries – sweet or savoury (e.g. pies/pasties, fruit pies, tarts)
17
Ready meals, meal kits
18
Recipe bases
19
Rice & rice products
20
Salad dressings and mayonnaise
21
Savoury biscuits, crackers, crispbreads
22
Spreads (e.g. peanut butter, jam)
23
Sweet biscuits, cakes, muffins
24
Table sauces (e.g. tomato sauce)
25
Vegetable oils
26
Yoghurt & dairy desserts (incl. custards, ice cream, frozen yoghurt)
27
None of the above
97
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system – Year 1
MODULE G:ADVERTISING/CAMPAIGN
ASK ALL
QG1. In the last three months, do you remember seeing, hearing or
reading any advertising or promotions about the Health Star
Rating system?
Yes
1
No
2
Unsure
97
ASK IF QG1= 1, IF QG1 = 2 OR 98, GO TO MODULE H
QG2. Where had you seen or heard about the Health Star Rating?
Provide list: MULTIPLE RESPONSE
On food packaging
1
In store promotion
2
On posters/digital posters in shopping centres
3
On a bus shelter/other outdoor areas
4
In a newspaper/magazine
5
In a catalogue (i.e. Coles/Woolworths)
6
In online reviews/blogs
7
In an online ad
8
On the radio
9
News program
10
TV ad
11
Supermarket website
12
Food product website
13
Social media (e.g. Facebook)
13
Word of mouth
13
Other (specify)
14
Unsure
97
QG3. Which organisation or company did the advertising or
promotion(s)?
Specify
1
Unsure
97
QG4. What product or products were being advertised or promoted?
Specify
1
Unsure
97
QG5. After seeing or hearing this advertising or promotion(s) for products Yes
with a Health Star Rating, did it influence you to buy a product or
No
products you normally wouldn’t buy?
Unsure
1
2
97
National Heart Foundation of Australia 83
MODULE H: GENERAL ATTITUDES TOWARDS THE HSR
QH1. Below are a series of statements about the Health Star Rating system. How strongly do you agree or disagree
that the Health Star Rating system…?
(ROTATE ORDER)
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neither Agree
nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Unsure
Is a system I trust
1
2
3
4
5
97
Is easy to understand
1
2
3
4
5
97
Is easy to use
1
2
3
4
5
97
Stands out on the package
1
2
3
4
5
97
Makes choosing food easier
1
2
3
4
5
97
Has a good reputation
1
2
3
4
5
97
Is informative
1
2
3
4
5
97
Is a reliable system
1
2
3
4
5
97
Is a credible system
1
2
3
4
5
97
Is personally relevant to me
1
2
3
4
5
97
Is relevant to my family
1
2
3
4
5
97
Has a good reputation
1
2
3
4
5
97
Is open and transparent
1
2
3
4
5
97
QH2. Overall, what level of confidence do you have in
the Health Star Rating system?
High
5
Somewhat high
4
Indifferent
3
Somewhat low
2
low
1
Unsure
84
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system – Year 1
97
Very
MODULE I: HEALTH ATTITUDES
ASK ALL
QH1. In general, thinking about all the food you buy, how concerned are
you about how healthy the food is for you?
Not at all concerned
1
A little concerned
2
Moderately concerned
3
Very concerned
4
Extremely concerned
5
Unsure
98
ASK ALL
QH2. Thinking about your diet, would you say that what you usually eat
is …
Very healthy
1
Healthy
2
Neither healthy nor unhealthy
3
Unhealthy
4
Very unhealthy
5
Unsure
QH3. Over the past six months, have you made any changes to your
diet?
98
Yes
1
No
2
Unsure
98
ASK IF QH3= 1, IF QH3 = 2 OR 98, GO TO H6
ASK IF QH3 = 1
QH4. Which of the following changes have you made
in the past six months to your diet?
Please select all that apply
Changing the types of foods I eat
1
Changing the amount of food I eat
2
Changing how often I eat
3
Counting calories
4
Excluding/cutting out types of food from my diet
5
Other (please specify)
97
Unsure
98
National Heart Foundation of Australia 85
QH5. For which of the following reasons did you make changes to
your diet?
Please select all that apply
To lose weight
1
To improve my physical health
2
Because of a specific health condition
3
To maintain my weight
4
To feel better
5
To lower my cholesterol
6
Other (please specify)
97
Unsure
98
ASK ALL
QH6. In general, would you say your overall health is…?
Excellent
1
Very good
2
Good
3
Fair
4
Poor
5
Unsure
98
MODULE J: HEALTHY WEIGHT
ASK ALL
QJ1. What is your height?
Please enter just one measure.
Metres (e.g. 1.65 m) (Specify)
1
Centimetres (e.g. 165 cm) (Specify
2
Feet and inches (e.g. 5 ft, 5 in) (Specify)
3
Prefer not to say/Unsure
98
ASK ALL
QJ2. What is your weight?
