Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 1
Prepared for the Commonwealth Department of Health
Submitted by the National Heart Foundation of Australia, February 2019
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018.
2019
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 2
For enquiries about this report, please contact:
Front-of-Pack Labelling Secretariat Australian Government Department of Health
GPO Box 9848, Canberra, ACT, 2601
Phone: 1800 099 658
Email: [email protected]
© 2019 National Heart Foundation of Australia, ABN 98 008 419 761
Suggested citation: Heart Foundation of Australia 2019, Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the
Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. Commissioned
by the Commonwealth Department of Health.
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.
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 3
Contents
Contents ........................................................................................................................................................... 3
Acronyms ......................................................................................................................................................... 6
Executive summary ......................................................................................................................................... 7
Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 10
1.1. Context and background .................................................................................................................. 10
1.1.1. HSR calculator............................................................................................................................. 10
1.1.2. HSR system graphics .................................................................................................................. 11
1.2. Monitoring and evaluation of the HSR system ................................................................................. 12
1.2.1. Program logic .............................................................................................................................. 12
1.2.2. Reporting to date ......................................................................................................................... 14
Chapter 2: Monitoring and evaluation methodology ................................................................................ 15
2.1. Conceptual framework ..................................................................................................................... 15
2.1.1. Attitude formation ........................................................................................................................ 15
2.1.2. Decision making .......................................................................................................................... 17
2.2. Evaluation framework ....................................................................................................................... 17
Figure 3: Evaluation framework ............................................................................................................. 18
2.2.1. What is the uptake of the HSR? .................................................................................................. 18
2.2.2. Do manufactures comply with the HSRC and guidelines? ......................................................... 19
2.2.3. Are consumers aware of the HSR system? ................................................................................ 19
2.2.4. Do consumers trust in the HSR system? .................................................................................... 19
2.2.5. Do consumers find the HSR system useful? ............................................................................... 20
2.2.6. Which HSR logos do consumers prefer? .................................................................................... 20
2.2.7. Do consumers understand the HSR? ......................................................................................... 20
2.2.8. Does the HSR system influence consumers to make healthier choices? ................................... 20
2.2.9. Has the HSR system had an impact on manufacturers’ formulation decisions? ........................ 20
2.3. Data sources .................................................................................................................................... 21
2.3.1. FoodTrack ................................................................................................................................... 21
2.3.2. Sales data .................................................................................................................................... 22
2.4. Evaluation tools ................................................................................................................................ 23
2.4.1. Style Guide .................................................................................................................................. 23
2.4.2. HSR calculator............................................................................................................................. 23
2.4.3. HSR Tracker ................................................................................................................................ 24
2.4.4. Additional in-store collections ...................................................................................................... 26
2.4.5. Focus group................................................................................................................................. 26
Chapter 3: What is the uptake of the HSR system? .................................................................................. 28
3.1. Participation in the HSR ................................................................................................................... 28
3.1.1. Annual HSR uptake ..................................................................................................................... 28
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 4
3.1.2. Additonal in-store collection ........................................................................................................ 29
3.1.3. Eligibility of uptake ....................................................................................................................... 29
3.1.4. Uptake by Category ..................................................................................................................... 30
3.2. Sales weighted uptake ..................................................................................................................... 32
3.3. How does HSR uptake compare to other front-of-pack labelling schemes? ................................... 34
3.4. Drivers of uptake in participation ...................................................................................................... 35
3.5. Concluding comments ...................................................................................................................... 37
Chapter 4: Do manufacturers comply with the HSRC and guidelines? .................................................. 38
4.1. Style Guide compliance ................................................................................................................... 38
4.2. Assessment against the HSR Calculator ......................................................................................... 41
4.3. Concluding comments ...................................................................................................................... 42
Chapter 5: Are consumers aware of the HSR system? ............................................................................ 43
5.1. Consumer awareness ...................................................................................................................... 43
5.1.1. Which consumers are more likely to be aware of the HSR system? .......................................... 44
5.2. Concluding comments ...................................................................................................................... 45
Chapter 6: Attitude formation ...................................................................................................................... 46
6.1. Do consumers trust in the HSR system? ......................................................................................... 46
6.1.1. Who trusts the system? ............................................................................................................... 47
6.2. Do consumers find the HSR system useful? ................................................................................... 48
6.2.1. To whom is the HSR system the most useful? ........................................................................... 48
6.3. Do consumers understand how to use and interpret the HSR? ...................................................... 49
6.3.1. Understanding the ‘stars’ ............................................................................................................. 51
6.3.2. Understanding what can be compared ....................................................................................... 51
6.3.3. Using the HSR system ................................................................................................................ 52
6.4. Which HSR logo do consumers prefer? ........................................................................................... 53
6.4.1. Preferred HSR logo ..................................................................................................................... 53
6.4.2. Consumers preferred attributes for HSR logos ........................................................................... 54
6.4.3. Have preferences changed over time? ....................................................................................... 55
6.4.4. Which logos do manufacturers use? ........................................................................................... 56
6.4.5. Do consumer preferences match logos on packs? ..................................................................... 58
6.5. Concluding comments ...................................................................................................................... 60
Chapter 7: Does the HSR system influence consumers to make healthier choices? ........................... 61
7.1. Does the HSR influence consumer choices? ................................................................................... 61
7.1.1. Who does the HSR influence? .................................................................................................... 63
7.2. How does the HSR influence? ......................................................................................................... 63
7.2.1. Sales weighting of HSR purachases ........................................................................................... 64
7.2.2. Change in purchasing behaviours for healthier products ............................................................ 65
7.3. Concluding comments ...................................................................................................................... 67
Chapter 8: Has the HSR system had an impact on reformulation? ........................................................ 68
8.1. Has the star rating changed over time? ........................................................................................... 68
8.2. Have the nutrients in HSR products changed over time? ................................................................ 69
8.3. Does a change in nutrients translate to a change in star rating? ..................................................... 72
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 5
8.4. Concluding comments ...................................................................................................................... 74
Chapter 9: Concluding remarks .................................................................................................................. 75
Appendix A: Style Guide Compliance Checklist ........................................................................................ 76
Appendix B: HSR hierarchy of categories .................................................................................................. 85
Appendix C: HSR Tracker Survey ................................................................................................................ 86
Appendix D: Data tables ............................................................................................................................. 108
Uptake ..................................................................................................................................................... 108
Compliance ............................................................................................................................................. 111
Awareness ............................................................................................................................................. 113
Trust ........................................................................................................................................................ 116
Use ........................................................................................................................................................ 117
Like ........................................................................................................................................................ 119
Influence .................................................................................................................................................. 120
Reformulation ........................................................................................................................................ 122
Appendix E: Text-based Alternatives for Figures .................................................................................... 125
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 6
Acronyms
Acronym Term
ADG Australian Dietary Guidelines
AoE Area of enquiry
BMI Body mass index
CSIRO Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organisation
DIG Daily Intake Guide
FoP Front of pack
FoPL Front of pack labelling
FSC Food Standards Code
FV Fruit or vegetables
FVNL Fruit, vegetable, nut and legume
HSR Health Star Rating
HSRAC Health Star Rating Advisory Committee
HSRC Health Star Rating calculator
NIP Nutrition information panel
NGO Non-Government Organisation
NRM Nutrient reference measure
RDI Recommended Dietary Intake
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 7
Executive summary
The Health Star Rating (HSR) system, an interpretive front-of-pack nutrition labelling scheme, was
introduced in Australia and New Zealand in June 2014. The HSR aims to provide convenient, relevant, easily
understood nutrition information and/or guidance on food packs to assist consumers to make informed
purchases and healthier eating choices. A secondary objective of the system is to encourage food
manufacturers to reformulate their products to achieve a higher star rating.
The National Heart Foundation was engaged to monitor the implemenatation of the HSR system in Australia.
By using targeted evaluation questions, this report provides an overiew of the progress of implementation of
the HSR system at Year 4 (July 2017 – June 2018).
AoE1: Label implementation and consistency with the HSR system Style Guide
What is the uptake of the HSR?
Industry participation in the HSR system has increased since implementation. In Year 4, 5,448 products, or
30.5 percent of eligible products displayed the system, which was an increase of 51.9 percent from Year 3.
The Confectionary HSR Category had the greatest number of products displaying the HSR system graphic
(n=366) followed by Sugar (or artificially) sweetened beverages (n=314). However, the system was
displayed on the greatest proportion of products in the Hot cereals – flavoured HSR Category (95%).
When uptake was weighted by sales, it showed that market penetration of HSR products was greater than
what raw (unweighted) uptake may indicate. In Year 4, sales weighted uptake was 37.9 percent of eligible
products which was statistically larger than raw uptake, suggesting that products participating in the HSR
system are more frequently purchased than non-HSR products.
Large retailers and manufacturers were identified as key drivers of growth as private label retailers
accounted for over half of all products participating in the HSR system.
Do manufacturers comply with the HSRC and guidelines?
Industry compliance with the HSR Stye Guide increased overtime, reaching 95.8 percent in Year 4. The
proportion of products that have a design or technical variation has decreased since Year 2 and were at their
lowest in Year 4.
However, alignment between the displayed star rating and the calculated HSR has declined over time from
98.1 percent in Year 1 to 89.7 percent in Year 4. Misalignment between the calculated HSR and that
displayed on pack has been driven by both under and overstatement of the HSR, with the difference largely
restricted to 0.5 stars.
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 8
AoE2: Consumer awareness and ability to use the HSR system correctly
Are consumers aware of the system?
Consumer awareness has steadily increased since the implementation of the HSR system. Unprompted
awareness of the HSR increased by 61.8 percent, from 12.5 percent in Year 2 to 20.2 percent in Year 4.
Prompted awareness had also increased overtime. By Year 4, more than four in every five (83.3 percent)
consumers were aware of the HSR system.
Do consumers trust in the HSR system?
By Year 4, almost six in every ten consumers trust the system (58.4 percent), and even more find it credible
(61.5 percent). There was recognition that the HSR provides a quick and easy reference on the healthiness
(or otherwise) when buying a product.
Confidence in the HSR system also grew significantly over the three years. The majority of consumers in
Year 2 were not confident in the system however; confidence had increased to over half (51.4 percent) in
Year 3 and continued to almost 70 percent in Year 4.
Do consumers find the HSR system useful?
The HSR system is intended to make it easier for consumers to compare products and make healthier
choices. While over three quarters of consumers (76.8 percent) agree that the HSR system makes
identifying healthier products easier, 28.2 percent of consumers don’t feel the HSR adds value and reports
that it makes shopping confusing.
Do consumers understand how to use and interpret the HSR?
By Year 4, when unprompted, more than half of consumers (55.8 percent) understood that the HSR provides
a rating on the healthiness of the product upon which it appears. Seven in every ten consumers (72.3
percent) agree (or strongly agree) that the system makes it easier to compare products participating in the
HSR system.
Though comparisons should only be made between similar products, more than half of consumers in Year 4
(58.2 percent) believed that the HSR can be used to compare products of different categories (HSR
Category). However, during the focus groups, participants exhibited an intuitive understanding that the HSR
can only be used to compare similar products.
Which HSR logo do consumers prefer?
A food manufacturer or retailer has the choice of five different options to use when displaying their products’
star rating. The options follow a hierarchy where Option 1 provides the greatest amount of information to
Options 2 to 4 which includes decreasing amounts of information on nutrients down to Option 5, which only
includes the energy icon.
In Year 4, consumers preferred Option 1 the most (63.3 percent) followed by Option 4 (21.1 percent).
Consumers indicated they preferred Option 1 because it provides the most detailed information, while those
that preferred Option 4 do so because it is simple.
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 9
However, there is limited alignment between what HSR logos consumers prefer to see on packs, and what
manufacturers place on packs. By Year 4, the majority of consumers preferred Option 1, however Option 4
was the most common logo displayed.
Does the HSR influence consumers to make healthier choices?
In Year 4, 70 percent of consumers reported purchasing a HSR product in the last three months with nearly
two thirds reporting that the HSR had influenced their purchasing behaviour.
Of those influenced by the HSR system, more than 50 percent stated that they selected a healthier product.
Overall, 23.4 percent of all consumers changed their purchasing behaviour by selecting a HSR product with
more stars.
AoE3: Nutrient status of products carrying a HSR system label
Has the HSR system had an impact on reformulation?
The propotion of products displaying a lower HSR value has increased with the average HSR decreasing
from 3.8 in Year 1 to 3.4 in Year 4. Correspondingly, the average content of saturated fat, sodium and sugar
(per 100g or 100mL) were higher in Year 4 than Year 1.
Though a decrease in the average HSR throughout the years and increase in average content of certain
negative nutrients was observed, it was important to determine whether HSR products have reformulated
over time. To ascertain whether a decrease in nutrients is unique to HSR products, or reflects a general
trend of reformulation, nutrient content of non-HSR products were also analysed. Results revealed that there
were statistically significant reductions in energy and saturated fat content from products displaying the HSR
system, compared to products not displaying the system. Therefore, participation in the HSR system may be
leading to voluntary reformulation of products to decrease negative components.
Conclusion
At the commencement of the HSR system in June 2014, no specific targets for industry uptake or consumer
use or understanding were established. However, monitoring data indicates that across almost every
evaluation question, the monitored indicators generally have improved over the four years.
Uptake and participation in the HSR system has increased, participating manufacturers and retailers have
largely complied with system guidance and there is some evidence that the HSR system is encouraging
positive reformulation.
From a consumer perspective, there is strong awareness of the HSR, and majority trust the system and
understand how to use it. There is also evidence to suggest that the HSR system is changing purchasing
behaviours and helping consumers make healthier choices.
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 10
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1. Context and background
In 2002 mandatory nutrition labelling was introduced for all manufactured goods sold in Australia and New
Zealand. Standardised nutrition information panels (NIPs) must include the average quantity per serve of
energy, protein, total fat, saturated fat, carbohydrate, sugars and sodium as well as any other nutrition
informationm about which a claim is made.
While the NIP provides comprehensive information to assist consumers in making informed choices about
the food they eat, it is often considered too technical and difficult to understand.1
In 2011, in response to Recommendation 50 of Labelling Logic, The Review of Food Labelling Law and
Policy (2011), the Legislative and Governance Forum on Food Regulation (now known as the Australia and
New Zealand Ministerial Forum on Food Regulation) agreed to the development of an easily understood,
interperative front of pack labelling (FoPL) scheme for packaged food products. In partnership with industry,
public health and consumer groups, the Australian, state and territory governments developed the Health
Star Rating (HSR) system, which was introduced from June 2014.
The HSR system leverages much of the information that is provided in the NIP and summarises it to provide
an overall nutritional rating of the product. Products are rated from half a star to five stars, providing
consumers a quick, easy and standard way to compare similar packaged foods.
Participation is voluntary, with food manufacturers and retailers free to participate in the HSR system at any
point by using the HSR calculator to determine the HSR for their product and selecting an approved logo to
display their star rating. There are no applications or fees for participation.
Though participation in the system is voluntary with no application fee, the Health Star Advisory Committee
(HSRAC) is responsible for overseeing the monitoring and evaluation of the HSR system.
1.1.1. HSR calculator
The HSR calculator (HSRC) is a tool to assist industry in determining the appropriate number of stars for
their product. The HSRC takes into account energy, saturated fat, sodium, total sugars, fruit, vegetable, nut
and legume (FVNL) content, and in some instances dietary fibre and protein of the product.
The HSRC comprises of two components: baseline points, consisting of negative components (energy,
saturated fat, sodium and total sugars) and modifying points consisting of the positive components (FVNL
content and in some instances protein and fibre). Together with the baseline points and the modifying points,
a final score is calculated.
Final score = baseline points – modifying points
The final score, in conjunction with the correct HSR Category Class of the product, is used to determine the
star rating of the product (see Table 1).
Table 1: Final scores used to assign Health Star Ratings
1 Ni Mhurchu, C. Gorton, D. 2007, ‘Nutrition labels and claims in New Zealand and Australia: a review of use and
understanding’, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, vol. 31, issue 2.
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 11
Food categories
HSR 1 Non-dairy
beverage
1D Dairy
beverage
2 Non-dairy
foods
2D Dairy
foods
3 Oils and
spreads
3D
Processed
cheese
5 ≤ - 6 ≤ -2 ≤ -11 ≤ -2 ≤ 13 ≤ 22
4 ½ -5 -1 -10 to -7 -1 14 to 16 23 to 24
4 -4 0 -6 to -2 0 17 to 20 25 to 26
3 ½ -3 1 -1 to 2 1 21 to 23 27 to 28
3 -2 2 3 to 6 2 24 to 27 29 to 30
2 ½ -1 3 7 to 11 3 28 to 30 31 to 32
2 0 4 12 to 15 4 31 to 34 33 to 34
1 ½ 1 5 16 to 20 5 35 to 37 35 to 36
1 2 6 21 to 24 6 38 to 41 37 to 38
½ ≥ 3 ≥ 7 ≥ 25 ≥ 7 ≥ 42 ≥ 39
1.1.2. HSR system graphics
A food manufacturer or retailer has the choice of five different options to use when displaying their products’
star rating. Option 1 provides the greatest amount of information, including the energy icon, three prescribed
negative nutrients, and an optional positive nutrient icon. Options 2 to 4 include decreasing amounts of
information on the nutrients, down to Option 5, which only includes the energy icon (see Table 2).
Given there are five options to use, not all options may be available for food products to display. That is, a
product with little nutritional value cannot display Option 1 as the optional nutrient displayed is to comply with
nutrient content claims underpinned by the Food Standards Code (FSC).
Table 2: HSR system graphics
Option Graphic Description
1
HSR + energy icon + 3 prescribed nutrient icons + 1
optional nutrient icon
2
HSR + energy icon + 3 prescribed nutrient icons
3
HSR + energy icon
4
HSR
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 12
Option Graphic Description
5
Energy icon
While food manufacturers are free to select the HSR logo that is most appropriate for their product based on
available pack size and label space, they are encouraged to use as many elements of the HSR system
graphic as possible. That is, if there is enough space, manufacturers should select Option 1 over any other
option, as it provides the greatest amount of information.
1.2. Monitoring and evaluation of the HSR system
The primary objective of the HSR system is to provide convenient, relevant, easily understood nutrition
information and/or guidance on food packs to assist consumers to make informed purchases and healthier
eating choices.2
To achieve this objective, it is necessary that manufacturers participate in the system and comply with the
tools and guidelines, and that consumers are aware of the system and how to interpret the HSR.
A secondary intention of the system is that it encourages food manufacturers to reformulate products to
achieve a higher star rating3. In doing so, the HSR system aims to provide greater transparency to the
consumer on how similar products compare healthwise.
The monitoring and evaluation framework capture these elements in its three areas of enquiry:
Area of enquiry 1 (AoE1): assessing uptake of HSR, implementation of HSR against Style Guide, and
comparing HSR displayed on pack to HSRC;
Area of enquiry 2 (AoE2): reporting on consumer awareness and understanding of HSR, accurate use of
the HSR and trust in the system;
Area of enquiry 3 (AoE3): measuring the nutrient status of products participating in the HSR system and
monitoring changes in the nutrient profile over time.
These three areas of enquiry were established and endorsed by the HSRAC, who is responsible for
overseeing the monitoring and evaluation of the HSR system, amongst other things.
1.2.1. Program logic
The areas of enquiry are reflected in the program logic which outlines the sequence of steps required to
achieve the objective of the HSR system (see Figure 1).
Figure 1: Program logic framework for the monitoring and evaluation of implementation of the HSR system
2 Front-of-Pack Labelling Project Committee: Objectives and principles for the development of a FoPL scheme. 2012
3 Front-of-Pack Labelling Project Committee: Objectives and principles for the development of a FoPL scheme. 2012,
http://foodregulation.gov.au/internet/fr/publishing.nsf/Content/frontofpackobjectives
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 13
HSR OBJECTIVE: 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
HEART FOUNDATION OBJECTIVE: To objectively monitor and evaluate the implementation,
awareness and use, and changes in the food supply, of the HSR system.
INPUTS
Funding ↔ Governance ↔ Documents and reports ↔ Staff ↔ Technology, equipment and materials
ACTIVITIES AND OUTPUTS
Area of enquiry 1
Label implementation and
consistency with the HSR system
Style Guide
Area of enquiry 2
Consumer awareness and
ability to use the HSR system
correctly
Area of enquiry 3
Nutrient status of products
carrying a HSR system label
Establishment of analytical
methods
Establishment of standard
operating procedures
Monitoring of:
- Uptake of HSR by
manufacturers and
retailers
- Implementation of
HSR against Style
Guide
- HSR displayed on
pack compared to
HSRC
- Develop / implement
metrics
- Periodic reporting
Determine information and
data requirements
Develop / implement
quantitative and/or qualitative
research to establish and
monitor consumer:
awareness, knowledge,
intentions and behaviours
Develop / implement metrics
Periodic reporting
Establish automated
reporting in FoodTrack™
database
Develop analytical methods,
operating procedures for:
- Nutrient status of
products
- Changes in nutrient
profile
- Develop / implement
metrics
- Periodic reporting
OUTCOMES
Area of enquiry 1
Label implementation and
consistency with the HSR system
Style Guide
Area of enquiry 2
Consumer awareness and
ability to use the HSR system
correctly
Area of enquiry 3
Nutrient status of products
carrying a HSR system label
Objective
measurement/assessment
against indicators, including:
- Uptake of HSR by
manufacturers and
retailers
- Implementation of
HSR against Style
Guide
Objective
measurement/assessment
against consumer indicators,
including:
- Awareness,
understanding of
HSR
- Accurate use of
HSR, trust in HSR
Objective
measurement/assessment
against indicators, including
- Changes to the
nutrient status of
HSR products over
time
- Changes in the
overall nutrient profile
over time
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 14
Area of enquiry 1
Label implementation and
consistency with the HSR system
Style Guide
Area of enquiry 2
Consumer awareness and
ability to use the HSR system
correctly
Area of enquiry 3
Nutrient status of products
carrying a HSR system label
- HSR displayed on
pack compared to
HSRC
- Assessment to cover
key population
demographics
1.2.2. Reporting to date
The Heart Foundation was engaged to monitor and evaluate the HSR system in Australia in May 2015.
