We don’t pay any attention to the stars. They are as useless as… (I’ll leave you to fill in the blank).
There is no objective basis to the stars as far as I can tell. They are not comparable between product lines, so something with 4 stars can have as much sugar (as a %) as something with only 1 star in another product. I think it is more a facade to allow the food industry to proceed as before, while attempting to placate the healthy diet campaigners.
Are there any longitudinal scientific study(s) to see if the stars have made any improvement to diets? Until then, any claimed benefit is pure guess work and may be just coincidental.
To know how healthy a product is, I read the constituents/ingredients list based on a per 100g basis (which most products have on the label), as the serve sizes are manipulated to maximise the apparent healthiness of products.
In my opinion, the health stars need to be an absolute measure, as part of a healthy balanced diet, and a daily intake requirement/recommendation that can be used evaluate and single food item, or to compare any food items against each other in terms of their nutritional benefit. This means it has to be multi-factorial measure and consider things like sugar, types and quantity of fats, minerals, vitamins, fibre, etc, etc. I recognise that this would require a lot more work, but it would be scientific, measurable, and usable. And it would be independently verifiable!
If this approach were used, it could be extended to non-processed food as well, like fruit, vegetables, nuts, etc. Then people might become more aware of the nutritional value of fresh produce, and perhaps even eat healthier!
May be it could be used to manage diets too? For example, with proper calculation, people could eat a determined number of Health Stars a day to stay within a healthy eating/daily food intake range.
At the moment, they the health stars are worthless.