Please enter just one measure.
Kilograms (e.g. 65 kg) (Specify)
1
Pounds (e.g. 150 Ib) (Specify)
2
Stones and Pounds (e.g. 10 st, 10 Ib) (Specify)
3
Prefer not to say/Unsure
98
ASK ALL
QJ3 How many serves of vegetables (including fresh, frozen and
tinned vegetables) do you usually eat each day?
(A ‘serving’ = ½ cup of cooked vegetables or
1 cup of salad vegetables)
1–2 serves
1
3–4 serves
2
5 serves or more
3
Don’t eat vegetables
4
(Unsure)
86
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system – Year 1
98
ASK ALL
QJ4 How many serves of fruit (including fresh, dried, frozen and
tinned fruit) do you usually eat each day?
(A ‘serving’ = 1 medium piece or 2 small pieces of fruit
or 1 cup of diced pieces)
1 serve
1
2 serves
2
3 serves or more
3
Don’t eat fruit
4
(Unsure)
98
MODULE K: RESPONDENT PROFILE
ASK ALL
QK1 Which of the following best describes your household structure?
Single person, living alone
1
Single person, living with parents/family
2
Single person, living with one or more children
3
Couple
4
Couple living with one or more children
5
Share house (group home of unrelated adults)
6
Other
98
Prefer not to say
97
ASK IF QK1 = 3 OR 5 (HAVE CHILDREN LIVING AT HOME)
QK2 What age ranges do your children (living at home) fall into?
Under 6 years
1
6–12 years
2
13–17 years
3
18 years or over
4
Prefer not to say
97
Year 11 or below
2
Year 11
3
Year 12
4
Vocational qualification (e.g. trade/apprenticeship)
5
Other TAFE or technical certificate
6
Diploma
7
Bachelor Degree (including Honours)
8
Post graduate degree
9
Other (please specify)
98
Prefer not to say
97
ASK ALL
QK3. What is the highest level of education that you have completed?
National Heart Foundation of Australia 87
ASK ALL
QK4 Which of these categories best describes your main
activity at the moment?
Working full time
1
Working on a part-time or casual basis
2
Doing study or training
3
Looking for work
4
Doing unpaid voluntary work
5
Retired
6
Home duties
7
Something else (please specify)
98
Prefer not to say
97
Below $30,000
1
Between $30,000 to $39,999
2
Between $40,000 to $49,999
3
Between $50,000 to $59,999
4
Between $60,000 to $69,999
5
Between $70,000 to $99,999
6
Between $100,000 to $119,999
7
Between $120,000 to $149,999
7
Between $150,000 to $199,999
7
$200,000 or more
8
Prefer not to say
97
ASK ALL
QK5. Which of the following broad ranges best describes your
TOTAL GROSS ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME from all
sources? Please include all income including pensions
and allowances for all household members?
[NB: Gross income is your household income before
tax is taken out]
ASK ALL
QK6. Are you of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander origin?
Neither
1
Aboriginal
2
Torres Strait Islander
3
Both
4
Prefer not to say
97
ASK ALL
QK7. Were you born in Australia or overseas?
Australia
1
Overseas
2
Prefer not to say
97
ASK ALL
QK8. Do you speak a language other than English at home?
88
Yes
1
No
2
Prefer not to say
97
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system – Year 1
Notes
National Heart Foundation of Australia 89
Notes
90
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system – Year 1
For enquiries about this report, please
contact: Front-of-Pack Labelling Secretariat
Department of Health
GPO Box 9848, Canberra, ACT, 2601
Phone: 1800 099 658
Email: [email protected]
© 2016 National Heart Foundation of Australia, ABN 98 008 419 761
Suggested citation: National Heart Foundation of Australia. Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system – Year
1. Commissioned by the Commonwealth Department of Health. Melbourne, Australia: National Heart Foundation of Australia, 2016.
Disclaimer: This material has been developed by the Heart Foundation for general information. The statements and recommendations it contains
are, unless labelled as ‘expert opinion’, based on independent review of the available evidence.
While care has been taken in preparing the content of this material, the Heart Foundation and its employees cannot accept any liability,
including for any loss or damage, resulting from the reliance on the content, or for its accuracy, currency and completeness. The information is
obtained and developed from a variety of sources including, but not limited to, collaborations with third parties and information provided by third
parties under licence. It is not an endorsement of any organisation, product or service.
This material may be found in third parties’ programs or materials (including, but not limited to, show bags or advertising kits). This does not imply
an endorsement or recommendation by the National Heart Foundation of Australia for such third parties’ organisations, products or services,
including their materials or information. Any use of National Heart Foundation of Australia materials or information by another person or
organisation is at the user’s own risk.
The entire contents of this material are subject to copyright protection. Enquiries concerning permissions should be directed to
[email protected]
COR-212