Since this time, monitoring and evaluation of the HSR has included:
Eight reports on cumulative participation in the HSR system since 2015, complemented with seven
point-in-time snapshots of participation in the HSR system, and annual reports on compliance with Style
Guide and HSRC, addressing AoE1;
Eight surveys of consumers, and one survey of industry for AoE2;
Two reports analysing nutrient status of HSR products for AoE3; and
Two annual reports (Years 1 and 2), reporting on all three areas of enquiry.
In parallel to the monitoring and evaluation undertaken by the Heart Foundation, a review of progress was
undertaken in 2016 and a five-year review by MP Consulting is currently in progress.
This report combines much of the data collected since 2014 to provide a comprehensive assessment on the
progress of implementation, and evaluation of outcomes achieved to June 2018. Results from previous
surveys can be obtained from here.
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 15
Chapter 2: Monitoring and evaluation methodology
This section sets out the methodology that is used to conduct the monitoring and evaluation of the HSR
system. In the first section a conceptual framework is outlined to demonstrate how the consumer is affected
and influenced by the HSR. This was then used to develop an overall evaluation framework.
The final sections of this chapter include the data sources and evaluation tools.
2.1. Conceptual framework
As outlined by the program logic, data collection, analysis and reporting have been structured around the
three areas of enquiry. This structure has provided a convenient framework for collecting data and reporting
on implementation.
In this report we expand beyond monitoring implementation to also evaluate outcomes. To this end, we
leverage the literature to develop a conceptual framework illustrating the components necessary for nutrition
information to affect consumer decision making.4 This is illustrated in
4 Grunert, K.G., Wills, J.M. 2007, ‘A review of European research on consumer response to nutrition information on food
labels’, Journal of Public Health, vol. 15, issue 5, pp. 385-399.
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 16
Figure 2 and shows that awareness is the first and necessary condition that must be met if the HSR system
is to have any impact upon the actions of consumers. The second component is attitude formation with the
third looking at how attitude formation impacts upon consumer decisions.
2.1.1. Attitude formation
We make thousands of decisions every day – most of them unconsciously. To simplify decision making,
people have created cognitive short cuts,5 which are often based on positive or negative associations with
groups of ideas. Attitudes help to form these short cuts and therefore, are incredibly important in
understanding whether consumers are positively or negatively disposed to the HSR system.
Attitude formation comprises of four elements: trust or credibility in the HSR system, understanding of the
system, relevance of the system, and whether the logo is liked.6 In this report, like has been measured
through consumer preferences of HSR logos and will therefore be reported as preferred.
Trust in the HSR system is a crucial element of attitude formation, because without it, consumers will be
hesitant to make a purchase based on a products’ participation in the system (hereafter referred to as HSR
status),7 that is whether they are displaying a HSR system graphic or not. Similarly, without an understanding
of the HSR system (perceived or genuine), or perceived usefulness, a consumer is unlikely to decide to
purchase a HSR product because of its participation in the system.
Another effect on the attitude formed to the HSR system is how well the label is liked and which labels
consumers preferred. Preference is an important and separate component to understanding, because
preference for a logo can lead to a more positive evaluation of the HSR system, even when it is not
understood.8
5 Goldstein D.G., Gigerenzer, G. 2002, ‘Models of ecological rationality: the recognition heuristic’, Psychological Review,
vol. 109, issue 1, pp. 75-90.
6 Based upon Grunert and Wills, 2007.
7 Halliburton, C., Poenaru, A. 2010, ‘The role of trust in consumer relationships’, ESCP Business School.
8 Grunert and Wills 2007 citing Petty, R.E, Cacioppo, J.T. 1986, Attitudes and persuasion: classic and contemporary
approaches, Brown Co. publishers, Dubuque Iowa.
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 17
Figure 2: Conceptual framework
Click to view the text version of Figure 2.
Source: Heart Foundation; Grunert, K.G., Wills, J.M. 2007, ‘A review of European research on consumer response to
nutrition information on food labels’, Journal of Public Health, vol. 15, issue 5, pp. 385-399.
2.1.2. Decision making
Based on the attitude formation, a consumer typically decides whether to purchase a product. However, it is
possible that a person will choose to purchase a HSR product with no regard for the products participation in
the system, that is whether it is displaying a HSR system graphic or not. It is therefore important to understand
whether the products’ participation in the system has influenced the purchase.
2.2. Evaluation framework
The conceptual framework presented above outlines the elements necessary to determine whether the HSR
influences consumers’ decision to purchase a HSR product. However, the evaluation is broader than this.
The evaluation also includes monitoring implementation and evaluating outcomes beyond those associated
with the consumer, i.e. uptake and correct use by manufacturers and retailers.
Evaluation questions have been developed to address each component of the evaluation: monitoring
implementation and evaluating outcomes. The questions, and how they relate to each component of the
evaluation is illustrated in Figure 3.
Attitude
formation
Awareness
Trust Understanding
Decision
making
Influence
Purchase
PreferenceUsefulness
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 18
Figure 3: Evaluation framework
Click to view the text version of Figure 3.
Source: Heart Foundation
For each of these evaluation questions, detail on the methodology for measuring activities or impact is
outlined, including data sources and/or collection tools used.
2.2.1. What is the uptake of the HSR?
As there is no requirement for retailers or manufacturers to inform or notify a central body or agency (e.g.
Department of Health) of their participation in the HSR system, the number of products participating in the
HSR must be directly observed.
The FoodTrack™ (refer to section 2.3.1) database facilitates this by collecting the HSR status of products.
To understand how the number of products participating in the HSR compares to the number of eligible
products in the market, HSR coverage is calculated by dividing the total number of participating products by
the total number of eligible products. This is provided on an annual basis.
To further contextualise participation of HSR in relation to consumption of food products, FoodTrack™
uptake data is weighted by Nielsen sales data (refer to section 2.3.2), where sales data acts as a proxy for
consumption. The purpose of weighting is to reflect that some products have more influence on people’s
consumption than others.
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 19
2.2.2. Do manufactures comply with the HSRC and guidelines?
The HSR system is self-regulated, with manufacturers and retailers responsible for correctly using the
available tools to determine their star rating and apply to their product packaging.
Specifically, the HSRC in conjunction with the Guide for Industry is used to determine a product’s star rating
and the Style Guide for guidance on what HSR logo to use, and how to apply it to the product’s packaging.
In Year 1 and 2, when there were 363 and 2,021 products respectively participating in the HSR system, all
products were assessed for compliance. However, as participation in the HSR system grew, a sampling
approach was taken. Since Year 3, annually a sample of 500 products had their HSR independently
calculated to determine whether manufacturers are correctly calculating their HSR. Similarly, a sample of
500 products had their compliance with the Style Guide assessed using the Style Guide checklist.9
A product is deemed non-compliant against the HSRC when the calculated HSR is higher or lower than the
HSR displayed on pack.
On the the other hand, non-compliance with the Style Guide can come from specific design or technical
variations, but it is important to note that a design or technical variation does not automatically imply a
product is non-compliant.
Design variations are those that don’t change the meaning of the HSR system graphic, such as a product
displaying a combination of HSR system graphics on the front of pack (FoP) or using old versions of the HSR
system graphic.
Conversely, technical variations change the meaning of the HSR system graphic and/or content. Examples
include not placing the HSR logo on the front of the pack, mismatch in the energy/nutrient values displayed
on the logo and the NIP and the nominated reference measure (NRM) differing to the guidelines.
2.2.3. Are consumers aware of the HSR system?
Through the HSR survey tracker (see section 2.4.3), prompted and unprompted awareness of the HSR
system has been measured regularly since 2014.
Prompted awareness measured consumer awareness of the HSR system with prompting or assistance. It
consisted of directly surveying consumers whether they were aware of the HSR system or not.
Whereas unprompted awareness measured a consumer awareness without any reference to the HSR
system or assistance. Therefore, consumers were surveyed with an open-ended question asking which food
logos helped them choose to buy food in the supermarket and consumers were assessed whether they were
able to recall the HSR system. The unprompted awareness measure is a better and more valuable indicator
of awareness rather than prompted awareness as it indicates there is a stronger impression of the HSR
system that has registered in the consumers mind/thoughts.
2.2.4. Do consumers trust in the HSR system?
Consumer attitudes and perceptions of the HSR system are obtained through the HSR Tracker. Explored in
detail are consumers’ trust and credibility in the HSR system.
9 See Appendix A for Style Guide Compliance Checklist
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 20
To gain further insight into why consumers hold the views they do, the findings from the survey will be
supplemented with the findings from the focus groups (see section 2.4.5).
2.2.5. Do consumers find the HSR system useful?
A system that is not deemed relevant is unlikely to engage consumer interest or trust. Consequently,
consumer views on whether the HSR system is, or is not useful are explored through the HSR Tracker.
2.2.6. Which HSR logos do consumers prefer?
Consumer opinions of the logo play an important role in influencing consumer attitude towards the HSR
system. The presentation of the information can also impact a consumers’ ability to understand and interpret
the information on the logo.
Overall preference for HSR logos is assessed by considering which of the HSR logos consumers preferred
the most through the HSR Tracker, with a focus on specific attributes of the logos. Specifically, consumers’
views on the ease of understanding the logo, ability to recognise the logo, and the volume of information
communicated by the logo was of interest.
Consumers views are contextualised with information from FoodTrack™ on the logos used by manufacturers
and retailers to ascertain whether there is alignment between what manufacturers use and what consumers
prefer.
2.2.7. Do consumers understand the HSR?
Consumers’ understanding of the HSR system explores both their understanding of the system more
generally, such as its design and purpose, and how to use it correctly.
Consumer understanding is explored through the HSR Tracker and supplemented with insights from the
consumer focus group.
2.2.8. Does the HSR system influence consumers to make healthier choices?
The influence of the HSR system on consumers is explored through two different but complementary
approaches.
The first is through the HSR Tracker, where consumers report on the perceived influence of the HSR system
on their purchasing decisions, and whether they’ve been influenced to make healthier choices.
The second approach is through sales data (see section 2.3.2). It is hypothesised that if the HSR system
influences consumers to make healthier purchases, the sales-weighted average HSR will be higher than the
unweighted average HSR.
The sales-weighted average HSR will be constructed for Years 3 and 4, for which sales data is available,
and compared to the corresponding unweighted average HSR.
2.2.9. Has the HSR system had an impact on manufacturers’ formulation decisions?
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 21
A secondary intention of the HSR system is to encourage manufacturers to reformulate their products in
order to improve the healthiness of their products and increase their star rating.
Therefore, to assess whether there has been any change in the average HSR of products, the nutrient status
and star rating of products participating in the HSR in Year 4 is compared to their nutrient status and
(calculated) star rating in Year 1.
To determine whether the change between Years 1 and 4 is due to participation in the HSR system, a
sample (see next section) is taken of eligible, but non-participating HSR products. The star rating is
calculated for these products based on their Year 4 and Year 1 data, to determine whether there has been
any change.
The change over time for HSR products can then be compared to that of non-participating products to
ascertain whether any change over time can be attributed to participation in the HSR system.
Sampling
The first step in establishing a sample is to understand how many products in Year 4 were also in the market
in Year 1.
There were 1,802 products participating in the HSR in Year 4 that also existed in the market in Year 1,
accounting for just under 40 percent of all Year 4 HSR products.
As for non-HSR products, there were 4,130 non-participating products in the market both in Year 1 and Year
4, accounting for about one-third of all Year 4 non-HSR products.
As a result of the sampling process, there was a total sample of 319 paired HSR products and 354 paired
non-HSR products selected for analysis. The paired HSR and non-HSR samples was a representative
sample of all HSR categories.
A two one-sampled chi-square test was conducted with results confirming that the HSR and non-HSR
sample of products are representative of their respective populations in terms of HSR categories
(ꭕ2(df=75) = 0.04, p = 1.00 and ꭕ2(df=81) = 0.15, p = 1.00).
However, due to the agreed sampling methodology and lack of statistical power, results cannot be reported
at a category level and will therefore be reported at an aggregate level.10
2.3. Data sources
2.3.1. FoodTrack
FoodTrack™ is a food composition database established in June 2014 as a joint initiative between the Heart
Foundation and the Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO).
For each product collected within FoodTrack™, product information (e.g. brand, package size), nutrition
information (e.g. energy and nutrients), and participation in the HSR is recorded. Eligibility of products to
participate in the system is assessed and mapped to corresponding categories (e.g. HSR Category Class
and HSR Category Name).
10 See Figure B.1 of Appendix B for hierarchy of categories used for the HSR system.
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 22
FoodTrack™ aims to include all food products sold in supermarkets with more than 17,000 products added
to the database annually. Products are added to the database on a rolling schedule by category, with more
than 80 food and beverage categories collected over a 12-month period. Trained data collection field officers
(qualifications in nutrition and/or dietetics) populate the FoodTrack™ database on an ongoing basis by
collecting data in-store using smartphone technology.
With a systematic and comprehensive method for collecting food products, FoodTrack™ has greater than
90 percent coverage for each category within major supermarket retailers.11
To assist the monitoring and evaluation of the HSR, the functionality of FoodTrack™ has been expanded to
capture images of the HSR graphic with additional information.
Eligibility
The HSR system has been developed for use on packaged products. Nonetheless it’s not suitable for all
packaged products. Products not eligible to display the HSR system are outlined in the HSR system Style
Guide which cross references the FSC and aligns with other restrictions outlined in the Code.
It was not intended that the HSR be applied to single ingredient products and those that didn’t require a NIP.
However, over time an increasing number of manufacturers begun including the HSR system logo on these
kind of products. Examples include seasonings and herbs, packaged plain meat/seafood and unprocessed
fruit and vegetables.
Products that are either not eligible for the HSR, or not intended to display the HSR are considered outside
the scope of eligible products. However, for the purpose of the analysis undertaken for this report, where
products are not intended to display the HSR, but do, these are subsequently considered within the scope of
eligible products.
2.3.2. Sales data
Sales data is from Nielsen, a global measurement and data analytics company. Nielsen has a shopper
panel, called HomeScan®, comprises 10,000 households, which is demographically and geographically
representative of the Australian population.
Each household is provided with a handheld scanner, which is used to enter the details of all products
purchased – product, quantity, price and outlet. The information is then transmitted directly to Nielsen.
Households participate for a period of four weeks at a time. This is aggregated across all households to
provide sales data for a 12-month period, aligning with the HSR reporting periods.
The sales data is then mapped to products from the FoodTrack™ database using a unique product identifier
(i.e. stock keeping unit).
The volume of sales is used to weight each food product in the FoodTrack™ database. The purpose of
weighting is to reflect that some products have more influence than others. For example, the more people
consume of a given product, the more important that product is in terms of its contribution to food supply and
people’s diet.
For Year 3 and 4 products, sales weighted data will be used in the calculation of:
11 Major supermarket retailers include Coles, Woolworths, Aldi (since 2016) and IGA supermarkets (since 2017)
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 23
Uptake of HSR
Average HSR rating
Nutrient status of HSR and non-HSR products.
2.4. Evaluation tools
2.4.1. Style Guide
The Style Guide is the key tool available for manufacturers and retailers to know what HSR logo they can
use, and how to apply it to their product’s packaging.
Leveraging the Style Guide, a checklist has been developed as a series of yes/no questions designed to
systematically and objectively assess participating products. As the requirements for compliance vary by
HSR logo, a separate checklist has been developed for each logo, which includes five core questions
regardless of logo used.
2.4.2. HSR calculator
Using the HSRC, the star rating for HSR products was independently calculated and compared to the HSR
displayed on pack.
The star rating is only assessed for products that use a version of the HSR system graphic that involves the
star rating (i.e. not for products using the energy icon).
The majority of the information required to independently calculate the HSR is drawn from FoodTrack™,
which pulls information from the NIP and ingredients list. However, presentation of some nutrients (e.g.
Fibre) is optional under the labelling legislation and not all FVNL content can be quantified from the
ingredients list, which means there are instances where information required for the calculation of the star
rating is missing.
In Years 1 and 2, products with incomplete information were excluded from further analysis because they
accounted for less than 5 percent of all products (see Table 3). However, in Year 3 and 4 the proportion of
the sampled products with incomplete information was greater than 50 percent.
Table 3: Proportion of products with incomplete information
Year Products with missing or
incomplete information
Products eligible
for assessment
Proportion of products with missing
or incomplete information (%)
Year 1 11 320 3.4
Year 2 87 1,822 4.8
Year 3 308 543 56.7
Year 4 305 496 61.5
Source: FoodTrack™; Heart Foundation calculations
Consequently, excluding products with incomplete information from the sample in Years 3 and 4 would
potentially bias the sample and would therefore not be statistically representative of the total HSR
population. Therefore, in these circumstances, missing or incomplete information was imputed from another
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 24
equivalent product for which the information is available. Depending on the information missing, different
approaches are taken to its imputation. These approaches are outlined further below.
Managing missing fibre values
It is not mandatory that fibre be listed on the NIP for products, however, if there is more than 0.9g/100g fibre
in the product, additional points can be attracted in the calculation of the HSR.
To determine whether it is likely (or not) that a product contains more than 0.9g/100g fibre, similar products
are reviewed using the FoodTrack™ database, or the standard reference food composition database,
AUSNUT 2013.
For products considered unlikely to contain more than 0.9g/100g fibre (e.g. confectionary), the missing
value is assumed to be zero for the purposes of the star calculation.
For products considered likely to contain more than 0.9g/100g fibre (e.g. cereal) the data is imputed from
a similar generic product from the FoodTrack™ or AUSNUT 2013 database.
Where it is not possible to impute from a similar product, such as ready meals, the fibre content is
estimated by creating a recipe using the nutritional analysis software, FoodWorks Professional.
Managing missing or incomplete FVNL and/or concentrated FV values
FVNL or concentrated fruit or vegetable (FV) are estimated based on the products’ ingredients list. Products
containing at least 25 percent concentrate FV content or more than 40 percent FVNL content can attract
additional points in the calculation of the HSR. A different number of points are awarded depending on the
percent of concentrated FV and/or percent of FVNL, making it important to specify the exact percent (correct
to the whole number) of FVNL and/or concentrate FV.
Where FVNL and/or concentrated FV data is incomplete, it is sometimes possible to determine the
complete values through deduction, using the data from the remaining ingredients list
Where there is a mixture of complete and incomplete FVNL and/or concentrated FV data, minimum
quantifiable values are used.
If there is insufficient information to deduce an exact or minimum FVNL and/or concentrated FV share,
the additional points could not be calculated and therefore the products were excluded from the
analaysis.
2.4.3. HSR Tracker
A national online consumer survey12 has been conducted since September 2015, with each survey
exploring:
General supermarket shopping behaviour;
Awareness of food logos;
Knowledge and understanding of the HSR system;
Purchasing behaviour;
12 Appendix C: HSR Tracker Survey
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 25
Awareness and influence of advertising (not presented in this report); and
Attitudes and perception of the HSR system.
Since July 2017, one component of the survey is varied in each ‘wave’ of the survey, enabling the
exploration of topical areas of interest. Variable questions have covered the following topics:
Influence of advertising or promotion on thought or behaviour (July 2017)
Application of the HSR system to pre-packaged foods (November 2017)
Increasing trust in the HSR (March 2018)
Fresh/packaged foods (July 2018)
Results from previous surveys exploring these variables can be found on the HSR monitoring website here
The survey sample is nationally representative of approximately 2,500 households in each wave, stratified by
demographics and consumer characteristics, including:
Age group (under 35 years of age, 35 to 54 years of age and those aged 55 and over),
Household income per annum (less than $50,000, between $50,000 to $99,000 and $100,000 or
greater),
Gender (male or female),
Body mass index (less than 25, equal to or greater than 25 and less than 30, equal to or greater than
30),
Level of education (high school, diploma and/or tafe, or university),
Language spoken at home (English spoken only at home or language other than English spoken at
home), and
Location (respondent residing in metropolitan area or in regional/rural area).
Findings from the consumer surveys have been reported to the Department of Health on the completion of
each survey. To generate insights additional to those already reported, responses are aggregated for Years
2, 3 and 4 of the HSR system. As the sample size for each period increases (see Table 4), this provides
greater statistical power to explore how the demographic and social characteristics of respondents influence
people’s responses.
Table 4: Sample size for each survey
HSR Year 2
Period Sample
September 2015 2,036
February 2016 2,005
Total Sample: 4,041
HSR Year 3
Period Sample
July 2016 2,003
December, January, February, March 2017 2,507
April, May, June, July 2017 2,501
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 26
Total Sample: 7,010
HSR Year 4
Period Sample
August, September, October, November 2017 2,531
December, January, February, March 2018 2,514
April, May, June, July 2018 2,436
Total Sample: 7,481
2.4.4. Additional in-store collections
Historically, uptake using the FoodTrack ™ database could only be reported on an annual basis. For the
purposes of reporting uptake on more regular intervals, additional in-store collections were required. The
additional in-store collection takes place over eight consecutive weeks in major retailers,13 where product
information and HSR status is collected.
The additional in-store collection is then supplemented with retailer data from ALDI and Woolworths, which
include private label HSR products intended to display the HSR but waiting for a print run, FoodTrack ™ data
and online desktop research.
Since 2015, seven additional in-store collections have been undertaken with uptake figures reported directly
to HSRAC for the following time periods:
1. September 2015
2. January 2016
3. May 2016
4. August-September 2016
5. February-March 2017
6. August-September 2017
7. February-March 2018
The additional uptake data provides a cumulative measure of the number of products that are currently
displaying the HSR, have displayed the HSR since inception and those that intend to display the HSR in the
near future. It does not reflect the total number of products available for sale at the given timepoint.
2.4.5. Focus group
Focus groups were undertaken in July 2018 to explore in further detail consumers perceptions, opinions and
beliefs towards the HSR. Specifically, the focus group discussed:
Food claims and logos – what are they familiar with, and what impact does it have upon their behaviour;
13 Two large metropolitan Coles, Woolworths, Aldi (since 2016) and IGA supermarkets (since 2017) in Victoria.
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 27
HSR logos – what they preferred and why;
Trust in the HSR system – why do or don’t they trust the system, and what could be done to increase it;
and
Understanding the HSR – what do the stars mean, and how does or doesn’t it help to select products.
Four focus groups were held in July 2018, two in South Melbourne, Victoria (metropolitan) and two in
Traralgon, Victoria (regional). The different location of the focus groups providing a greater variety in the type
of participants, particularly in relation to socio economic status, employment status and family structure.
There were approximately six to eight participants in each focus group.
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 28
Chapter 3: What is the uptake of the HSR system?
In this section the number of products participating in the HSR system is explored
by category,
relative to eligible products, and
weighted with sales data
to gain further insight into coverage of HSR in relation to people’s consumption.
3.1. Participation in the HSR
3.1.1. Annual HSR uptake
In the first year of the HSR system, there were 363 products participating (see Chart 1). In Year 2, more than
four times as many products were participating than Year 1 (2,021). In Year 3, participation grew further,
although at a slower rate (77.5 percent). In Year 4, participation grew again, but at an even slower rate
(51.9 percent) with a total of 5,448 products displaying the HSR over the year.
Since the HSR system was introduced, a total of 7,312 products have participated in the HSR system. This
figure includes products currently dipalying the HSR, but also captures products that no longer display the
HSR or products that have been delisted. Therefore, this figure does not reflect the number of HSR products
currently in the market.
Chart 1: Participation of HSR products from FoodTrack™, by Year
Click to view text version of Chart 1.
Source: FoodTrack ™; Heart Foundation calculations
363
2,021
3,587
5,448
7,312
-
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Cumulative
Total
Part
icip
ation (
no.
of
pro
ducts
)
457.7%
77.5%
51.9%
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 29
3.1.2. Additonal in-store collection
Participation of products in the HSR system has also been measured using an additional in-store collection.
The additional in-store collection provides a cumulative measure of the number of products participating in
the HSR, while also capturing products that are anticipated to be available on shelves in the near future.
As illustrated in Chart 2, this in-store collection method shows that by March 2018, 10,333 products have
participated, are participating, or are soon to be participating in the HSR system. Participation measured
using the additional in-store collection is approximately 3,000 products more than the cumulative uptake
measure reported through FoodTrack™. This is a combination of additional products that have been
identified through the additional in-store collection which have not yet been captured in the annual
FoodTrack™ collection and the inclusion of products soon to be participating in the HSR system.
Chart 2: Participation of HSR products from additional in-store collections
Click to view the text version of Chart 2.
Source: Heart Foundation additional in-store collection; Heart Foundation calculations.
Therefore, depending on purposes of reporting, either figure may be appropriate. Both data sets are equally
valid and provide different measures of industry uptake. However, for most purposes and for the purpose of
this report, the rolling annual collection using FoodTrack™ figures will be used for analysis. It is more
definitive in reporting actual use of the HSR (i.e. doesn’t include products that are not intended to display the
HSR) and is based on a longer and more thorough in-store collection process.
3.1.3. Eligibility of uptake
Missing from both measures (section 3.1.1 and 3.1.2) is a sense of context; how does the number of
products participating in the HSR compare to the total number of products eligible for participation?
(Eligibility = products intended to display the HSR as outlined in section 2.3.1). This is provided in Chart 3
which shows the number of products participating (measured using FoodTrack™) divided by the total
number of eligible products. This shows that the proportion of products displaying the HSR system has
grown from 2.9 percent in Year 1 to 30.5 percent in Year 4.
1,526 3,024
3,956
5,560 7,048
8,400
10,333
-
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
Sep 2015 Jan 2016 May 2016 Aug-Sep2016
Feb-Mar2017
Aug-Sep2017
Feb-Mar2018
Pa
rtic
ipa
tio
n (n
o. o
f p
rod
ucts
)
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 30
Chart 3: Uptake of HSR products as a proportion of eligible products
Click to view the text version of Chart 3.
Source: FoodTrack ™; Heart Foundation calculations
As uptake of the HSR has increased, so too has the coverage of categories. There are 83 categories14 in
total, with Year 1 products drawn from just 36 categories. Fast forward to Year 4, and the HSR now includes
products from all but two categories: Poultry – plain and Bakery fats.
3.1.4. Uptake by Category
Presented in Chart 4 is the uptake of the top five categories that have the greatest proportion of products
participating in the HSR system in Year 4. Two out of the five categories had no products participating in
Year 1 however by Year 4, they had contributed to the top five which shows that different categories had
differing trends in uptake.
14 See Figure A.1 of Appendix A for hierarchy of categories used for the HSR system.
2.9
14.6
22.7
30.5
21.8
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Total
Upta
ke (
%)
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 31
Chart 4: Proportion of products participating in the HSR system from the top five categories
Click to view the text version of Chart 4.
Source: FoodTrack™; Heart Foundation calculations
Other categories that had a relatively big impact on uptake of the HSR are Confectionary and Sugar (or
artificially) sweetened beverages. These categories had the largest number of products participating in the
HSR system. They collectively accounted for 680 products and together accounted for over 12 percent of all
products participating in the HSR system in Year 4. Except for the Confectionary category in Year 4, the
proportion of products displaying the HSR for these two categories continued to increase each year (see
Chart 5).
Chart 5: Categories with the largest contribution to uptake
Click to view the text version of Chart 5.
Source: FoodTrack™; Heart Foundation calculations
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 32
3.2. Sales weighted uptake
To understand the market penetration of the HSR, uptake is weighted by sales data. Sales weighted uptake
of the HSR is compared to unweighted uptake for Years 3 and 4 in Chart 6. This shows that in Year 3 there
is no difference between unweighted and sales weighted uptake, whereas in Year 4, sales weighted uptake
is statistically larger than unweighted. This suggests that in Year 4, products participating in the HSR formed
a relatively larger proproprtion of products purchased compared to non-HSR products.
Chart 6: Sales weighted HSR uptake versus unweighted HSR uptakea,b
Click to view the text version of Chart 6.
Notes: a. HSR product sample: Year 3 n=3,461, Year 4 n=5,203; Eligible product sample: Year 3 n=14,864, Year 4
n=16,339; b. Products have been excluded from the calculation where sales data is not available.
Source: FoodTrack ™; Heart Foundation calculations; Nielsen HomeScan ®
In Year 4 at a category level, sales weighted uptake was higher for six out of ten categories. For most
categories, the change has been relatively small, increasing or decreasing between 0 to 10 percentage
points (see Chart 7).15 But for a handful of categories, the change has been significant, with a change
greater than 10 percentage points.
15 See Table D.1 of Appendix D
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 33
Chart 7: Distribution of difference between sales weighted uptake and unweighted uptake, Year 4
Click to view text version of Chart 7.
Source: FoodTrack ™; Heart Foundation calculations; Nielsen HomeScan ®
To observe the change in uptake at a category level in further detail, Table 5 looks at the top five categories
that had the greatest change in sales weighted uptake compared to unweighted uptake. For all five
categories, there was a change of greater than 20 percentage points. This indicates that products from these
categories displaying the HSR system were were more frequently purchased.
Table 5: Top 5 categories with greatest increase in sales weighted uptake compared to unweighted
HSR Category Uptake
Sales
weighted
Change (%
points)
Water 27.3 56.9 29.6
Pastry 15.6 41.2 25.6
Eggs 10.1 35.2 25.1
Dairy milks – plain 33.7 57.9 24.2
Butter 21.4 45.4 24.0
Source: FoodTrack ™; Heart Foundation calculations; Nielsen HomeScan ®
On the contrary and as presented in Chart 7, just over a third of categories had a lower sales weighted
uptake when compared to unweighted uptake. Table 6 presents the top five categories with the greatest
decrease in sales weighted uptake where three out of the five catgories had change of greater than 20
percentage points.
Table 6: Top 5 categories with greatest decrease in uptake and sales weighted uptake
HSR Category Uptake
Sales
weighted
Change (%
points)
Dried fruit & nut mixes 48.3 26.3 22.0
Spreads – nuts & seeds 49.4 28.2 21.2
Nut and seed bars 37.9 17.9 20.0
Fruit – plain 31.0 16.9 14.1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Greater than -20
-20 to -10 -10 to 0 0 0 to 10 10 to 20 Greater than20
Pro
port
ion o
f cate
gories (%
)
Difference in uptake (percentage points)
Decreased Increased
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 34
HSR Category Uptake
Sales
weighted
Change (%
points)
Grains – processed 32.7 19.8 12.9
Source: FoodTrack ™; Heart Foundation calculations; Nielsen HomeScan ®
3.3. How does HSR uptake compare to other front-of-pack labelling schemes?
Other FoPL schemes have previously been introduced in Australia with a similar objective to the HSR. In
2006 the industry led Daily Intake Guide (DIG) was introduced to empower consumers to make informed
choices. Results show that 78 months post implementation, the DIG appeared on over 7,200 products in all
major categories.16 This compares to 7,312 products displaying the HSR 48 months post implementation.
Chart 8 plots the uptake of the DIG and HSR at the equivalent points in time post implementation and
demonstrates that uptake of the HSR has been higher and faster.
Chart 8: Comparison in uptake of HSR system and DIG, by months post implementation
Click to view text version of Chart 8.
Source: FoodTrack™; Australian Food and Grocery Council
In addition, uptake of the HSR system in Australia can be compared to the same HSR system in New
Zealand. From implementation, uptake of the HSR system in Australia has been higher. In Year 2 uptake in
New Zealand had only reached 5.5 percent of eligible products compared to 14.6 percent in Australia. By
Year 4, the HSR system in Australia had nearly two times as many products as New Zealand (n=2,297) (see
Chart 9).
Chart 9: Comparison in uptake of the HSR system in Australia and New Zealand, by yeara
16 Australian Food and Grocery Council Submission to Senate Select Committee Inquiry into the Obesity Epidemic, 2018
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 35
Click to view the text version of Chart 9.
Notes: a. The different time periods for data collection varies between the two databases. The New Zealand Nutritrack
database annual data collection occurs from February to April each year therefore results need to be interpreted with
caution
Source: FoodTrack™; The National Institute for Health Innovation (New Zealand)
3.4. Drivers of uptake in participation
At an aggregate level, the key driver of uptake was the participation of large retailers, who expanded the
HSR across their suite of products. This can be seen at both the category level, and at the system as a
whole.
The key players that have driven uptake are the private label retailers: Coles, Woolworths and Aldi. As
illustrated in Chart 10 the three private label retailers account for over half of all products participating in the
HSR system.
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 36
Chart 10: Coverage of Private labels
Click to view the text version of Chart 10.
Source: FoodTrack™; Heart Foundation calculations
The growth of HSR products among private labels increased from Year 1 to Year 2 as Woolworths expanded
its coverage 9-fold, and Coles 4-fold to each cover approximately one-third of their eligible products (27
percent and 36 percent respectively). This increase continued in Year 3. However, by Year 4, the overall
coverage of private labels decreased by 2.59 percentage points. In Year 4, the proportion of Private Label –
Coles and Woolworths products had decreased (compared to Year 3 proportions) in contrast to Private Label
– Aldi which increased by 2-fold.
As the private label retailers expanded the number of their products participating in the HSR, they have also
driven overall growth in the number of products participating in the HSR system. This is illustrated in Chart
11 which shows the proportion of growth in HSR products attributed to the participation of private labels.
Chart 11: Proportion of growth in HSR due to growth in private labels, by HSR year
Click to view the text version of Chart 11.
Source: Heart Foundation calculations; FoodTrack™
59.5 60.3 51.4
-
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f H
SR
gro
wth
(%
)
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 37
In addition to the three private label retailers previously discussed, a further 12 manufacturers (participating
in Year 3 and 4, out of a total 97 and 134 manufacturers respectively) contributed to more than 80 percent of
products participating in the HSR system (see Table 7).
Table 7: Proportion of products participating by manufacturer and year
Manufacturer Year 1 (%) Year 2 (%) Year 3 (%) Year 4 (%)
Arnott’s Biscuits - 0.2 1.0 1.1
Cereal Partners Australia 15.4 3.6 1.8 1.5
Coca-Cola Amatil - 0.8 1.9 2.4
HJ Heinz Company Australia 3.0 1.9 1.2 1.1
Kellogg (Aust) - 2.9 1.8 1.4
Lion – Dairy & Drinks 5.5 3.6 2.5 2.5
Mars Chocolate Australia - - 0.9 1.1
Nestle Australia 0.8 4.9 4.1 3.1
Private Label – Aldi - 1.1 5.0 10.2
Private Label – Coles 36.4 29.9 29.8 25.2
Private Label – Woolworths 14.0 26.9 24.2 21.0
Sanitarium Health Foods Company 4.4 4.1 2.6 1.7
Schweppes Australia - - 0.2 1.2
Simplot Australia 0.6 4.4 4.7 5.5
Unilever Australasia - 1.1 2.5 2.2
Total Contribution 80.2 85.4 84.2 81.1
Source: FoodTrack™; Heart Foundation calculation
The pattern of uptake of the HSR may provide learnings to other countries that are interested in introducing
or attempting to increase participation in voluntary FoPL scheme; participation of large retailers and
manufacturers is instrumental to delivering rapid uptake of the scheme.
3.5. Concluding comments
Uptake of the HSR in Australia has been rapid when compared to uptake of one other FoPL scheme
introduced in Australia, or the uptake of the HSR system in New Zealand.
Uptake of the HSR has been increasing year on year, with large retailers being the key driver of growth.
However, since Year 2 the rate of growth in participation has declined.
Sales weighted uptake is larger than unweighted uptake in Year 4. This tells us that the market penetration
of the HSR system is greater than understood by considering unweighted uptake alone.
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 38
Chapter 4: Do manufacturers comply with the HSRC and guidelines?
The objective of this chapter is to report on manufacturers and retailers’ compliance with the system by
assessing whether the HSR is displayed correctly with outlined design specifications, and the HSR value
displayed is true and accurate.
4.1. Style Guide compliance
Using the Style Guide assessment checklist, products are systematically and objectively assessed for design
and technical variations. Design variations don’t change the meaning of the HSR system graphic and/or
content, however they may create confusion, and the information displayed could be misleading. On the
contrary, a technical variation can change the meaning of the HSR system graphic.
Presented in Chart 12 is the proportion of products that have design or technical variations based on the
sampling approach undertaken (see section 2.2.2). This shows that the proportion of overall variations were
at their lowest in Year 4. Chart 12 also shows that the majority of variations are design variations and the
proportion of technical variations decreased each year.
Chart 12: Proportion of technical and design variations, by yeara
Click to view the text version of Chart 12.
Notes: a. Sample: Year 1 n=382, Year 2 n=2,109, Year 3 n=628, Year 4 n=520
Source: FoodTrack™; Heart Foundation calculations
The most common design variation in Year 1 was a combination of HSR logos displayed on pack. That is,
one product displayed two out of the five HSR system graphics available. In many cases it was an Option 1-
4 accompanied by the energy icon being (Option 5). This variation accounted for 80.8 percent of design
variations (see Chart 13). However, this type of variation declined over time, and by Year 4 the most
common design variation was the placement of a second HSR logo with a varying design on the back of
pack (34.1 percent). In Year 4 the second most common design variation was the rounding of nutrient values
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 39
to the incorrect decimal place – the Style Guide requires that nutrients measured in grams be reported to
one decimal place and nutrients measured in milligrams be reported as a whole number.17
Chart 13: Type of design variation, by yeara
Click to view the text version of Chart 13.
Notes: a. Sample: Year 1 n=26, Year 2 n=190, Year 3 n=61, Year 4 n=41
Source: FoodTrack™; Heart Foundation calculations
As illustrated in Chart 14, the incorrect NRM is the most common technical variation. This error is specific to
beverages and confectionary products which are required by system guidance to use the industry agreed
standardised serve size. As the intention of the NRM is to ensure that consumers’ dietary intake is in
alignment with the Australian Dietary Guidelines (ADG), use of the incorrect NRM amongst these categories
can lead to excess intake of energy dense and relatively nutrient-poor foods.18
17 See Table D.2 of Appendix D for distribution of products with a design variation
18 See Table D.3 of Appendix D for distribution of products with a technical variation
80.8
31.1 37.7
17.1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
Pro
port
ion o
f pro
ducts
with d
esig
n
va
riatio
n (%
)
Combination of HSR logoson FoP
Second logo on back of pack
Nutrient value expressed to incorrect decimal place
16.8 1.6
34.1
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
17.9 27.9 26.8
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 40
Chart 14: Type of technical variation by Yeara
Click to view the text version of Chart 14.
Notes: Sample: Year 1 n=31, Year 2 n=148, Year 3 n=28, Year 4 n=21
Source: FoodTrack™; Heart Foundation calculations
Through the identification of design and technical variations, compliance (or otherwise) with the Style Guide
can be determined. While some products may be classified as having design or technical variations, it does
not automatically imply that the product is non-compliant. Non-compliance is determined from specific
technical variations where the HSR displayed is classified as an error and/or inconsistent with Style Guide.
As illustrated in Chart 15, in every year since implementation more than nine in every ten products have
been compliant with the Style Guide. In Year 1, compliance with the HSR Style Guide was at 92.7 percent of
products participating. This has increased over time and by Year 4, compliance reached 95.8 percent.
Chart 15: Compliance with the HSR Style Guidea
Click to view the text version of Chart 15.
Notes: a. Sample: Year 1 n=382, Year 2 n=2,109, Year 3 n=628, Year 4 n=520
Source: FoodTrack™; Heart Foundation calculations
64.5
35.8
60.7
33.3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f p
rod
ucts
with
te
ch
nic
al
va
ria
tio
n (%
)
Incorrect NRM %DI displayed differs to guidelines
9.7
23.0
3.6
19.0
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
92.7 94.4 95.7 95.8
0
20
40
60
80
100
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f p
rod
ucts
(%
)
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 41
4.2. Assessment against the HSR Calculator
To assess whether manufacturers and retailers are correctly calculating their star rating, a sample of
products have had their star rating independently calculated. This assessment shows that compliance is
greater than 90 percent, although there has been a decline in compliance since Year 1 (see Chart 16).
Chart 16: Compliance of products with the HSR calculatora
Click to view the text version of Chart 16.
Notes: a. Sample: Year 1 n= 320, Year 2 n=1,822, Year 3 n=543, Year 4 n=496
Source: FoodTrack™; Heart Foundation calculations
Where a product doesn’t comply, it can be due to the star rating displayed on pack being higher or lower
than independently calculated. With the exception of Year 4, more manufacturers and retailers are
understating their HSR than overstating it (see Chart 17), and cumulatively over the four years, the same
pattern has been observed.
Chart 17: Proportion of products displaying the HSR system with star rating over or understateda
Click to view the text version of Chart 17.
Notes: a. Sample: Year 1 n= 320, Year 2 n=1,822, Year 3 n=543, Year 4 n=496.
Source: FoodTrack™; Heart Foundation calculations
98.1 97.1 92.4 89.7
0
20
40
60
80
100
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
Pro
port
ion
of
pro
du
cts
(%)
1.9
1.6
4.8
5.0
0510
Understated Overstated
Proportion of products (%)
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
1.0
2.8
5.2
0 5 10
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 42
Across all years, the proportion of products with a calculated HSR that differed to that displayed on pack was
generally over or understated by 0.5 stars. This is illustrated in Chart 18 which presents the distribution of
products that have over or understated the star rating.
Chart 18: Distribution of over and understated HSR calculations, by Yeara
Click to view text version of Chart 18.
Notes: a. Sample: Year 1 n= 6, Year 2 n=49, Year 3 n=41, Year 4 n=51.
Source: FoodTrack™; Heart Foundation calculations
4.3. Concluding comments
Compliance with the HSR Style Guide is over 90 percent for products each year. And despite Year 4 with a
slight decline, compliance with the HSRC was also at almost 90 percent.
Over the four years, misalignment between the HSR calculated and that on pack has been driven by both
under and overstatement of the HSR, suggesting there is no systematic bias towards overstating a products
star rating.
-
10
20
30
40
50
60
2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Pro
port
ion o
f pro
ducts
m
ism
atc
hed (%
)
Year 4
Year 3
Year 2
Year 1
Understated Overstated
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 43
Chapter 5: Are consumers aware of the HSR system?
Consumer awareness can be broken into prompted and unprompted awareness, with unprompted
awareness indicating a greater awareness (see section 2.2.3).
To ascertain whether demographic or social characteristics are associated with awareness (or lack thereof),
additional analyses are undertaken.
5.1. Consumer awareness
Consumers were asked about their awareness of different logos that help customers choose food to buy in
supermarkets (unprompted). By Year 4, 20.2 percent of consumers recalled the HSR, only 3 percentage
points behind the Heart Foundation Tick, and this was a 61.8 perecent increase from Year 2 (see Chart 19).
In comparison, during the same period, unprompted awareness of Australian Made logo has increased just
5.3 percent and the Heart Foundation Tick has fallen by 35.6 percent.
Chart 19: Unprompted awareness of food logosa
Click to view the text version of Chart 19.
Notes: a. Sample: Year 2 n=4,041, Year 3 n=7,012, Year 4 n=7,481.
Source: Heart Foundation HSR Tracker
Prompted awareness of the HSR has steadily increased over time. By Year 4, four out of every five
consumers were aware of the HSR. This is up from 56.8 percent in Year 2, which is an increase of
46.6 percent (see Chart 19).
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 44
Chart 20: Prompted awareness of the HSRa
Click to view the text version of Chart 20.
Notes: a. Sample: Year 2 n=4,041, Year 3 n=7,011, Year 4 n=7,481.
Source: Heart Foundation HSR Tracker
5.1.1. Which consumers are more likely to be aware of the HSR system?
This section looks at whether awareness of the HSR differs signifcantly by socio demographic characteristics
of the consumer.
At an individual level, females (compared to males), younger consumers (compared to those 55 years and
older), those who are university educated (compared to high school or tafe/diploma), and those with a BMI in
the healthy weight range (compared to overweight or obesity), are significantly more likely to be aware of the
HSR, be that prompted or unprompted.22,23
At a household level, those with a higher household income (greater than $50,000 compared to less than
$50,000), and households with children (compared to without children) are significantly more likely to be
aware of the HSR, be that prompted or unprompted.19,20
These findings are similar to those observed in other studies of FoPL schemes, which also find that women,
those on higher incomes and those who have attained a higher level of education are most likely to report
awareness of labels.21
19 See Table D.4 of Appendix D
20 See Table D.5 of Appendix D
21 Cowburn, G., Stockley, L. 2005, ‘Consumer understanding and use of nutrition labelling: A systematic review’, Public
Health Nutrition, vol. 8, issue 1.
56.8
74.0 83.3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
Pro
port
ion o
f consum
ers
(%
)
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 45
Studies have found that parents of children living at home are more interested in nutrition, which likely
explains the greater awareness for persons from households with children.22
The fact that people with a BMI in the healthy weight range are more likely to be aware of the HSR system
suggests there may be an element of ‘preaching to the converted’ with FoPL, as those who look at health
labels are more likely to be health conscious. However, it is important to note that this phenomenon is not
unique to the HSR23 and is a challenge common to the design of many programs or interventions attempting
to engage the unengaged.24
5.2. Concluding comments
Consumer awareness of the HSR continues to increase. The demographic profile of those most likely to be
aware of the HSR are similar to those of other studies of FoPL schemes, however, it raises some concern
that awareness is lower for consumers that are overweight and obese than those with normal BMI, who
could potentially benefit the most from the system in terms of making healthier food choices.
22 Cowburn, G., Stockley, L. 2005, ibid.
23 European Food Information Council 2012, EUFIC reviews European evidence on whether nutrition labelling has
helped encourage healthy eating, https://www.eufic.org/en/healthy-living/article/eufic-reviews-european-evidence-on-
whether-nutrition-labelling-has-helped-e, accessed 1 October 2018.
24 Shaw, A.E., Miller, K.K. 2016, ‘Preaching to the converted? Designing wildlife programs to engage the unengaged’,
Applied Environmental Education and Communication, vol. 15, issue 3.
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 46
Chapter 6: Attitude formation
Unlike other chapters in this report which present a singular evaluation question, in this chapter all the
evaluation questions related to attitude formation are presented together. Each evaluation question is
addressed in turn, with concluding remarks used to bring together the findings of each of the evaluation
questions to provide insight into consumers’ attitude towards the HSR system.
6.1. Do consumers trust in the HSR system?
Trust in the HSR system is a crucial element of attitude formation, as without it, consumers will be hesitant to
make a purchase based on a product’s HSR status. To understand consumers’ sentiments on the HSR
system, consumers were asked directly through the HSR Tracker how strongly they agree that the HSR
system is one they trust and perceive as credible.
As illustrated in Chart 21, by Year 4 almost six in every ten consumers trust the system, and even more find
it credible. Also illustrated in Chart 21 is the growth in trust and credibility over time; 8.0 percent per annum
for trust, and 5.4 percent per annum for credibility.
Chart 21: Proportion of consumers that trust in the HSR systema
Click to view the text version Chart 21.
Notes: a. Sample: Year 2 n=2,297, Year 3 n=5,191, Year 4 n=6,233.
Source: Heart Foundation HSR Tracker
Findings from the focus groups convey participants generally trusted the HSR system. There was recognition
that the HSR provides a quick easy reference on the healthiness (or otherwise) when buying a product.
Some participants also highlighted that its placement on products they trust is the reason they trust the HSR
system.
Credibility of the system is one area that received more vocal criticism in the focus group, particularly from
those who take a stronger interest in nutrition. These participants had their own understanding of
healthy/unhealthy, which lead them to disagree with the star rating for some products. For example, one
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 47
participant felt that the star rating for yoghurt is too low, while the star rating for certain breakfast cereals is
too high. For this participant, this undermined the credibility of the system as a whole.
Perceived confidence in the HSR system is presented in Chart 22 and shows that confidence in the HSR has
increased significantly over the three years. In Year 2 the majority of consumers were not confident in the
system, however; confidence had increased to just over half in Year 3, and then further again to almost 70
percent in Year 4.
This may suggest that as consumers have had greater exposure to the HSR system, their level of
confidence has correspondingly grown.
Chart 22: Confidence in the HSR systema
Click to view the text version of Chart 22.
Notes: a. Sample: Year 2 n=2,297, Year 3 n=5,191, Year 4 n=6,233.
Source: Heart Foundation HSR Tracker
6.1.1. Who trusts the system?
To understand whether demographics or household characteristics have any influence over who is more
likely to trust the HSR system, for those who said they trusted the HSR system, their characteristics were
explored.
At an individual level, males (compared to females), those who are university educated (compared to high
school or Tafe/diploma), those with a BMI in the healthy weight range (compared to overweight or obese),
are significantly more likely to trust the HSR system.
At a household level, those with children at home (compared to households without children), those that
speak a language other than English (compared to English speaking households), those that live in
metropolitan regions (compared to rural regions), and those with higher household income (greater than
$50,000 compared to less than $50,000) are significantly more likely to trust the HSR system.25
25 See Table D.6 of Appendix D
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 48
6.2. Do consumers find the HSR system useful?
Consumer attitudes towards the HSR system are a reflection of the relevance and usefulness of the system
to an individual or household.
The HSR system is intended to make it easier for consumers to compare products and make healthier
choices. Most consumers agree that the HSR system makes identifying healthier products easier (see Chart
23), however, some consumers don’t feel the HSR adds value. Over one in four consumers reported that
the HSR is just another thing on a pack that makes shopping more confusing.
Chart 23: Usefulness of the HSR, proportion of consumers that agree or strongly agreea
Click to view the text version of Chart 23.
Notes: a. Sample: Year 2 n=2,297, Year 3 n=5,191, Year 4 n=6,233.
Source: Heart Foundation HSR Tracker
6.2.1. To whom is the HSR system the most useful?
To understand whether demographics or household characteristics have any influence over who is more
likely to perceive the HSR system as useful, their characteristics were explored.
HSR 'makes it easier for me to identify the healthier option within a category’
At an individual level, consumers aged 55 years and older are statistically more likely than younger
consumers to report the HSR helps them to identify healthier options.
At a household level, those with children are more likely to agree the HSR assists them in identifying
healthier options than households without children. Also, households with higher income (greater than
$50,000 compared to less than $50,000) are significantly more likely to report the HSR assists them in
identifying healthier options.26
HSR ‘helps me make decisions about which foods to buy’
26 See Table D.7 of Appendix D
76.8
65.3
28.2
0 20 40 60 80 100
Makes it easier for me to identify the healthieroption within a category
Helps me make decisions about which foods tobuy
It’s just another thing on a pack that makes shopping more confusing
Proportion of consumers (%)
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 49
At an individual level, consumers with a BMI in the healthy weight range (compared to overweight or obese)
are more likely to report HSR helps them to decide about what to buy than consumers in the overweight or
obese range.27
At a household level, those with a higher income (greater than $50,000 compared to less than $50,000) are
significantly more likely to report the HSR helps them to decide about which foods to buy.
6.3. Do consumers understand how to use and interpret the HSR?
The objective of the HSR system is to make it easier for consumers to compare packaged products and
make healthier choices. As illustrated in Chart 24, when unprompted, more than half of consumers
understand that the HSR provides a rating to the healthiness of the product upon which it appears,
increasing significantly in Year 4.
27 See Table D.8 of Appendix D
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 50
Chart 24: Unprompted understanding that HSR is rating or guide to the healthiness of a producta
Click to view the text version chart 24.
Notes: a. Sample: Year 2 n=2,297, Year 3 n=5,191, Year 4 n=6,233.
Source: Heart Foundation HSR Tracker
In rating the healthiness of individual products in a standardised way, the HSR system facilitates comparison
of products participating in the HSR system. This is understood by consumers, with more than seven in
every ten consumers agreeing (or strongly agreeing) that the HSR makes it easier to compare products (see
Chart 25).This proportion of consumers was quite consistent throughout the years.
Chart 25: Proportion of consumers that agree the HSR makes it easier compare productsa
Click to view the text version of Chart 25.
Notes: a. Sample: Year 2, n=2,297; Year 3, n=5,191; Year 4, n=6,233.
Source: Heart Foundation HSR Tracker
Less well understood is that participation in the HSR system is voluntary, or that it was developed by the
Australian, state and territory governments in collaboration with industry, public health and consumer groups.
This was a finding from the focus groups. In fact, some participants had assumed that it was licenced and
that manufacturers pay to have the HSR on their products. Once participants had a greater understanding of
the system, the majority thought it should be compulsory across all packaged products. It was stated that this
54.0 53.6 55.8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
Pro
pro
rtio
n of consum
ers
(%
)
72.3 71.1 72.3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
Pro
pro
rtio
n of consum
ers
(%
)
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 51
would provide greater transparency as to the healthiness of all products and improve the ability to compare
all products.
6.3.1. Understanding the ‘stars’
While consumers have a general understanding that the star rating is an indication of the healthiness of the
product, it is necessary that consumers understand how to interpret the number of stars correctly. That is,
the higher the number of stars, the healthier the product, and conversely, the lower the stars the less healthy
the product.
Most consumers understand that a product with five stars is the healthiest choice, and a product with one
star, the least (see Chart 26).
Chart 26: Consumer understanding of one versus five starsa
Click to view the text version of Chart 26.
Notes: a. Sample: Year 2 n=2,297, Year 3 n=5,191, Year 4 n=6,233.
Source: Heart Foundation HSR Tracker
6.3.2. Understanding what can be compared
As outlined earlier, there is a good understanding that the HSR system can be used to compare products.
However, comparison should only be made between similar products.
According to the HSR Tracker, this nuance is not well understood; more than half of consumers mistakenly
agree (or strongly agree) that it can be used for comparison across different food categories (HSR
Category). This is illustrated in Chart 27.
During the focus groups participants were presented with pairs of products and asked whether they could or
would compare the HSR on the products. In this environment, participants exhibited an understanding that
the HSR should only be compared for similar products.
83.2 86.7 88.3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
Pro
port
ion o
f consum
ers
(%
)
5 star = most healthy 1 star = least healthy
86.5 84.2 88.7
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 52
Chart 27: Understanding of the HSR systema
Click to view the text version of Chart 27.
Notes: a. Sample: Year 2 n=2,297, Year 3 n=5,191, Year 4 n=6,233.
Source: Heart Foundation HSR Tracker
6.3.3. Using the HSR system
Reflecting consumers’ understanding of the HSR system, the largest proportion of consumers said they
would use the HSR system to compare products (27.2 percent) (see Chart 28). A further 19.0 percent would
use it as a general or quick guide to determine the healthiness of a food product.
Chart 28: Use of the HSR, Year 4a
Click to view the text version of Chart 28.
Notes: a. Sample: n=6,233; b. From 2016 onwards.
Source: Heart Foundation HSR Tracker
72.3 71.1 72.3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
Pro
port
ion o
f consum
ers
(%
)
Easier to compare products of same category
57.9 57.1 58.2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
Easier to compare products of different category
27.2
19.0
12.9
12.9
9.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Comparing products/betterchoice
General/quick guide tohealthiness
Wouldn't use it
The more stars the better/healthier
Looking at it/checking thenutritional value
Proportion of consumers (%)
b
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 53
6.4. Which HSR logo do consumers prefer?
6.4.1. Preferred HSR logo
There are five different variations of the HSR logo that can be displayed on pack. Consumers were asked
directly which logo they prefer. As illustrated in Chart 28, most consumers prefer Option 1 (63.3 percent),
followed by Option 4 (21.1 percent).
Chart 29: Overall preference of HSR logo, Year 4a
Click to view the text version of Chart 29.
Notes: a. Sample: n=6,233
Source: Heart Foundation HSR Tracker
For those that prefer Option 1, the main reason is because it provides the most detailed information, while
those that prefer Option 4 do so because it is simple and uncomplicated.28
The conflicting preference for lots of information (Option 1) or simplicity (Option 4) reflects the complexity of
consumer preferences, as found in other studies.29 Some consumers prefer the nutrient information provided
by Option 1, as consumers look more closely at nutrients they are trying to avoid.30 Conversely, some
consumers find the nutrient information difficult to interpret, and that it increases the cognitive load
associated with the logo.31
As most consumers preferred the detailed information provided by Option 1, it could be hypothesised that
consumers would also appreciate the detailed information provided by Options 2 and 3, over Option 4. This
28 See Table D.9 of Appendix D
29 Campos, S. et al 2010, op cit.
30 Campos, S et al 2010 citing Shine A., O’Reily, S., O’Sullivan, K. 1997, ‘Consumer use of nutrition labels’, British Food
Journal, vol. 99, no.8
31 Campos, S. et al 2010, op cit
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Pro
port
ion o
f consum
ers
(%
)
Option 1
Option 3
Option 2
Option 4
Option 5
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 54
was put to participants of focus groups, which reported that they liked ‘to have either lots of the detailed
information (Option 1) or none (Option 4). Participants felt that Option 2 and 3 were compromises that didn’t
deliver on the benefits of either Option 1 or 4.
6.4.2. Consumers preferred attributes for HSR logos
To understand consumers’ preference, consumers were surveyed to ascertain which logo is easiest to
understand, easiest to recognise and which logo provides the most appropriate/preferred level of
information. Consumer preferences have been brought together into one chart to provide an overall picture
of which logo has the best combination.
Consumers were most likely to choose Option 1 when asked which logo provides sufficient information,
followed by Option 4. Consumers were also most likely to report Option 1 was the easiest to understand.
However, Option 4 was most likely to be voted ‘easiest to recognise’, followed by Option 1.
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 55
Chart 30: Consumer preference for HSR logos, Year 4a
Click to view the text version of Chart 30.
Notes: a. Sample: n=6,233
Source: Heart Foundation HSR Tracker
6.4.3. Have preferences changed over time?
As illustrated in Chart 31, there has been a notable shift in preferences towards Option 4 for its ease of
recognition. There has also been a small shift in preference for Option 4, over Option 1, for ease of
understanding. But overall, preference for Option 1 was, and is, higher than Option 4.
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 56
Chart 31: Consumer preference for Option 1 and 4 over timea
Click to view the text version of Chart 31.
Notes: a. Sample: Year 2 n=2,297, Year 3 n=5,191, Year 4 n=6,223.
Source: Heart Foundation HSR Tracker
6.4.4. Which logos do manufacturers use?
Presented in Chart 32 is the proportion of products displaying the different HSR logo options. This shows
that in Year 4, the most common logo on packs is Option 4, with almost four in every ten using the option.
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 57
Chart 32: Distribution of logos displayed across HSR products, Year 4a
Click to view the text version of Chart 32.
Notes: a. Sample: n=6,223.
Source: FoodTrack™; Heart Foundation calculations
Looking at the proportion of logos on products since Year 1 shows that there has been a significant shift over
time (see Chart 33). In Year 1, Option 1 was the most common, but by Year 4 it was the least common.
Chart 33: Distribution of logos displayed across HSR products over timea
Click to view the text version of Chart 33.
Notes: a. Sample: Year 1 n=362, Year 2 n=2,021, Year 3 n=601, Year 4 n=507.
Source: FoodTrack™; Heart Foundation calculations
5.1
23.1
17.0
38.9
14.8
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Pro
port
ion o
f H
SR
pro
ducts
(%
)
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Option 5
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 58
In Year 2 the Heart Foundation undertook consultations with industry, which included exploring the rationale
for selecting logos.32 Manufacturers and retailers reported that the most important factor when deciding on a
logo was the size of the package and available space. Given the prevalence of Option 4 and 5 (54.3
percent), this suggests that the significant shift away from Option 1 may be due to lack of available space on
the package.
During industry consultations, simplicity was another important consideration identified. Manufacturers and
retailers highlighted that ‘simple was better’, in recognition that FoP ‘real estate’ is limited, and that too much
information can overwhelm consumers and dilute the message. This reflects the literature which finds simple
labels promote more accurate nutrition judgements on unhealthy products.33
6.4.5. Do consumer preferences match logos on packs?
Based on the HSR Tracker and uptake data, there is limited alignment between what HSR logos consumers
prefer to see on packs, and what manufacturers place on packs. As illustrated in Chart 34, this is particularly
the case for Option 1, which is most preferred by consumers (63.3 percent) but is used least on packs
(5.2 percent) in Year 4.
32 National Heart Foundation of Australia 2017, Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating
system in first two years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2016, commissioned by the Commonwealth Department
of Health.
33 Campos, S. et al 2010, op cit.
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 59
Chart 34: Consumer preferences compared to logos on pack, Year 4a
Click to view the text version of Chart 34.
Notes: a. Sample: n=507.
Source: FoodTrack™; Heart Foundation calculations
The misalignment between consumer preferences and logos on packs has been prevalent since the HSR
Tracker commenced in Year 2. This is illustrated in Chart 35 which shows that the gap between consumer
preference and logos displayed on pack has grown over time for Option 1.
Chart 35: Option 1 – consumer preference compared to logos displayed on packa
Click to view text version of Chart 35.
Notes: a. Consumers preference sample: Year 2 n=2,297, Year 3 n=5,191, Year 4 n=6,233; Displayed on pack sample:
Year 2 n=2,021, Year 3 n=601, Year 4 n=507
Source: FoodTrack™; Heart Foundation calculations
5.2
23.4
17.2
39.3
15.0
01020304050
Proportion of packs (%)
On packs Preferred by consumers
Proportion of consumers (%)
Option 5
63.3
9.8
4.9
21.1
0.9
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Option 4
Option 3
Option 2
Option 1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
Pro
port
ion o
f pro
ducts
(%
)
Consumerspreference
Displayed onpack
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 60
6.5. Concluding comments
Trust in the HSR system amongst consumers and the perception the HSR is a credible system continues to
increase, both reaching their peak in Year 4.
Most consumers know how the system works, that is, they can interpret the number of stars correctly. Almost
three quarters of consumers also have a good understanding that the HSR system makes it easier to
compare products. However, comparison should only be made between similar products. This level of detail
is not well understood, with more than half of consumers agreeing that the HSR can be used for comparison
across different food categories (HSR Category).
A large proportion of consumers find the HSR system useful in identifying the healthier option and also in
making purchasing decisions.
Overall, consumers prefer Option 1, which provides the star rating and additional nutrient information.
However, this is the least common logo placed on products by manufacturers.
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 61
Chapter 7: Does the HSR system influence consumers to make healthier choices?
The HSR has the objective of assisting consumers to make healthier choices. In this section we explore the
influence of the HSR on consumers when making purchases, and whether this is leading to consumers
making healthier choices.
7.1. Does the HSR influence consumer choices?
In Year 4, the majority of consumers (69.5 percent) reported purchasing a HSR product in the last three
months. The proportion of consumers who recalled purchasing a HSR product has increased by greater than
40 percent compared to Year 2 (Chart 36).
Chart 36: Purchase of HSR products over the past 3 monthsa
Click to view the text version of Chart 36.
Notes: a. Sample: Year 2 n=2,297, Year 3 n=5,191, Year 4 n=6,233.
Source: Heart Foundation HSR Tracker
Of these consumers, almost two thirds (64.4 percent) stated that the HSR status of the product influenced
their decision (Chart 37). With increasing awareness of the HSR system, consumers were more likely to
state the HSR influenced their decision when purchasing food products, significantly higher in Year 3 and
Year 4 compared to Year 2 (Chart 36).
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 62
Chart 37: Influence of HSR on purchasesa
Click to view the text version of Chart 37.
Notes: a. Sample: Year 2 n=1,115, Year 3 n=3,358, Year 4 n=4,330
Source: Heart Foundation HSR Tracker
Just over half of consumers in Year 4 who had either not purchased a HSR product or had but weren’t
influenced by the HSR status of the product stated that the HSR status is likely to influence their choice
when purchasing food in the future (see Chart 38).
Chart 38: Proportion very likely or likely to be influenced by the HSR in the futurea
Click to view the text version of Chart 38.
Notes: a. Sample: Year 2 n=2,297, Year 3 n=3,499, Year 4 n=3,443.
Source: Heart Foundation HSR Tracker
However, as illustrated in Chart 38, the proportion of consumers stating they are likely (or very likely) to be
influenced in the future has decreased significantly overtime.
71.0 60.2
53.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
Pro
port
ion o
f consum
ers
(%
)
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 63
This decrease is strongly negatively correlated with an increase in the proportion of consumers having made
a recent purchase of a HSR product (r=-0.98, p<0.05). This suggests that consumers who have previously
indicated they are likely (or very likely) to purchase a HSR product in the future have followed through on
their intention to act, thereby reducing the remaining people likely to make a future purchase.
7.1.1. Who does the HSR influence?
At an individual level, males (compared to females), Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (compared
to non-Indigenous population), those who are university educated (compared to high school or
Tafe/diploma), those with a BMI in the healthy weight range (compared to overweight or obese), are
significantly more likely to report the HSR system influenced their purchasing decisions.
At the household level, those that live in metropolitan regions (compared to rural regions), those that speak a
language other than English (compared to English speaking households), and those with higher annual
household income (greater than $50,000 compared to less than $50,000) are significantly more likely to
report the HSR system influenced their purchasing decisions.34
The influence of the HSR by demographic and household characteristics largely reflects the purchasing
pattern which can be found from the latest survey results here. The one clear exception to this is younger
people. While younger people (under 35 years of age) are more likely to purchase a HSR product than older
people (35 years and over), they are not more likely to report the HSR system influenced their purchasing
decisions.
7.2. How does the HSR influence?
Reflecting upon how consumers are influenced by the HSR, just over 50 percent of consumers who
purchased a HSR products stated that it influenced them to purchase a product with a higher HSR that they
have never tried, or don’t usually purchase (see Chart 39). The remaining stated that the HSR status
confirmed their usual purchase.
34 See Table D.10 of Appendix D
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 64
Chart 39: Influence of HSR on purchasesa
Click to view the text version of Chart 39.
Notes: a. Sample: Year 2 n=641, Year 3 n=2,136, Year 4 n=2,790.
Source: Heart Foundation HSR Tracker
7.2.1. Sales weighting of HSR purachases
To investigate whether this means consumers are making healthier purchases in practice, the sales
weighted average HSR is compared to the unweighted average HSR. If the HSR is a factor contributing to
consumers purchasing healthier products (i.e. a product with a higher HSR), it is anticipated that the sales-
weighted average HSR will be higher than the unweighted average HSR.
Presented in Chart 40 is the sales weighted average HSR and unweighted average HSR for products
participating in Year 3 and 4. This shows that there is minimal difference in the sales weighted HSR
compared to the unweighted HSR for either Year 3 or Year 4
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 65
Chart 40: Sales weighted average HSR versus unweighted average HSR,a Year 3 and Year 4b
Click to view the text version of Chart 40.
Notes: a. Only products for which sales data is available and sufficiently robust are included in the calculation. Where the
RSE of a product is greater than 25 percent they are excluded from the calculation; b. Sample: Year 3 n=2,371, Year 4
n=3,372.
Source: FoodTrack™; Heart Foundation calculations; Nielsen HomeScan®
These findings conclude that more than half of consumers who purchased a HSR product stated that they
were influenced by the HSR to choose healthier products, however this is not yet reflected in the purchasing
behaviour of all consumers that are purchasing HSR products.
7.2.2. Change in purchasing behaviours for healthier products
To investigate the overall proportion of consumers who purchased a product with more stars, analysis was
conducted on those who purchased a HSR product (69.5% of consumers, Chart 36), regardless of whether
the HSR influenced the purchase or not.
It is important to note that findings in this section differ to the result in Chart 39 as it solely focuses on
consumers purchasing behaviours irrespective of influence as opposed to how the HSR has influenced
consumers.
As illustrated in Chart 41, consistently over the three years, there was a greater proportion of consumers
(two third of consumers who purchased a HSR product in the last three months) who reported that the HSR
had made no change to their purchases, that is, they were uninfluenced by the HSR or the HSR confirmed
their usual purchase.
The remaining proportion of consumers who purchased a HSR product had changed their purchasing
behaviour. From Year 3, one in three consumers were influenced by the HSR system and purchased a HSR
product with a higher star rating.
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 66
Chart 41: Composition of those who purchased a HSR product with more stars, by year a,b
Click to view the text version of Chart 41.
Notes: a. Sample: Year 2 n= 1,115, Year 3 n=3,358, Year 4 n=4,330; b. Includes those respondents who were ‘unsure’.
Source: Heart Foundation calculations; Heart Foundation HSR Tracker
Therefore, when looking at it at an overall population level, 23.4 percent of consumers had made changes to
their purchasing behaviours by purchasing a HSR product with more stars, see Chart 42.
Chart 42: Composition of population who purchased a HSR product with more stars by influence, Year 4a,b
Click to view the text version Chart 42.
Notes: a. Sample: Year 4 n=6,223; b. Includes those respondents who were ‘unsure’
Source: Heart Foundation calculations; Heart Foundation HSR Tracker
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 67
7.3. Concluding comments
Of those consumers who had purchased a HSR product, one third were influenced by the HSR to change
their purchasing behaviour. That is 23.4 percent of all consumers had changed their purchasing behaviour
by purchasing a product with more stars.
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 68
Chapter 8: Has the HSR system had an impact on reformulation?
The objective of this chapter is to analyse the nutrients and star rating of HSR products from Year 1 to Year
4 and determine whether they have changed over time. Furthermore, if there has been a change, analysis
was conducted to assess whether it can be attributed to participation in the HSR system.
To this end, a sample of products not participating in the HSR system is analysed and the change over time
is compared to HSR products.
8.1. Has the star rating changed over time?
In Year 1, the most common star rating was 4.0 (32.3 percent), and the average HSR was 3.8 (see Chart
43). Since then, a wider range of products have joined the HSR, which has led to more products with a lower
star rating, and a corresponding decrease in the average HSR.
In Year 4, a star rating of 4.0 was still the most common, but it accounted for 22.4 percent – almost 10
percentage points lower than in Year 1. The increase in more products with a lower star rating saw the
average HSR fall to 3.4 in Year 4.
Chart 43: Proportion of HSR products by year and star rating, and average HSRa,b
Click to view the text version of Chart 43.
Notes: a. Sample Year 1 n=331, Year 2 n=1,907, Year 3 n=3,225, Year 4 n=4,617; b. See Table D.11 of Appendix D for
data.
Source: FoodTrack™; Heart Foundation calculations
To assess the change in proportion of products displaying a HSR, it was identified that 77.7 percent of
products in Year 1 displayed a HSR with ratings of 3.0 to 5.0 stars however, by Year 4, this had decreased
-
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
-
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
Ave
rag
e H
SR
0.5 1 1.5 2
2.5 3 3.5 4
4.5 5 Average HSR
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f H
SR
pro
ducts
by
sta
r ra
tin
g (%
)
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 69
to 63.1 percent. Therefore, this confirms that the superficial appearance of HSR products becoming less
healthy over time is likely driven by new products with lower HSRs joining the system.
8.2. Have the nutrients in HSR products changed over time?
As the average HSR decreased over time, further analysis was conducted to consider whether the nutrient
content in HSR products have changed, therefore attention was focused on the negative nutrients (energy,
saturated fat, total sugars and sodium). These nutrients are considered in the calculation of the star rating,
and are the key nutrients that consumers look for on front of pack.35
Therefore, the average nutrient content of Year 1 and Year 4 HSR products were compared. As illustrated in
Chart 44, average saturated fat, sodium and sugar (per 100g or 100mL) in HSR products are higher in Year
4 than Year 1. Superficially at least, it appears that the HSR products have become less healthy over the last
four years. However, it is likely that new products with a lower HSR joining the HSR system are the driver of
change as opposed to existing products adding saturated fat, sodium and sugar.
35 Campos, S. et al 2010, op cit.
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 70
Chart 44: Change in average nutrient content for HSR productsa
Click to view the text version of Chart 44.
Notes: a. Sample: Year 1 n=363, Year 2 n=2,021, Year 3 n=3,578, Year 4 n=5,448.
Source: FoodTrack™; Heart Foundation calculations
Therefore, to determine whether HSR products have reformulated over time, the nutrient content of Year 4
HSR products was compared to their Year 1 nutrient content. Results from the analysis36 show that the
average content is statistically lower in Year 4 than Year 1 for energy, saturated fat and sodium, with the
greatest reduction over time in sodium (5 percent).37 That is, HSR products have become healthier, on
average, over the last four years.
36 See Table D.12 of Appendix D
37 Paired products are analysed using a paired t-test, which compares the average of the difference between each paired
product.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
Ave
rag
e s
ug
ar (g
/10
0g
or 1
00
mL
)
Saturated fat
Sugar Sodium
Energy
Ave
rag
e e
ne
rgy
(kJ/
10
0g
or
10
0m
L)
Ave
rag
e s
at f
at
(g/1
00
g o
r 1
00
mL
)A
vera
ge
so
diu
m(g
/10
0g
or 1
00
mL
)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 71
To ascertain whether the decrease in nutrients is unique to HSR products, or reflects a general trend of
reformulation, average nutrient content for non-HSR products has also been analysed. These results show
that there was no statistical change in the nutrient content between Year 1 and 4 for products not
participating in the HSR system at Year 4.38
Given that energy, saturated fat and sodium have decreased over time for HSR products, and there has
been no change for non-HSR products, it appears these nutrients have decreased for HSR products relative
to non-HSR products.
To confirm this observation and conclude with statistical confidence that reformulation is attributable to
participation in the HSR, the difference over time in HSR products is compared to the difference over time in
non-HSR products39 (see Chart 45).
38 See Table D.13 of Appendix D
39 T-test with unequal variances.
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 72
Chart 45: Difference in nutrient status over time for HSR and non-HSR products, per 100g or 100mL
Click to view the text version of Chart 45.
Source: FoodTrack™, Heart Foundation calculations
The results from this analysis show that the difference is only statistical for energy and saturated fat.40 This
means that while HSR products have reformulated to reduce energy, saturated fat and sodium, only
reformulation of energy and saturated fat in HSR products may be attributed to participation in the HSR
system.
8.3. Does a change in nutrients translate to a change in star rating?
To ascertain whether the reformulation of these nutrients translates to a change in the average star rating,
the HSR of a sample of Year 4 products is compared to their HSR in Year 1.41 It is important to note that the
average HSR in section 8.1 is obtained from products participiating in the system and displaying a HSR.
Whereas, in this section, the average HSR refers to the calculated (hypothetical) HSR for products that have
been sampled for analysis. Chart 46 presents both the average and median for Years 1 and 4 for products
participating in the HSR system. This chart illustrates that both the average and the median star rating are
higher in Year 4 than Year 1.
40 See Table D.14 of Appendix D
41 Most Year 1 products had their HSR calculated, as there were only 363 products participating in Year 1.
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 73
Chart 46: Average and median star rating for paired sample HSR products, Year 1 c.t. Year 4a
Click to view the text version of Chart 46.
Notes: a. Sample for HSR product n=319
Source: FoodTrack™; Heart Foundation calculations
Analyses were undertaken to assess whether the difference between the average and median star rating of
Year 1 and 4 products was statistical. Results from analyses revealed that both the average and median star
rating is statistically larger in Year 4 than Year 1.42,43 To understand whether this is due to participation in
the HSR system encouraging reformulation, a paired sample of products not participating in the HSR was
taken. Star ratings were calculated for Year 1 and Year 4 based on the products’ nutrition information.
The average and median calculated star ratings are presented in Chart 47 for the non-HSR products in
Years 1 and 4. This shows that the average star rating has not changed, while the median appears to have
decreased. Analyses on the average and the median confirm that there is no statistical difference between
Years 1 and 4 for products not participating in the HSR system.44
42 See Table D.15 of Appendix D
43 A t-test is used to compare the means, while the Wilcoxin signed rank test is used to compare medians.
44 See Table D.16 of Appendix D
3.3 3.4
-
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Year 1 Year 4
Sta
r ra
ting
Average Median
3.0 3.5
Year 1 Year 4
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 74
Chart 47: Star rating for paired sample of non-HSR products, Year 1 c.t. Year 4a
Click to view the text version of Chart 47.
Notes: a. Sample for HSR product n=354
Source: FoodTrack™; Heart Foundation calculations.
In summary, we observe that the star rating has increased over time for products that are participating in the
HSR system, but not for products that are not participating in the HSR system. The difference is significant,
which indicates participation in the HSR system may be driving healthier reformulation of products that have
adopted the system45.
8.4. Concluding comments
In this section, we have analysed the nutrients and star rating for products participating in the HSR and
compared them to products not participating.
Though results revealed that the average star rating of products decreased throughout the years, this is
likely driven by new products with lower HSRs joining the system.
Furthermore, results from the analysis also indicated that participation in the HSR system is leading to
voluntary reformulation of products, which is in turn increasing the healthiness of products that have adopted
the system.
These findings are similar to those reported on the HSR in New Zealand, which have also shown that the
HSR system is driving healthier reformulation of some products.46
45 See Table D.17 of Appendix D
46 Ni Mhurchu, C., Eyles, H., Choi, Y-H. 2017, ‘Effects of voluntary front-of-pack nutrition labelling system on packaged
food reformulation: the Health Star Rating system in New Zealand’, Nutrients, vol. 9, issue 8.
2.7 2.7
-
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Year 1 Year 4
Sta
r ra
ting
Average Median
3.0 2.5
Year 1 Year 4
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 75
Chapter 9: Concluding remarks
Across almost every evaluation question, the HSR system has shown to have a positive impact. Uptake and
participation in the HSR has been increasing year on year with sales weighted data indicating that products
participating in the HSR system formed a relatively larger proportion of products purchased compared to
non-HSR products.
Participating manufacturers and retailer’s have largely complied with system guidance which enabled the
HSR system to be displayed correctly and accurately on packaged foods. In addition, some manufacturers
and retailers may also be reformulating their products to make them healthier.
From a consumer perspective, there is strong awareness of the HSR, they trust the system and understand
how to use it. Given that HSR products formed a relatively larger proportion of products purchased
compared to non-HSR products, the HSR is helping some consumers make healthier choices and therefore
leading to a change in purchasing behaviour.
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 76
Appendix A: Style Guide Compliance Checklist
# Question Answer Next step
1 Does the product display a HSR system
graphic?
1 = Yes
2 = No
1 = Go to Q2
2 = End of questions
2 Is the product one that can display a
HSR system graphic?
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q3
3 Is the product one that is intended to
display a HSR system graphic?
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q4
4 Which version of the HSR system
graphic does the product display?
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
HSR + energy icon + 3 prescribed nutrients + 1 optional nutrient
# Question Answer Next step
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? Note location if not front of
pack or is there are additional HSR
system graphics on pack.
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q5C
5C Is the HSR element of the graphic
larger than the nutrient information
elements?
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q5D
5D Is the HSR system graphic presented
with contrasting background and text?
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q5E
5E Is the HSR system graphic a rating of
½ star to 5 stars in ½ star increments?
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q5F
5F Does the HSR system graphic value
match the numerical rating value?
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q5G
5G Are the words ‘Health Star Rating’
displayed prominently below the HSR
element of the graphic?
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q5H
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 77
# Question Answer Next step
5H 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 Q5I
5I Have the correct prescribed nutrients
been used?
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q5J
5J 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?
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q5K
5K Does the optional nutrient icon provide
nutrition information only?
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q5L
5L Do the energy and nutrient values
reflect those stated in the NIP?
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q5M
5M Have the energy and nutrient values
been recorded in the correct units?
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q5N
5N Have the energy and nutrient values
been recorded to the correct decimal
places?
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q5O
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
5Q Does the product contain the dietary
intake guide on pack? Please note
where on pack.
1 = Yes
2 = No
1 = Go to Q5R
2 = Go to Q5S
5R 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
3 = N/A
Go to Q5S
5S Do the nutrients use the terms ‘high’ or
‘low’?
1 = Yes
2 = No
1 = Go to Q5T
2 = Go to Q5U
5T If the nutrients use the terms 'high' or
'low', have they been used correctly?
1 = Yes
2 = No
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
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q5W
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 78
# Question Answer Next step
graphics) or at the bottom of the HSR
system graphic (for vertical graphics)?
Note any variations.
5W Is the serve size specified in the NIP? 1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q5X
5 Is the nominated reference measure
legible?
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q5Y
5Y Is the product a multipack? 1 = Yes
2 = No
1 = Go to Q5Z
2 = End of questions
5Z 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
5AA What optional nutrient has been used? C = Calcium
F = Fibre
Fo = Folate
I = Iron
M = Magnesium
Ma = Manganese
O = Omega 3
P = Protein
Se = Selenium
VA = Vitamin A
VC = Vitamin C
VE = Vitamin E
HSR + energy icon + 3 prescribed nutrients
# Question Answer Next step
6A Which HSR system graphic
configuration has been used?
1 = Horizontal
2 = Vertical
Go to Q6B
6B Is the HSR system graphic on the front
of pack? Note location if not front of
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q6C
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 79
# Question Answer Next step
pack or is there are additional HSR
system graphics on pack.
6C Is the HSR element of the graphic larger
than the nutrient information elements?
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q6D
6D Is the HSR system graphic presented
with contrasting background and text?
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q6E
6E Is the HSR system graphic a rating of ½
star to 5 stars in ½ star increments?
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q6F
6F Does the HSR system graphic value
match the numerical rating value?
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q6G
6G Are the words ‘Health Star Rating’
displayed prominently below the HSR
element of the graphic?
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q6H
6H 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 Q6I
6I Have the correct prescribed nutrients
been used?
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q6J
6J 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?
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q6K
6K Do the energy and nutrient values
reflect those stated in the NIP?
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q6L
6L Have the energy and nutrient values
been recorded in the correct units?
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q6M
6M Have the energy and nutrient values
been recorded to the correct decimal
places?
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
6P Does the product contain the dietary
intake guide on pack? Please note
where on pack.
1 = Yes
2 = No
1 = Go to Q6Q
2 = Go to Q6R
6Q If the dietary intake guide has been
used on pack, has it been displayed in a
1 = Yes
2 = No
3 = N/A
Go to Q6R
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 80
# Question Answer Next step
manner not to mislead the consumer
that the two systems are linked?
6R Do the nutrients use the terms ‘high’ or
‘low’?
1 = Yes
2 = No
1 = Go to Q6S
2 = Go to Q6T
6S If the nutrients use the terms 'high' or
'low', have they been used correctly?
1 = Yes
2 = No
3 = N/A
Go to Q6T
6T Is the nominated reference measure
appropriate?
1 = Yes
2 = No
3 = N/A
Go to Q6U
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)? Note any
variations.
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q6V
6V Is the serve size specified in the NIP? 1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q6W
6W Is the nominated reference measure
legible?
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q6X
6 Is the product a multipack? 1 = Yes
2 = No
1 = Go to Q6Y
2 = End of questions
6Y 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 + energy icon
# Question Answer Next step
7A Which HSR system graphic
configuration has been used?
1 = Horizontal (refer to
image)
Go to Q7B
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 81
# Question Answer Next step
2 = Vertical (refer to
image)
7B Is the HSR system graphic on the front
of pack? Note location if not front of
pack or is there are additional HSR
system graphics on pack.
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q7C
7C Is the HSR element of the graphic larger
than the nutrient information elements?
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q7D
7D Is the HSR system graphic presented
with contrasting background and text?
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q7E
7E Is the HSR system graphic a rating of ½
star to 5 stars in ½ star increments?
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q7F
7F Does the HSR system graphic value
match the numerical rating value?
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q7G
7G Are the words ‘Health Star Rating’
displayed prominently below the HSR
element of the graphic?
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q7H
7H Has sufficient space been provided to
accommodate energy name and value
in a clear and legible way?
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q7I
7I Does the energy value reflect that
stated in the NIP?
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q7J
7J Has the energy value been recorded in
the correct unit?
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q7K
7K Has the energy value been recorded to
the correct decimal place?
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q7L
7L Does the energy icon sit to the right of
the HSR element of the system graphic
(if horizontal option) or below (if vertical
option)?
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q7M
7M Does the energy icon display %DI? 1 = Yes
2 = No
1 = Go to Q7N
2 = Go to Q7O
7N 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 Q7O
7O Does the product contain the dietary
intake guide on pack? Please note
where on pack.
1 = Yes
2 = No
1 = Go to Q7P
2 = Go to Q7Q
7P If the dietary intake guide has been
used on pack, has it been displayed in a
1 = Yes
2 = No
3 = N/A
Go to Q7Q
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 82
# Question Answer Next step
manner not to mislead the consumer
that the two systems are linked?
7Q Is the Nominated Reference Measure
appropriate?
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q7R
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)? Note any
variations.
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q7S
7S 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
# Question Answer Next step
8A Is the HSR system graphic on the front
of pack? Note location if not front of
pack or is there are additional HSR
system graphics on pack.
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q8B
8B Is the HSR system graphic presented
with contrasting background and text?
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q8C
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
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 83
# Question Answer Next step
8D Does the HSR system graphic value
match the numerical rating value?
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q8E
8E Are the words ‘Health Star Rating’
displayed prominently below the HSR
element of the graphic?
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q8F
8F Does the product contain the dietary
intake guide on pack? Please note
where on pack.
1 = Yes
2 = No
1 = Go to Q8G
2 = Go to Q8H
8G 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
3 = N/A
Go to Q8H
8H Is the product a multipack? 1 = Yes
2 = No
1 = Go to Q8I
2 = End of questions
8I 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
Energy icon
# Question Answer Next step
9A Is the HSR system graphic on the front
of pack? Note location if not front of
pack or there are additional HSR system
graphics on 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
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 84
# Question Answer Next step
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
9I Does the product contain the dietary
intake guide on pack? Please note
where on pack.
1 = Yes
2 = No
1 = Go to Q9J
2 = Go to Q9K
9J 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
3 = N/A
Go to Q9K
9K Is the Nominated Reference Measure
appropriate?
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q9L
9L Is the Nominated Reference Measure
above or below the energy icon?
1 = Below
2 = Above
Go to Q9M
9M Is the serve size specified in the NIP? 1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q9N
9N Is the Nominated Reference Measure
legible?
1 = Yes
2 = No
Go to Q9O
9O Is the product a multipack? 1 = Yes
2 = No
1 = Go to Q9P
2 = End of questions
9P 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
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 85
Appendix B: HSR hierarchy of categories
Figure B.1: Hierarchy of categories used for the HSR system
Click to view the text version.
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 86
Appendix C: HSR Tracker 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 and 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 for your time.
Profile Section
ASK ALL
QS1. To begin with could you please confirm your age?
Under 18 [Terminate]
18 to 24
25 to 29
30 to 34
35 to 39
40 to 44
45 to 49
50 to 54
55 to 59
60 to 65
Over 65
SINGLE RESPONSE
ASK ALL
QS2. Are you the main or shared grocery buyer in your household?
Main grocery buyer
Shared grocery buyer
Not the grocery buyer [Terminate]
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 87
Unsure [Terminate]
SINGLE RESPONSE
[NB: Main grocery buyer is the person in your household who does most of the grocery shopping]
ASK ALL
QS3. What gender are you?
Male
Female
Intermediate/Intersex/Unspecified
SINGLE RESPONSE
ASK ALL
QS4. Where do you live?
NSW
VIC
QLD
SA
WA
NT
TAS
ACT
SINGLE RESPONSE
ASK ALL
QS5. What is your postcode?
OPEN VERBATIM
Module A: General Supermarket Shopping
The first set of questions are some general questions about 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
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 88
Product quality
Product taste
Product advertising or promotions
Personal or family preference
Portion size
Nutritional value
How healthy I think it is
Front-of-pack labelling
Other (please specify)
Unsure
SINGLE REPSONSE
ASK ALL
QA2. When choosing a new food during grocery shopping, how often do you compare how
healthy products are?
Always
Most of the time
Sometimes
Just occasionally
Never
Not sure
SINGLE RESPONSE
ASK ALL
QA3. On average, when at the supermarket, do you look at the nutrition information panel on…?
All food products
Most food products
Some food products
Few food products
Never
Unsure
SINGLE RESPONSE
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 89
Module B: Awareness of HSR / Food Labels
The next set of questions is about labelling on food products
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
ASK ALL
QB2. Are you aware of the Health Star Rating system?
Yes
No
Unsure
SINGLE RESPONSE
QB2a AND QB2b ASKED ONLY IN WAVE 5 – ASK ONLY IF AWARE OF THE HSR SYSTEM
QB2a. How many stars do you think indicate a healthy product?
SINGLE RESPONSE
1. 2. 3. 4, 5.
6. 7. 8. 9. 10.
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 90
QB2B. How many stars do you think indicate an unhealthy product?
SINGLE RESPONSE
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
6. 7. 8. 9. 10.
ASK ALL
QB3. Which of the following are you aware of on food packaging? (ROTATE ORDER)
GI (glycaemic index)
No added salt/reduced salt
Fat reduced/low fat
Lite
Fat-free
Cholesterol free
Heart Foundation Tick
Low joule/low calories
Energy/kilojoules
Unsweetened/no added sugar/sugar-free
Gluten-free
Weight Watchers
% Dietary intake
Be treatwise
None of the above
Unsure
MULTIPLE RESPONSE
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 91
Module C: Knowledge of the HSR
The next set of questions is about your knowledge of the Health Star Rating system.
ASK SECTION C ONLY IF AWARE OF THE HSR – OTHERWISE SKIP TO SECTION K
QC1. When the Health Star Rating system is on the packaging of food, what do you think it
means?
OPEN VERBATIM
QC2. In your opinion, how is the number of stars on a product determined?
OPEN VERBATIM
QC3. Below are a series of statements about the Health Star Rating system.
Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree that the Health Star Rating system…
a. Makes it easier for me to compare products that are in the same category in the supermarket
b. Makes it easier for me to compare products that are in different categories in the supermarket
c. Makes it easier for me to identify the healthier option within a category
d. Makes it easier for me to identify the healthier option across all categories
e. Helps me think about the healthiness of food
f. Helps me make decisions about which foods to buy
g. Makes me want to buy healthier products
h. It’s just another thing on a pack that makes shopping more confusing
Strongly agree, Agree, Neither agree nor disagree, Disagree, Strongly disagree, Unsure
QC4. How would you use the Health Star Rating system?
OPEN VERBATIM
QC5. If a food product has one star, what do you think this means?
OPEN VERBATIM
QC6. If a food product has five stars, what do you think this means?
OPEN VERBATIM
Module D: Understanding of the HSR
The next set of questions is about your understanding of the Health Star Rating system.
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…?
a. It is a healthier option compared to a similar food product with less stars
b. It is a healthier option compared to a food product with less stars
c. You can eat it as much as you like compared to a product with less stars
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 92
d. It is more expensive than a product with less stars
e. It is healthy
f. It does not taste as good as a product with less stars
Strongly agree, Agree, Neither agree nor disagree, Disagree, Strongly disagree, Unsure
QD2. The Health Star Rating can be displayed in five different ways. Please select the style you
believe…
a. Is easiest to understand.
b. Is easiest to recognise.
c. Provides sufficient information.
QD3. Overall, please select the style you prefer the most
SINGLE RESPONSE
QD4. Why do you prefer that option?
OPEN VERBATIM
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 93
Module E: Understanding of the HSR
QE1. When purchasing packaged foods, how often would you include any items that have the
Health Star Rating?
Always
Most of the time
Sometimes
Just occasionally
Never/Do not currently use
Not sure/Don’t notice
I don’t buy packaged foods
SINGLE RESPONSE
QE2. Which of the following best describes whether you look out for the Health Star Rating when
shopping for food in the supermarket? Do you…?
Always look out for it
Most times look out for it
Might look for it now and again
Good to have but I don’t look out for it
Don’t look out for it/don’t care if it has it or not
Unsure
SINGLE RESPONSE
QE3. What are the reasons you [Insert response from QE2]?
OPEN VERBATIM
QE4 – QE6 ASKED ONLY IN WAVE 5
QE4. When shopping at the supermarket, what types of food do you mostly buy? (ROTATE
ORDER)
Packaged processed foods (e.g. ready meals, deli meats, confectionary, canned goods)
Fresh produce (e.g. fruits, vegetables, meat)
Packaged foods (e.g. rice, bread, grain products, frozen vegetables/fruit)
Mixture of packaged/processed foods and fresh produce
Unsure
SINGLE RESPONSE
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 94
QE5. Are you aware that the Health Star Rating system is typically only displayed on packaged
and processed foods, and not on fresh produce?
Yes
No
Unsure
SINGLE RESPONSE
QE6. How does the Health Star Rating system (displayed only on packaged/processed foods),
influence your decision to buy fresh produce? (e.g. fruits and vegetables).
To buy more fresh produce
To buy less fresh produce
It does not influence my decision
Unsure
SINGLE RESPONSE
Module F: Use of HSR (ASKED ONLY IN WAVE 3)
QF1. Do you follow the provided instructions when preparing packaged foods?
Yes
No
Unsure
SINGLE RESPONSE
ASK IF FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS WHEN PREPARING PACKAGED FOODS
QF1a. Which products do you do this for?
Cake mixes/pancake mixes
Breakfast cereals (e.g. ready-to-eat, muesli, oats)
Canned soups
Coffee powder mixes
Cordial
Cooking sauces (pasta & other)
Finishing sauces
Dehydrated powdered pasta and rice products
Gravy
Hot chocolate mixes
Mashed potato mix
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 95
Flavoured milk powders
Powered custard
Pasta & noodle products
Powdered soup
Ready meals, meal kits
Recipe bases
Sauce mixes (including liquid sauce packs for casseroles/slow cookers)
Spice mixes
Cookie/biscuit mixes
Other (please specify)
None of the above (Exclusive)
QF2. Are you aware that the HSR on some foods/products is based on the food being prepared as
per pack instructions?
Yes
No
Unsure
SINGLE RESPONSE
ASK IF FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS WHEN PREPARING PACKAGED FOODS
QF2a. On these foods/products, do you find the HSR useful when comparing foods within these
categories?
OPEN VERBATIM
ASK IF NO OR UNSURE ABOUT FOLLOWING INSTRUCTIONS WHEN PREPARING PACKAGED
FOODS
QF2b. Now that you are aware – would you use the HSR when comparing foods within these
categories?
OPEN VERBATIM
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 96
Module F: Purchasing Behaviour (Potential & Current)
The next set of questions is about purchasing a product with the Health Star Rating system.
QF1. In the past three months have you purchased a product that had the Health Star Rating
System?
Yes
No
Unsure
SINGLE RESPONSE
(ASK IF HAVE PURCHASED A PRODUCT WITH THE HSR IN THE LAST THREE MONTHS, IF NO OR
UNSURE GO TO QF6)
QF2. Did the Health Star Rating system on the product influence your choice?
Yes
No
Unsure
SINGLE RESPONSE
(ASK IF INFLUENCED BY HSR, IF NO GO TO QF5, IF UNSURE GO TO QF6)
QF3. How did it influence your choice?
Yes, it confirmed I should buy my usual product
Yes, I chose a product with more stars that I don’t often buy
Yes, I chose a product with more stars that I’ve never tried before
Yes, I chose not to buy my usual product because it had fewer stars than other options
(ASK IF CHOSE PRODUCT DON’T OFTEN BUY, NEVER TRIED BEFORE, OR DIDN’T BUY USUAL
PRODUCT, IF CONFIRMED USUAL PRODUCT GO TO MODULE G)
QF4. Have you continued or will you continue to buy the product?
Yes
No
Unsure
SINGLE RESPONSE
QF5. Why didn’t the Health Star Rating system influence your choice?
OPEN VERBATIM
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 97
QF6. How likely or unlikely is the Health Star Rating to influence choices you make in the future
when buying food?
Very likely
Likely
Unlikely
Very unlikely
Unsure
SINGLE RESPONSE
Module G: Comparison
QG1. 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
The next set of questions is related to the Health Star Rating and food categories
Module H: HSR & Food Categories
ASK QH1 ONLY IF PURCHASED PRODUCT WITH HSR IN THE LAST 3 MONTHS, IF HAVE NOT
PURCHASED OR UNSURE IN THE LAST 3 MONTHS GO TO QH2
QH1. Please select which foods and/or beverages you purchased in the supermarket which had
the Health Star Rating system on them? (ROTATE ORDER)
Bread
Breakfast cereals (e.g. ready-to-eat, muesli, oats, breakfast drinks)
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 98
Cereal bars, nut/seed bars, fruit bars
Cheese
Confectionery (e.g. lollies, chocolates)
Cooking sauces (pasta & other)
Crisps and similar snacks
Fruit and vegetables (frozen, fresh, canned, or dried)
Finishing sauces
Legumes (canned, e.g. baked beans)
Margarines and spreads (including butter)
Meat, poultry, seafood (plain, processed, canned, fresh, frozen)
Milks (plain and flavoured)
Non-alcoholic beverages (e.g. soft drinks, fruit/vegetable juices)
Nuts and seeds
Pasta & noodles, and products
Pastries – sweet or savoury (e.g. pies/pasties, fruit pies, tarts)
Ready meals, meal kits
Recipe bases
Rice & rice products
Salad dressings and mayonnaise
Savoury biscuits, crackers, crispbreads
Spreads (e.g. peanut butter, jam)
Sweet biscuits, cakes, muffins
Table sauces (e.g. tomato sauce)
Vegetable oils
Yoghurt & dairy desserts (incl. custards, ice-cream, frozen yoghurt)
None of the above
MULTIPLE RESPONSE
QH2. Please select which foods and/or beverages you believe it is important to have the Health
Star Rating System on them? (ROTATE ORDER)
Bread
Breakfast cereals (e.g. ready-to-eat, muesli, oats, breakfast drinks)
Cereal bars, nut/seed bars, fruit bars
Cheese
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 99
Confectionery (e.g. lollies, chocolates)
Cooking sauces (pasta & other)
Crisps and similar snacks
Fruit and vegetables (frozen, fresh, canned, or dried)
Finishing sauces
Legumes (canned, e.g. baked beans)
Margarines and spreads (including butter)
Meat, poultry, seafood (plain, processed, canned, fresh, frozen)
Milks (plain and flavoured)
Non-alcoholic beverages (e.g. soft drinks, fruit/vegetable juices)
Nuts and seeds
Pasta & noodles, and products
Pastries – sweet or savoury (e.g. pies/pasties, fruit pies, tarts)
Ready meals, meal kits
Recipe bases
Rice & rice products
Salad dressings and mayonnaise
Savoury biscuits, crackers, crispbreads
Spreads (e.g. peanut butter, jam)
Sweet biscuits, cakes, muffins
Table sauces (e.g. tomato sauce)
Vegetable oils
Yoghurt & dairy desserts (incl. custards, ice-cream, frozen yoghurt)
None of the above
MULTIPLE RESPONSE
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 100
Module I: Advertising / Campaign
The next set of questions is about your awareness of advertising of the Health Star Rating system.
QI1. In the last three months, do you remember seeing, hearing or reading any advertising or
promotions about the Health Star Rating system?
Yes
No
Unsure
SINGLE RESPONSE
ASK IF HAVE SEEN ADVERTISING IN THE LAST THREE MONTHS, OTHERWISE GO TO MODULE J
QI2. Where had you seen or heard about the Health Star Rating?
On food packaging
In-store promotion
On posters/digital posters in shopping centres
On a bus shelter/other outdoor area
In a newspaper/magazine
In a catalogue (i.e. Coles/Woolworths)
In online reviews/blogs
In an online ad
On the radio
News program
TV ad
Supermarket website
Food product website
Social media (e.g. Facebook)
Word of mouth
Other (specify)
Unsure
MULTIPLE RESPONSE
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 101
QI3. After seeing or hearing this advertising or promotion(s) for products with a Health Star
Rating, did it influence you to buy a product or products you normally wouldn’t buy?
Yes
No
Unsure
SINGLE RESPONSE
(QI4 – Q18 ASKED IN WAVE TWO ONLY)
QI4. What, if anything, did you think about doing in response to seeing or hearing this advertising
or promotion(s)?
OPEN VERBATIM
QI5. What, if anything, did you do in response to seeing or hearing this advertising or
promotion(s)?
OPEN VERBATIM
QI6. As a result of seeing or hearing the advertisement or promotion(s), have you…? (ROTATE
ORDER)
a. Looked up further information about the Health Star Rating
b. Purchased a product(s) with the Health Star Rating displayed when at the supermarket
c. Looked out for products with the Health Star Rating displayed when at the supermarket
d. Chosen and/or cooked healthier food for you and your family
e. Visited the http://healthstarrating.gov.au website for information
f. Talked to others about the Health Star Rating
g. Avoided a product because of its Health Star Rating
h. Compared the Health Star Rating to other nutritional information on the product pack
Yes, No but intending to, No and not intending to.
QI7. Would you say that seeing or hearing this advertising has had a positive or negative impact
on your opinion of the Health Star Rating system?
Very positive
Positive
Neither positive nor negative
Negative
Very negative
Unsure
SINGLE RESPONSE
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 102
QI8. What are the reasons you feel seeing or hearing this advertising has had a [insert response
from QI10] impact on your opinion of the Health Star Rating system?
OPEN VERBATIM
Module J: General Attitudes Towards the HSR
QJ1. 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…?
a. Is a system I trust
b. Is easy to understand
c. Is easy to use
d. Makes choosing food easier
e. Has a poor reputation
f. Is a reliable system
g. Is a credible system
h. Is personally relevant to me
i. Is relevant to my family
j. Is open and transparent
Strongly agree, Agree, Neither agree nor disagree, Disagree, Strongly disagree, Unsure
(QJ1a – QJ1c ASKED IN WAVE 4 ONLY)
ASK QJ1a & QJ1b IF DISAGREE OR STRONGLY DISAGREE THAT HSR IS A “SYSTEM THAT I
TRUST”, OTHERWISE GO TO QJ1c.
QJ1a. Why don’t you trust the Health Star Rating System?
OPEN VERBATIM
QJ1b. How strongly do you agree or disagree, that the following actions would increase your trust
in the Health Star Rating system? (ROTATE ORDER)
More advertising campaigns that explain how to use the Health Star Rating system
Greater explanation about how the stars are calculated
The stars were on more products
More posters/fliers in the supermarket that explain how to use the Health Star Rating
system
Information on the packaging of food products that explain how to use the Health Star
Rating system
Clearer Government backing of the system
Clearer backing of the system by nutritionists/dieticians
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 103
Changing the Health Star Rating slogan from “the more stars, the healthier”
Strongly Agree, Agree, Neither Agree nor Disagree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree, Unsure.
QJ1c. If you wanted to know more about the Health Star Rating system, where would you go to
find more information?
Health Star Rating Website
General Practitioner
Dietitian/Nutritionist
Other health professional
Supermarket
Food product manufacturer
Social media (e.g. Twitter, Facebook, Pinterest)
I wouldn’t want to know more about the HSR
Unsure
Other (please specify)
MULTIPLE RESPONSE
QJ2. Overall, what level of confidence do you have in the Health Star Rating system?
High
Somewhat high
Indifferent
Somewhat low
Very low
Unsure
SINGLE RESPONSE
ASK IF HAVE LOW CONFIDENCE IN HSR SYSTEM, OTHERWISE GO TO MODULE K
QJ3. Why Do you have low confidence in the Health Star Rating system?
OPEN VERBATIM
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 104
Module K: Healthy Weight
The next set of questions is about health behaviours.
ASK ALL
QK1. What is your height?
Metres (e.g. 1.65 m) (Specify)
Centimetres (e.g. 165 cm) (Specify)
Feet and inches (e.g. 5 ft, 5 in) (Specify)
Prefer not to say/Unsure
SINGLE RESPONSE
ASK ALL
QK2. What is your weight?
Kilograms (e.g. 65 kg) (Specify)
Pounds (e.g. 150 Ib) (Specify)
Stones and Pounds (e.g. 10 st, 10 Ib) (Specify)
Prefer not to say/Unsure
SINGLE RESPONSE
Module L: Respondent Profile
ASK ALL
QL1. Which of the following best describes your household structure?
Single person, living alone
Single person, living with parents/family
Single person, living with one or more children
Couple
Couple living with one or more children
Share house (group home of unrelated adults)
Other
Prefer not to say
SINGLE RESPONSE
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 105
ASK IF HAVE CHILDREN LIVING AT HOME
QL2. What age ranges do your children (living at home) fall into?
Under 6 years
16–12 years
13–17 years
18 years or over
Prefer not to say
MULTIPLE RESPONSE
ASK ALL
QL3. What is the highest level of education that you have completed?
Year 11 or below
Year 11
Year 12
Vocational qualification (e.g. trade/apprenticeship)
Other TAFE or technical certificate
Diploma
Bachelor Degree (including Honours)
Post graduate degree
Other (please specify)
Prefer not to say
SINGLE RESPONSE
ASK ALL
QL4. Which of these categories best describes your main activity at the moment?
Working full-time
Working on a part-time or casual basis
Doing study or training
Looking for work
Doing unpaid voluntary work
Retired
Home duties
Something else (please specify)
Prefer not to say
SINGLE RESPONSE
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 106
ASK ALL
QL5. 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?
Below $30,000
Between $30,000 to $39,999
Between $40,000 to $49,999
Between $50,000 to $59,999
Between $60,000 to $69,999
Between $70,000 to $99,999
Between $100,000 to $119,999
Between $120,000 to $149,999
Between $150,000 to $199,999
$200,000 or more
Prefer not to say
SINGLE RESPONSE
ASK ALL
QL6. Are you of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander origin?
Neither
Aboriginal
Torres Strait Islander
Both
Prefer not to say
SINGLE RESPONSE
ASK ALL
QL7. Were you born in Australia or overseas?
Australia
Overseas
Prefer not to say
SINGLE RESPONSE
ASK ALL
QL8. Do you speak a language other than English at home?
Yes
No
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 107
Prefer not to say
SINGLE RESPONSE
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 108
Appendix D: Data tables
Uptake
Table D.1: Uptake of HSR (%), sales weighted versus unweighted, by category, Year 4a,b
HSR Category Sales
weighted Uptake ±CIc
Bakery fats 0.0 0.0 0.0
Baking goods 27.4 26.2 1.8
Biscuits – savoury 37.1 22.6 0.3
Biscuits - sweet 29.3 22.0 0.1
Bread 35.9 18.7 0.2
Breakfast drinks 91.1 77.5 1.6
Breakfast spreads 11.8 9.4 0.2
Butter 45.4 21.4 1.4
Cakes muffins and other baked products 54.3 42.2 0.3
Cereal-based bars 44.9 48.2 0.4
Cheese - hard and processed 38.5 17.5 0.2
Cheese – soft 30.2 18.7 0.3
Confectionary 38.2 34.5 0.1
Cooking sauces 57.1 41.9 0.2
Cream and cream alternatives 48.1 26.8 0.5
Crisps and similar snacks 7.4 19.5 0.1
Custards and dairy desserts (non - frozen) 18.5 15.8 0.5
Dairy milks - flavoured 35.1 43.1 1.0
Dairy milks - plain 57.9 33.7 0.5
Dessert toppings and baking syrups 34.1 39.7 0.9
Dips 23.5 12.7 0.4
Dried fruit and nut mixes 26.3 48.3 1.2
Edible oil spreads 24.6 28.0 0.4
Eggs 35.2 10.1 1.3
Finishing sauces 16.8 20.7 0.6
Flour 20.1 21.2 0.7
Formulated foods - protein bars protein shakes meal
replacements 0.0 0.0 0.0
Frozen dairy (and soy) desserts 25.4 26.9 0.1
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 109
Frozen desserts (fruit-based only) 50.4 24.4 1.8
Frozen potato products 61.7 64.5 0.6
Fruit - dried 25.6 20.1 0.6
Fruit - plain 16.9 31.0 0.3
Fruit - shelf stable 45.4 44.0 0.4
Fruit and vegetable juices 46.9 52.9 0.3
Fruit bars 59.5 45.1 2.7
Fruit pies tarts crumbles 29.3 29.3 0.7
Grains - plain 36.1 31.3 0.4
Grains - processed 19.8 32.7 0.7
Hot cereals - flavoured 99.6 94.6 2.0
Hot cereals - plain 96.1 83.8 2.4
Jelly 9.0 13.7 0.4
Legumes - canned/shelf-stable 70.1 52.3 0.6
Mayonnaise and aioli products 20.2 22.1 0.6
Meal kits 0.0 2.5 0.0
Meat - plain 0.5 3.4 0.3
Meat - processed 71.4 65.1 0.5
Milk modifiers and flavourings 48.7 30.0 1.2
Milk substitutes - plain and flavoured 69.3 51.5 1.4
Mueslis 68.2 65.6 0.7
Nut and seed bars 17.9 37.9 0.5
Nuts and seeds 47.3 38.8 0.3
Pasta and noodles - plain 40.5 17.5 0.3
Pasta and noodles - processed 29.1 30.3 0.2
Pastry 41.2 15.6 1.9
Poultry - canned 32.4 40.0 3.5
Poultry - plain 0.0 0.0 0.0
Poultry - processed 32.4 32.8 0.3
Ready meals 63.3 58.2 0.2
Ready to eat breakfast cereals 93.6 90.7 0.3
Recipe concentrates 62.7 49.7 0.4
Relishes chutneys and pastes 21.2 13.0 0.2
Salad dressings and mayonnaise type dressings 16.7 26.7 0.4
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 110
Notes: a. HSR product sample: Year 3 n=3,461, Year 4 n=5,203; Eligible product sample: Year 3 n=14,864, Year 4
n=16,339; b. Products have been excluded from the calculation where sales data is not available; c. confidence interval
applies to sales weighted uptake, as sales data is derived from a sample. Presented is the 95 percent confidence interval
Source: FoodTrack™; Heart Foundation Calculations; Nielsen HomeScan®
Sandwiches 11.9 18.8 6.5
Savoury pies pastries and pizzas 40.4 38.9 0.2
Savoury snack combinations 25.8 24.6 0.9
Seafood - canned 45.4 34.2 0.4
Seafood - plain 43.8 31.9 1.7
Seafood - processed 42.4 40.2 0.3
Seasonings herbs and spices 8.1 4.8 0.3
Smallgoods 10.6 8.9 0.2
Soups - all 73.6 55.7 0.2
Spreads - nut and seeds 28.2 49.4 0.5
Stocks 8.2 11.6 0.3
Sugar (or artificially) - sweetened beverages 56.0 44.7 0.3
Sugar and sugar alternatives 28.3 9.3 0.7
Tea and coffee 4.7 9.5 0.5
Tomato and other table sauces 10.6 10.5 0.2
Vegetable oils 35.0 24.0 0.2
Vegetables - plain 18.0 26.9 0.1
Vegetables - processed 60.0 51.6 0.3
Vegetarian - processed 55.6 57.6 1.1
Water 56.9 27.3 1.9
Yoghurt 18.8 21.2 0.2
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 111
Compliance
Table D.2: Distribution of products with a design variation
Health Star Rating System Graphic
Characteristic Year 1 (n) Year 2 (n) Year 3 (n) Year 4 (n)
Products displays a combination of HSR system
graphics on the front of pack (FoP)
21 59 23 7
HSR elements is on the FoP and the 'snail' wraps
around the side of the pack, still joined
0 4 1 1
One HSR option is displayed on the FoP and a
different HSR option is on the back of pack (BoP) or
top of pack; or the 'snail' is on the BoP
0 32 1 14
HSR system graphic is displayed on the box and not
actual product
0 2 2 0
HSR value is not a valid number 0 1 0 0
Manufacturer has placed a sticker over one nutrient
value in the HSR system graphic with correct
information
2 0 0 0
Star highlighting different to the recommended
guidelines
0 0 5 4
The snail located to the left of the HSR 0 0 2 4
Font size displayed differently to the recommended
guidelines
0 0 1 0
Energy and nutrient icons, including % dietary intake (%DI)
Characteristic Year 1 (n) Year 2 (n) Year 3 (n) Year 4 (n)
Nutrient or energy icons display the older version of
the HSR system graphic
3 22 1 0
Use of optional nutrient differs to the
recommendations in the guidelines
0 1 0 0
Nutrient value is expressed to decimal place other
than what is suggested in the HSR Style Guide
N/A 34 17 11
Sugar-free beverages display energy values to one
decimal place, however match the nutrition
information panel (NIP)
0 3 0 0
Nominated Reference Measure (NRM)
Characteristic Year 1 (n) Year 2 (n) Year 3 (n) Year 4 (n)
NRM is in a different position to what is suggested in
the HSR Style Guide
0 10 2 0
NRM is per 100g, which matches the serve size;
however potentially confusing because it uses %DI
0 9 1 0
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 112
Characteristic Year 1 (n) Year 2 (n) Year 3 (n) Year 4 (n)
NRM is a different version to the Style Guide but still
appropriate
0 7 1 0
NRM is 'per row' which is implied to be the sme as
the serve size in the NIP, however not stated
0 6 4 0
Total Graphics 26 190 61 41
Source: FoodTrack™; Heart Foundation calculations
Table D.3: Distribution of products with a technical variation
Health Star Rating System Graphic
Characteristic Year 1 (n) Year 2 (n) Year 3 (n) Year 4 (n)
HSR system graphic is not on the front of pack 0 29 3 3
Incomplete five-star rating scale 0 6 0 0
Mismatch of the HSR system graphic value to the
numerical rating value
0 3 0 0
Energy and nutrient icons, including % dietary intake (%DI)
Characteristic Year 1 (n) Year 2 (n) Year 3 (n) Year 4 (n)
Use of prescribed nutrients differ to guidelines 0 1 2 1
Nutrient order and/or display varies to recommended
guidelines
1 4 0 0
Mismatch of energy and/or nutrient values to those
stated in the nutrition information panel
2 4 0 1
Nutrient(s) values displayed with units different to
guidelines
1 1 0 0
Nutrient(s) values displayed with decimal places
diffeent to the guidelines
3 N/A N/A N/A
%DI implemented differently to recommended
guidelines
3 34 1 4
DIG implemented with the HSR system graphic
differently to recommendations in the guidelines
0 8 4 4
Nutrient(s) do not meet the condiitons to use the
terms 'high' or 'low'
1 5 1 1
Nominated Reference Measure (NRM)
Characteristic Year 1 (n) Year 2 (n) Year 3 (n) Year 4 (n)
Nominated reference measure differs to the
reccomendations in the guidelines
20 53 17 7
Total Graphics 31 148 28 21
Source: FoodTrack™; Heart Foundation calculations
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 113
Awareness
Table D.4: Proportion of respondents that are aware of the HSR system (unprompted), Year 4a,b
Characteristic Proportion of respondents (%)
All respondents 20.2
Gender
Characteristic Proportion of respondents (%)
Males 18.0
Females 22.2
Age group
Characteristic Proportion of respondents (%)
Under 35 23.4
35 to 54 20.2
Over 55 11.6
Level of education
Characteristic Proportion of respondents (%)
High school 16.0
Tafe or diploma 18.9
University 24.3
Indigenous status
Characteristic Proportion of respondents (%)
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander 9.2
Non-Indigenous 20.8
Body mass index
Characteristic Proportion of respondents (%)
Normal range (<24.99) 25.8
Overweight or obese (≥25) 19.3
Household structure
Characteristic Proportion of respondents (%)
Children at home 20.7
No children 18.8
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 114
Language spoken at home
Characteristic Proportion of respondents (%)
English 21.2
Language other than English 16.9
Household income
Characteristic Proportion of respondents (%)
Less than $50,000 15.2
$50,000 to $99,999 19.4
Greater than $100,000 25.1
Notes: a. Sample: n=7,481; b. Only results that are statistically significant are presented.
Source: Heart Foundation HSR Tracker
Table D.5: Proportion of respondents that are aware of the HSR system (prompted), Year 4 a,b
Characteristic Proportion of respondents (%)
All respondents 83.3
Gender
Characteristic Proportion of respondents (%)
Males 80.4
Females 86.1
Age group
Characteristic Proportion of respondents (%)
Under 35 89.3
35 to 54 82.8
Over 55 68.6
Leve of education
Characteristic Proportion of respondents (%)
High school, tafe or diploma 82.5
University 84.5
Indigenous status
Characteristic Proportion of respondents (%)
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander 89.6
Non-Indigenous 83.3
Body mass index
Characteristic Proportion of respondents (%)
Normal range (<24.99) 86.7
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 115
Characteristic Proportion of respondents (%)
Overweight or obese (≥25) 79.7
Household structure
Characteristic Proportion of respondents (%)
Children at home 85.9
No children 81.5
Household income
Characteristic Proportion of respondents (%)
Less than $50,000 81.6
Greater than $50,000 84.5
Notes: a. Sample: n=7,481; b. Only results that are statistically significant are presented.
Source: Heart Foundation HSR Tracker
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 116
Trust
Table D.6: Proportion of respondents that agree (or strongly agree) that the HSR is a system I trust, Year 4a,b
Characteristic Proportion of respondents (%)
All respondents 58.4
Gender
Characteristic Proportion of respondents (%)
Males 60.9
Females 56.2
Level of education
Characteristic Proportion of respondents (%)
High school, tafe or diploma 55.8
University 62.6
Body mass index
Characteristic Proportion of respondents (%)
Normal range (<24.99) 61.0
Overweight or obese (≥25) 58.0
Household structure
Characteristic Proportion of respondents (%)
Children at home 60.5
No children 57.2
Location
Characteristic Proportion of respondents (%)
Metro 59.5
Non-metro 55.6
Language spoken at home
Characteristic Proportion of respondents (%)
English 56.2
Language other than English 65.6
Household income
Characteristic Proportion of respondents (%)
Less than $50,000 56.5
$50,000 or more 60.6
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 117
Notes: a. Sample: n=6,233; b. Only results that are statistically significant are presented.
Source: Heart Foundation HSR Tracker
Use
Table D.7: Proportion of respondents that agree (or strongly agree) that the HSR makes it easier to identify
healthier options, Year 4a,b
Characteristic Proportion of respondents (%)
All respondents 76.8
Age group
Characteristic Proportion of respondents (%)
Under 54 76.2
55 and over 80.4
Level of education
Characteristic Proportion of respondents (%)
High school, tafe or diploma 75.9
University 78.8
Household structure
Characteristic Proportion of respondents (%)
Children at home 78.9
No children 75.8
Language spoken at home
Characteristic Proportion of respondents (%)
English 75.9
Language other than English 80.1
Household income
Characteristic Proportion of respondents (%)
Less than $50,000 75.0
$50,000 or more 78.0
Notes: a. Sample: n=6,233; b. Only results that are statistically significant are presented.
Source: Heart Foundation HSR Tracker
Table D.8: Proportion of respondents that agree (or strongly agree) that the HSR helps me make decisions about
what to buy, Year 4a,b
Characteristic Proportion of respondents (%)
All respondents 65.3
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 118
Level of education
Characteristic Proportion of respondents (%)
High school, tafe or diploma 63.1
University 69.0
Body mass index
Characteristic Proportion of respondents (%)
Normal range (<24.99) 67.0
Overweight or obese (≥25) 64.1
Location
Characteristic Proportion of respondents (%)
Metro 66.7
Non-metro 61.6
Language spoken at home
Characteristic Proportion of respondents (%)
English 62.9
Language other than English 72.8
Household income
Characteristic Proportion of respondents (%)
Less than $50,000 62.4
$50,000 or more 67.0
Notes: a. Sample: n=6,233; b. Only results that are statistically significant are presented.
Source: Heart Foundation HSR Tracker
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 119
Like
Table D.9: Main characteristics of each HSR logo by respondents
Option 1:
Option 2:
Option 3:
Option 4:
Option 5:
Year 2 Year 3
Detailed information 964 509
Detailed information (%) 42.0 38.1
Year 2 Year 3
Detailed information 249 162
Detailed information (%) 10.8 12.1
Year 2 Year 3
Easy to understand 1.7 1.7
Detailed information (%) 1.0 0.8
Year 2 Year 3
Simple/uncomplicated 172 109
Simple/uncomplicated (%) 7.5 8.2
Year 2 Year 3
Easy to understand 6 3
Easy to understand (%) 0.3 0.2
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 120
Notes: a. Sample Year 2 n=2,297, Year 3 n=1,335.
Source: Heart Foundation HSR Tracker
Influence
Table D.10: Proportion of respondents that report the HSR system influenced their purchasing decisionsa,b
Characteristic Proportion of respondents (%)
All respondents 64.4
Gender
Characteristic Proportion of respondents (%)
Males 68.2
Females 60.7
Level of education
Characteristic Proportion of respondents (%)
High school 59.0
Diploma/tafe 61.0
University 70.5
Indigenous status
Characteristic Proportion of respondents (%)
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander 72.9
Non-Indigenous 63.8
Body mass index
Characteristic Proportion of respondents (%)
Normal range (<24.99) 66.4
Overweight (25.00 - 29.99) 64.2
Obese (≥ 30) 54.8
Location
Characteristic Proportion of respondents (%)
Metro 67.4
Non-metro 56.3
Language spoken at home
Characteristic Proportion of respondents (%)
English 59.4
Language other than English 77.3
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 121
Household income
Characteristic Proportion of respondents (%)
Less than $50,000 62.1
Greater than $50,000 66.1
Notes: a. Sample: n=4,330; b. Only results that are statistically significant are presented.
Source: Heart Foundation HSR Tracker
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 122
Reformulation
Table D.11: Proportion of HSR products by year and star rating, and average HSRa
HSR Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
0.5 0.6 3.3 4.0 3.9
1.0 0.6 3.4 3.7 3.7
1.5 3.6 6.7 6.8 6.1
2.0 5.4 6.4 6.4 7.1
2.5 4.5 5.3 4.8 4.7
3.0 6.0 7.8 10.1 9.8
3.5 14.5 15.2 17.3 17.2
4.0 32.3 26.6 22.8 22.4
4.5 15.1 11.5 11.3 10.7
5.0 17.2 13.8 12.9 14.4
Average 3.8 3.5 3.4 3.4
Notes: a. Sample Year 1 n=331, Year 2 n=1,907, Year 3 n=3,225, Year 4 n=4,617.
Source: FoodTrack™; FoodTrack
Table D.12: Average nutrients for products participating in the HSR system, per 100g or 100mL
Energy (kJ) Saturated fat
(g)
Total sugars
(g)
Sodium (g)
Year 1 997.2 3.6 10.6 269.0
Year 4 987.7 3.5 10.6 255.6
Difference - 9.6 - 0.1 - 0.1 - 13.4
Percentage change (%) - 1.0 - 3.0 - 0.6 - 5.0
Observations 1,804 1,804 1,803 1,804
P-valuea 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00
Notes: a. One-tail test
Source: FoodTrack™, Heart Foundation calculations
Table D.13: Average nutrients for products not participating in the HSR system, per 100g or 100mL
Energy (kJ) Saturated fat
(g)
Total sugars
(g)
Sodium (g)
Year 1 1,098.9 5.2 12.2 505.0
Year 4 1,101.8 5.2 12.1 502.6
Difference 2.9 - 0.0 - 0.1 - 2.4
Percentage change (%) 0.3 - 0.0 - 0.6 - 0.5
Observations 3,954 3,956 3,957 3,947
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 123
Energy (kJ) Saturated fat
(g)
Total sugars
(g)
Sodium (g)
P-valuea 0.19 0.45 0.16 0.34
Notes: a. One-tail test
Source: FoodTrack™, Heart Foundation calculations
Table D.14: Difference in nutrient status over time for HSR and non-HSR products, per 100g or 100mL
Energy (kJ) Saturated fat (g) Sodium (g)
HSR - 9.6 - 0.1 - 13.4
Non-HSR 2.9 - 0.0 - 2.4
Degrees of freedom 4,032 2,716 5,539
P-valuea 0.00 0.00 0.07
Notes: a. One-tail test
Source: FoodTrack™, Heart Foundation calculations
Table D.15: Difference in average and median star rating between Years 1 and 4, HSR products
Average star rating Median star rating
Year 1 3.3 3.0
Year 4 3.4 3.5
Difference 0.1 0.5
P-valuea 0.00 0.00
Notes: a. One-tail test
Source: FoodTrack™, Heart Foundation calculations
Table D.16: Difference in average and median star rating between Years 1 and 4, non-HSR products
Average star rating Median star rating
Year 1 2.7 3.0
Year 4 2.7 2.5
Difference - 0.0 - 0.5
P-valuea 1.97 0.76
Notes: a. One-tail test
Source: FoodTrack™, Heart Foundation calculations
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 124
Table D.17: Statistical test for difference between average star rating for participating and non-participating
products
HSR products Non-HSR products
Average HSR in Year 1 3.3 2.7
Average HSR Year 4 3.4 2.7
Average difference 0.1 0.0
P-valuea = 0.00
Notes: a. Two-tail test
Source: FoodTrack™, Heart Foundation calculations
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 125
Appendix E: Text-based Alternatives for Figures
Figure 2: Conceptual Framework
It shows that awareness is the first and necessary component for nutrition information to have an impact on
consumer’s purchasing decisions. It is followed by attitude formation which has four main elements: trust,
usefulness, understanding of the HSR system and to which logo consumers most preferred. Having met all
of these, it will lead to the decision making of whether the product's participation in the HSR system has
influenced the consumer to purchase it or not.
Return to Figure 2 source.
Figure 3: Evaluation Framework
The diagram presents the different questions for each element of the evaluation framework. The questions
for Monitoring Implementation are “What is the uptake of the HSR system?” and “Do manufacturers comply
with the HSRC and guidelines?” For Evaluating Outcomes, there are separate questions for each factors that
affects the consumer outcomes. For Awareness, the question is “Are consumers aware of the system?”. For
Attitude Formation, there are 4 questions: “Do consumers trust in the HSR system?”, “Do consumers find the
HSR system useful?”, “Do consumers understand how to use and interpret the HSR?”, and “Which HSR
logos do consumers prefer?”. And to evaluate the impact on decision making, the question is “Does the HSR
influence consumers to make healthier choices?”. To evaluate the system outcomes, the question is “Has
the HSR system had an impact on reformulation?”
Return to Figure 3 source.
Chart 1: Participation of HSR products from FoodTrack™, by Year
Bar graph showing how the implementation of the Health Star Rating system is being monitored during the
first four years from June 2014 to June 2018. In year 1, 363 products participated. Year 2 with 2,021
products with a 457.7% increase in rate of growth. Year 3,3,587 products with 77.5% rate of growth. Year 4,
5,448 products with a 51.9% increase in rate of growth. The total number of unique products participating in
the system over a four-year period is 7,312.
Return to Chart 1 source.
Chart 2: Participation of HSR products from additional in-store collections
From the in-store collection method, 1,526 products were identified to have participated, currently
participating or soon to be participating in the HSR system in September 2015, 3,024 products in January
2016, 3,956 products in May 2016, 5,560 products in August to September 2016, 7,048 products in February
to March 2017, 8,400 products in August to September 2017 and in March 2018, 10,333 products.
Return to Chart 2 source.
Chart 3: Uptake of HSR products as a proportion of eligible products
It shows that HSR products accounted for 2.9% of eligible products in year 1,14.6% in year 2, 22.7% in year
3 and 30.5% in year 4. The overall total proportion of HSR products accounted for 21.8% of all eligible
products throughout the years.
Return to Chart 3 source.
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 126
Chart 4: Proportion of products participating in the HSR system from the top five categories
It shows that frozen potato products category had no products participating in the HSR system in year 1
however by year 4, 64.5% of the products participated in the system. Similarly, the breakfast drinks category
had no products participating in year 1 but by year 4, 77.5% products participated in the system. For hot
cereals - plain category, 27.6% of products participated in year 1 with a consistent increase to 84.2% in year
4. Ready to eat breakfast cereals category started with 36.4% in year 1 and increased to 90.2% in year 4.
Hot cereals - flavored category had 47.5% uptake in the first year and continued to increase in year 4 to
95.0% of products participating in the system.
Return to Chart 4 source.
Chart 5: Categories with the largest contribution to uptake
The two categories with the largest number of products participating in the HSR system are the
Confectionary and Sugar (or artificially) sweetened beverages category. In year 1, 5.8% of the products are
from the confectionary category and 1.1% are from the sweetened beverages category. In year 2, 7.08% are
from confectionary and 1.7% are from sweetened beverages. In year 3, 7.5% are from confectionary and
4.0% are from sweetened beverages. In year 4, 6.7% are from confectionary and 5.8% are from sweetened
beverages.
Return to Chart 5 source.
Chart 6: Sales weighted HSR uptake versus unweighted HSR uptakea,b
In year 3, there is no difference between unweighted uptake and sales weighted uptake with both at 23.3%.
In year 4, the unweighted uptake is 31.8% and the sales weighted uptake rate is 37.9%.
Return to Chart 6 notes.
Chart 7: Distribution of difference between sales weighted uptake and unweighted uptake, Year 4
Bar graph showing the difference between sales weighted uptake and unweighted uptake by proportion of
categories. 27.0% of categories had decreased by 0 to minus 10 percentage points, 4.8% decreased by -10
to -20 percentage points, and 3.6% had a decrease greater than -20 percentage points. 26.5% of categories
had increased by 0 to 10 percentage points, 22.9% of categories had increased by 10 to 20 percentage
points and10.8% of categories had an increase greater than 20 percentage points.
Return to Chart 7 source.
Chart 8: Comparison in uptake of HSR system and DIG, by months post implementation
Line graph showing the comparison in uptake of HSR and Daily Intake Guide (DIG) by months post
implementation. The data shows that 78 months after implementation, the DIG appeared on over 7,202
products while the HSR system graphic appeared on 7,312 products 48 months after implementation.
Return to Chart 8 source.
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 127
Chart 9: Comparison in uptake of the HSR system in Australia and New Zealand, by yeara
The data shows that in year 1, Australia has 363 participating products and it increased to5,448 products in
year 4. In New Zealand, from almost no participating products in year 1, it increased to 2,997 products in
year 4.
Return to Chart 9 notes.
Chart 10: Coverage of Private labels
It shows that in year 1, 36.4% of the participating products are from Coles and 14.0% are from Woolworths.
In year 2, 1.1% of the participating products are from Aldi, 29.9% are from Coles and 26.9% are from
Woolworths. In year 3, 5.0% of the participating products are from Aldi, 29.8% are from Coles and 24.2 are
from Woolworths. In year 4, 10.2% of the participating products are from Aldi, 25.2% are from Coles and
21.0% are from Woolworths.
Return to Chart 10 source.
Chart 11: Proportion of growth in HSR due to growth in private labels, by HSR year
In year 2, the private labels contributed 59.5% in the overall growth of the HSR system, 60.3% in year 2 and
51.4% in year 4.
Return to Chart 11 source.
Chart 12: Proportion of technical and design variations, by yeara
It shows that in year 1, 8.1% of the products has technical variations while 6.8% has design variations. In
year 2, 7.0% of the products has technical variations and 9.0% has design variation. In year 3, 4.5% of the
products has technical variations and 9.7% has design variations. In year 4, 4.0% of the products has
technical variations and 7.9% has design variations.
Return to Chart 12 notes.
Chart 13: Type of design variation, by yeara
One type of design variation is having a combination of HSR logos on front of pack. 80.8% of the products
has this type of variation in year 1, 31.1% in year 2, 37.7% in year 3 and 17.1% in year 4. Another type of
design variation is having a second logo on back of pack. It can be noted that there is no product with this
type of variation in year 1. However, 16.8% of products displayed this variation in year 2, 1.6% in year 3 and
34.1% in year 4. The next type of design variation being shown in the graph is the placement of nutrient
value expressed to incorrect decimal place. No product displayed this type of variation in year 1 but it is
present in year 2 to year 4 with a proportion of 17.9%, 27.9% and 26.8% respectively.
Return to Chart 13 notes.
Chart 14: Type of technical variation by Yeara
One type of technical variation is the incorrect nutrient reference measure. This variation can be seen in
64.5% of the products in year 1, 35.8% in year 2, 60.7% in year 3 and 33.3% in year 4. Another type of
technical variation is having the percentage DI displayed differently from the guidelines. 9.7% of the products
displayed this variation in year 1, 23.0% in year 2, 3.6% in year 3 and 19.0% in year 4.
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 128
Return to Chart 14 notes.
Chart 15: Compliance with the HSR Style Guidea
In year 1, 92.7% of the products are compliant in the Style Guide, 94.4% in year 2, 95.7 in year 3 and 95.8%
in year 4.
Return to Chart 15 notes.
Chart 16: Compliance of products with the HSR calculatora
In year 1, 98.1% of the products are compliant with the HSR calculator, 97.1% in year 2, 92.4% in year 3 and
89.7% in year 4.
Return to Chart 16 notes.
Chart 17: Proportion of products displaying the HSR system with star rating over or understateda
The data presents that in year 1, 1.9% of the products understated their HSR while no products overstated it.
In year 2, 1.6% understated while 1.0% overstated their HSR. In year 3, 4.8% understated while 2.8%
overstated and in year 4, 5.0% understated and 5.2% overstated their HSR.
Return to Chart 17 notes.
Chart 18: Distribution of over and understated HSR calculations, by Yeara
Bar graph showing the proportion of products that have over and understated HSR calculations. 52.4% of
products understated the HSR by 0.5 stars over the 4 years. 5.4% understated the HSR by 1.0 star. 34.7%
overstated the HSR by 0.5 stars and 3.4% overstated the HSR by 1.0 star.
Return to Chart 18 notes.
Chart 19: Unprompted awareness of food logosa
For HSR logo, 12.5% of the consumers has unprompted awareness of this logo. This rate went up to 20.2%
in year 4.
For Australian made logo, 16.0% of the consumers has unprompted awareness of this logo with a slight
increase to 16.8% in year 4.
For HF Tick logo, 36.0% of the consumers has unprompted awareness of this logo however this decreased
to 23.2% in year 4.
Return to Chart 19 notes.
Chart 20: Prompted awareness of the HSRa
In year 2, 56.8% of the consumers are aware of the HSR when prompted, 74.0% in year 3 and 83.3% in year
4.
Return to Chart 20 notes.
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 129
Chart 21: Proportion of consumers that trust in the HSR systema
In year 2, 50.2% of the consumers stated that they trust the HSR system while 55.4% of the consumers
reported that the HSR is a credible system.
In year 3, 56.4% of the consumers stated that they trust the HSR system while 59.5% of the consumers
reported that the HSR is a credible system.
In year 4, 58.4% of the consumers stated that they trust the HSR system while 61.5% of the consumers
reported that the HSR is a credible system.
The growth in trust and credibility over time for trust is 8.0% per annum and 5.4% per annum for credibility.
Return to Chart 21 notes.
Chart 22: Confidence in the HSR systema
In year 2, 58.5% of consumers reported a very low or somewhat low confidence in the HSR system, 25.9%
of them say that they are indifferent towards it and 12.4% has a high or somewhat high trust rating of the
HSR. In year 3, 23.3% of consumers answered very low or somewhat low, 22.9% answered indifferent and
51.4% answered high or somewhat high. In year 4, 9.9% answered very low or somewhat low, 21.0%
answered indifferent and 67.2% answered high or somewhat high.
Return to Chart 22 notes.
Chart 23: Usefulness of the HSR, proportion of respondents that agree or strongly agreea
The information presents the different consumer attitudes towards the HSR system. 76.8% of the
respondents reported that the HSR makes it easier for them to identify the healthier option within a category.
Meanwhile, 65.3% of consumers reported that it helps them in make decisions about which foods to buy
while 28.2% of them said that HSR makes shopping more confusing.
Return to Chart 23 notes.
Chart 24: Unprompted understanding that HSR is rating or guide to the healthiness of a producta
The data shows that 54.0% of consumers has unprompted understanding that the HSR is a guide to the
healthiness of a product in year 2, 53.6% in year 3 and 55.8% in year 4.
Return to Chart 24 notes.
Chart 25: Proportion of respondents that agree the HSR makes it easier compare productsa
The data shows that in year 2, 72.3% of consumers considered the HSR helpful in comparing products,
71.1% in year 3 and 72.3% in year 4
Return to Chart 25 notes.
Chart 26: Consumer understanding of one versus five starsa
The data shows that 83.2% of consumers in year 2 understand that products with 5 stars are the most
healthy, 86.7% in year 3 and 88.3% in year 4. On the other side of the graph, it shows that 86.5% of the
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 130
consumers in year 2 understand that products with 1 star is the least healthy, 84.2% in year 3 and 88.7% in
year 4.
Return to Chart 26 notes.
Chart 27: Understanding of the HSR systema
In year 2, 72.3% of consumers reported that the HSR makes it easier to compare products of the same
category, 71.1% reported the same in year 3 and 72.3% in year 4. On the other side of the graph, it shows
that 57.9% of consumers in year 2 incorrectly understood that the HSR makes it easier to compare products
of different category, 57.1% reported the same in year 3 and 58.2% in year 4.
Return to Chart 27 notes.
Chart 28: Use of the HSR, Year 4a
In year 4, 27.2% of the consumers use the HSR to compare products or help make better choices. 19.0% of
consumers reported that for them, the HSR is a general or quick guide to healthiness while 12.9% answered
that they will not use the HSR. Another 12.9% of the consumers use the HSR to make healthier choices and
9.0% use the HSR to check the nutritional value.
Return to Chart 28 notes.
Chart 29: Overall preference of HSR logo, Year 4a
63.3% of consumers prefer Option 1, 9.8% prefer option 2, 4.9% prefer option 3. 21.1% prefer option 4 and
0.9% prefer option 5.
Return to Chart 29 notes.
Chart 30: Consumer preference for HSR logos, Year 4a
For option 1, 15.2% of the consumers reported that this logo is the easiest to understand, 9.3% reported that
it is the easiest to recognise and 20.1% said that this logo provides sufficient information.
For option 2, 3.7% of the consumers reported that this logo is the easiest to understand,3.1% reported that it
is the easiest to recognise and 4.6% said that this logo provides sufficient information.
For option 3, 2.1% of the consumers reported that this logo is the easiest to understand, 2.3% reported that it
is the easiest to recognise and 2.5% said that this logo provides sufficient information.
For option 4, 11.6% of the consumers reported that this logo is the easiest to understand, 17.5% reported
that it is the easiest to recognise and 4.8% said that this logo provides sufficient information.
For option 5, 0.8% of the consumers reported that this logo is the easiest to understand, 1.1% reported that it
is the easiest to recognise and another 1.3% said that this logo provides sufficient information.
Return to Chart 30 notes.
Chart 31: Consumer preference for Option 1 and 4 over timea
For the easiest to understand attribute, 52.6% of consumers prefer Option 1 in year 2, however preference
for this logo declined to 45.7% in year 4. While 20.3% of consumers preferred Option 4 in year 2 and this
increased to 34.6% in year 4.
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 131
For the easiest to recognise attribute, 43.7% of consumers prefer Option 1 in year 2, however preference for
this logo declined to 28.0% in year 4. While 32.78% of consumers prefer Option 4 in year 2 this increased to
52.4% in year 4.
In terms of providing sufficient information, 61.2% of consumers prefer Option 1 in year 2 and this slightly
increased in year 4 to 63.3%. While 11.2% of consumers prefer Option 4 in year 2 this also increased to
21.1% in year 4.
In terms of to which logo is the most preferred, 56.9% of consumers prefer Option 1 in year 2 and this
increased to 63.3% in year 4. 16.5% of consumers prefer option 4 in year 2 and the number increased to
21.1% in year 4.
Return to Chart 31 notes.
Chart 32: Distribution of logos displayed across HSR products, Year 4a
5.1% of HSR products displayed option 1, 23.1% displayed option 2, 17.0% displayed option 3, 38.9%
displayed option 4 and 14.8% displayed option 5.
Return to Chart 32 notes.
Chart 33: Distribution of logos displayed across HSR products over timea
For Option 1, 33.7% of the HSR products displayed this logo in year 1, 15.5% in year 2, 8.8% in year 3, and
5.1% in year 4. For Option 2, 13.5% of the HSR products displayed this logo in year 1, 30.9% in year 2,
32.6% in year 3, and 23.1% in year 4. For Option 3, 14.1% of the HSR products displayed this logo in year 1,
12.3% in year 2, 10.6% in year 3, and 17.0% in year 4. For Option 4, 24.6% of the HSR products displayed
this logo, 32.9% in year 2, 34.4% in year 3 and 38.8% in year 4. For Option 5, 8.6% of the HSR products
displayed this logo, 5.5% in year 2, 9.8% in year 3 and 14.8% in year 4.
Return to Chart 33 notes.
Chart 34: Consumer preferences compared to logos on pack, Year 4a
Option 1 appears on 5.2% of packs and is preferred by 63.3% of consumers.
Option 2 appears on 23.4% of packs and is preferred by 9.8% of consumers
Option 3 appears on 17.2% of packs and is preferred by 4.9% of consumers
Option 4 appears on 39.3% of packs and is preferred by 21.1% of consumers
Option 5 appears on 15.0% of packs and is preferred by 0.9% of consumers
Return to Chart 34 notes.
Chart 35: Option 1 – consumer preference compared to logos displayed on packa
Consumers preference for option 1 compared to proportion of products in percentage over the years. Year
2, 56.9% of consumers preferred option 1 while 15.5% of products displayed option 1 on pack. In year 3,
62.4% of consumers preferred option 1 while 8.8% of products displayed option 1. In year 4, 63.3% of
consumers preferred option 1 while 5.1% of products displayed option 1.
Return to Chart 35 notes.
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 132
Chart 36: Purchase of HSR products over the past 3 monthsa
In year 2, 48.5% of consumers reported that they purchased a HSR product, 8.4% did not purchase it while
43.1% were unsure whether they purchased a HSR product or not.
In year 3, 64.7% of consumers reported that they purchased a HSR product, 5.6% did not purchase it while
29.7% were unsure whether they purchased a HSR product or not.
In year 4, 69.5% of consumers reported that they purchased a HSR product, 5.8% did not purchase it while
24.8% are unsure whether they will purchase a HSR product or not.
Return to Chart 36 notes.
Chart 37: Influence of HSR on purchasesa
In year 2, 57.5% of the consumers stated that the HSR influenced their decision to purchase a product,
34.3% stated that the HSR did not influence their decision-making while 8.2% are unsure.
In year 3, 63.6% of the consumers stated that the HSR influenced their decision to purchase a product,
29.4% stated that the HSR did not influence their decision-making while 7.0% are unsure.
In year 4, 64.4% of the consumers stated that the HSR influenced their decision to purchase a product,
28.9% stated that the HSR did not influence their decision-making while 6.7% are unsure.
Return to Chart 37 notes.
Chart 38: Proportion very likely or likely to be influenced by the HSR in the futurea
In year 2, 71.0% of consumers stated that they are likely to be influenced by the HSR in the future, 60.2% in
year 3 and 53.0% in year 4.
Return to Chart 38 notes.
Chart 39: Influence of HSR on purchasesa
In year 2, 46.2% of consumers that are influenced by the HSR stated that the HSR confirmed usual
purchase while 53.8% stated that they purchased a HSR product with more stars.
In year 3, 47.8% of consumers that are influenced by the HSR stated that the HSR confirmed usual
purchase while 52.2% stated that they purchased a HSR product with more stars.
In year 4, 47.6% of the consumers that are influenced by the HSR stated that the HSR confirmed usual
purchase while 52.4% stated that they purchased a HSR product with more stars.
Return to Chart 39 notes.
Chart 40: Sales weighted average HSR versus unweighted average HSR,a Year 3 and Year 4b
In year 3, the unweighted average HSR is 3.2 while the sales weighted average HSR is 3.3. In year 4, the
unweighted4 average HSR is 3.3 while the sales weighted average HSR is 3.4.
Return to Chart 40 notes.
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 133
Chart 41: Composition of those who purchased a HSR product with more stars, by year a,b
In year 2, irrespective of influence from the HSR, 30.9% of consumers purchased a product with more stars,
while 69.1% made no change to their purchases.
In year 3, irrespective of influence from the HSR, 33.2% of consumers purchased a product with more stars,
while 66.8% made no change to their purchases.
In year 4, irrespective of influence from the HSR, 33.7% of consumers purchased a product with more stars,
while 66.3% made no change to their purchases.
Return to Chart 41 notes.
Chart 42: Composition of population who purchased a HSR product with more stars by influence, Year 4a,b
A total of 69.5% of the consumers purchased a HSR product, 46.0% of these consumers did not change
their purchase where 24.7% were uninfluenced by the HSR. Of the 44.7% influenced by the HSR, 23.4%
purchased a product with more stars while 21.3% stated that the HSR confirmed their usual purchase.
Return to Chart 42 notes.
Chart 43: Proportion of HSR products by year and star rating, and average HSRa,b
Year 1- 0.6% of products are 0.5 star. 0.6% are 1 star. 3.6% are 1.5 stars. 5.4% are 2 stars. 4.5% are 2.5
stars 6.0% are 3 stars. 14.5% are 3.5 stars 32.3% are 4 stars. 15.1% are 4.5 stars 17.2% are 5 stars.
Average rating is 3.8 stars.
Year 2- 3.3% of products are 0.5 star. 3.4% are 1 star. 6.7% are 1.5 stars. 6.4% are 2 stars 5.3% are 2.5
stars 7.8% are 3 stars. 15.2% are 3.5 stars 26.6% are 4 stars. 11.5% are 4.5 stars 13.8% are 5 stars.
Average rating is 3.5 stars.
Year 3- 4.0% of products are 0.5 star. 3.7% are 1 star. 6.8% are 1.5 stars. 6.4% are 2 stars 4.8% are 2.5
stars 10.1% are 3 stars. 17.3% are 3.5 stars 22.8% are 4 stars. 11.3% are 4.5 stars. 12.9% are 5 stars.
Average rating is 3.4 stars.
Year 4- 3.9% of products are 0.5 star. 3.7% are 1 star. 6.1% are 1.5 stars. 7.1% are 2 stars 4.7% are 2.5
stars 9.8% are 3 stars. 17.2% are 3.5 stars 22.4% are 4 stars. 10.7% are 4.5 stars 14.4% are 5 stars.
Average rating is 3.4 stars.
Return to Chart 43 notes.
Chart 44: Change in average nutrient content for HSR productsa
Average energy, Year 1- 1014.8 kilojoules. Year 2- 1026.2 kilojoules. Year 3- 1062.0 kilojoules. Year 4-
996.1 kilojoules. Average Saturated fat, Year 1- 2.4 grams, Year 2- 3.5 grams. Year 3- 4.5 grams. Year 4-
4.5 grams. Average Sugar, Year 1- 12.2 grams. Year 2- 14.4 grams. Year 3- 13.9 grams. Year 4- 13.4
grams. Average Sodium, Year 1- 230.1 grams, Year 2- 224.4 grams, Year 3- 228.3 grams. Year 4- 250.9
grams.
Return to Chart 44 notes.
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 134
Chart 45: Difference in nutrient status over time for HSR and non-HSR products, per 100g or 100mL
There is a 9.6 decrease in energy content for HSR products and 2.9 increase for non-HSR. For HSR
products, there is a 0.1 decrease in saturated fat and no change for the non-HSR products. Both 0.1
increase in total sugar content for HSR and non-HSR products. 13.4 decrease in sodium for the HSR
products and 2.4 decrease as well for non-HSR products.
Return to Chart 45 source.
Chart 46: Average and median star rating for paired sample HSR products, Year 1 c.t. Year 4a
The average star rating for HSR products in Year 1 is 3.3. Whereas in Year 4 the average star rating is 3.4.
The median star rating for HSR products in Year 1 is 3.0 while in Year 4 the median star rating is 3.5.
Return to Chart 46 notes.
Chart 47: Star rating for paired sample of non-HSR products, Year 1 c.t. Year 4a
The average star rating for non-HSR products in Year 1 is 2.7 which is also the same star rating in year 4.
The median star rating for non-HSR products in Year 1 is 3.0 while in Year 4 the median star rating is 2.5.
Return to Chart 47 notes.
Figure B.1: Hierarchy of categories used for the HSR system
HSR Category
1 Beverages
1D Dairy beverages
2 Food
2D Dairy foods
Oils & spreads
3D Processed
HSR Category Name
Bakery fats
Baking goods
Breakfast drinks
Biscuits - savoury
Biscuits - sweet
Bread
Breakfast spreads
Cakes, muffins & other baked goods
Cereal based bars
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 135
Confectionary
Butter
Cheese - hard & processed
Cheese - soft
Cooking sauces
Cream & cream alternatives
Crisps & similar foods
Custards & dairy desserts (non frozen)
Dairy milks - flavoured
Dairy milks - plain
Dessert toppings & baking syrups
Dips
Dried fruit & nut mixes
Edible oil spreads
Eggs
Finishing sauces
Flour
Formulated foods
Frozen dairy (& soy) desserts
Frozen desserts (fruit-based)
Frozen potato products
Fruit - dried
Fruit - plain
Fruit – shelf stable
Fruit & vegetable juices
Fruit bars
Fruit pies, tarts & crumbles
Grains - plain
Grains - processed
Hot cereals - flavoured
Hot cereals - plain
Jelly
Legumes – canned/shelf stable
Mayonnaise & aioli products
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 136
Meal kits
Meat - plain
Meat - processed
Milk modifiers & flavourings
Milk substitutes
Mueslis
Nut & seed bars
Nuts & seeds
Pasta & noodles - plain
Pasta & noodles - processed
Pastry
Poultry - canned
Poultry - plain
Poultry - processed
Ready meals
Ready to eat breakfast cereals
Recipe concentrates
Relishes, chutneys & pastes
Salad dressings
Sandwiches
Savoury pies, pastries & pizzas
Savoury snack combinations
Seafood - canned
Seafood – plain
Seafood - processed
Seasonings, herbs & spices
Small goods
Soups
Spreads – nuts & seeds
Stocks
Sugar (or artificially) sweetened beverages
Sugar & sugar alternatives
Tea & coffee
Tomato & other table sauces
Vegetable oils
Vegetables - plain
`
Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 137
Vegetables - processed
Vegetarian - processed
Water
Yoghurt
Return to Appendix C.