Health Star Rating (HSR) - Review, Consultations etc

[mark_m]

@grahroll

Dr Jones argues that “the new calculation accurately reflected the dietary guidelines and shouldn’t be altered to give misleading advice to consumers”

Perhaps Citrus Australia should look at how they produce and market their product.

Healthy sugar with all natural fibre and vitamins might not quite cut it for some. It is one way to promote the product. Personal observation is with raw juice including the natural fibre (eg home squeezed oranges) it’s difficult to drink litres of the product. On packaged product, clear energy and serving size recommendations (250ml glass?) might help. Home made juices may also not be as sugar filled depending on the variety of orange, apple etc.

It’s understandable that the OJ industry might be upset. Although whole fruit including oranges rate highly in most dietary guides. The sweetest of oranges are supposedly above 10gm of sugar per fruit. Water melon (one cup) is also up there for total sugar content. It is what it is.

Perhaps Citrus Australia need to promote a different product. All natural and all Australian.

No added comment required on government ministers redefining scientific outcomes. Some say it also comes naturally.

[phb]

@mark_m

Perhaps Citrus Australia

I can see their argument, as fresh juices would have a higher nutritional benefit over soft drinks. For example, provides a source of vitamin C and has to some extent fibre, antioxidants, protein, calcium, thiamine, vitamin A, vitamin B6, folate, calcium, magnesium, potassium etc. Such is not available in traditional soft drinks.

However, the health stars are a measure of the healthiness of a product and not only what nutritional contributions it makes to a diet. The olive oil industry in Australia had a similar dig at the health star system when olive oil was scored no differently to other oils, but ‘ignored’ the claimed health benefits of using olive oils over other oils.

If Citrus Australia gets its way, why doesn’t the soft drink industry also lobby for their health stars to also be increased as their product contains water. Everyone knows that one must consume adequate amounts of water to maintain hydration and also for good health and body function. This does show where Citrus Australia is misplaced in their view that squeezed orange juice (which is in a form which the body has not adapted to consuming) is very heathy due to its potential nutritional benefits, but has a hidden dark side where it is loaded with sugar and calories. Maybe they might employ some food technologists to develop a product which removed most of the sugar and retains these nutritional benefits.

[syncretic]

@phb

The olive oil industry in Australia had a similar dig at the health star system when olive oil was scored no differently to other oils, but ‘ignored’ the claimed health benefits of using olive oils over other oils.

The formula for calculating the stars is already complex. The more extra terms that are added to account for supposed health benefits the harder it gets to administer and the more anomalies become possible. One criticism is that it is already opaque, that the customer cannot easily see where the result comes from.

You will never be able to account for all the possible ways that a food might be healthy or unhealthy - the system will be and must be a simplification. So concentrating on the major risk factors of excessive sugar, fat and salt seems entirely reasonable to me. I doubt that scurvy is such a large risk.

The aim is not to encapsulate a guide to a full and balanced diet in one statistic.

The juice industry does go head to head with the soft drink industry for the same consumer dollar and wants to have a selling point to beat them with. As for being natural - piffle.

[grahroll]

The comparison was between soft drink that is “diet” ie very low or no sugar and Fruit Juice. The slightly higher score for diet drink was because it is very low in sugar or had no sugar and Juice is very high in sugars. Ordinary sugar sweetened soft drink rates usually lower than Juice. So sugar sweetened soft drink is “properly” deemed to be a less healthy option. Putting it another way if Soft drink was to gain nutrient boosting then based on the Fruit Industry argument Soft Drink then would be entitled to ask for an automatic 4 stars, and if diet soft drink possibly 4.5 stars as it would not be loaded with sugar (an absurd outcome in my opinion). I could hear the Fruit Juice industry then whining that it wasn’t fair as soft drink wasn’t squeezed from a natural product as the claims re fruit juice are already being made.

An excerpt from the article that clearly identifies the diet claim:

“Orange juice may be officially deemed less nutritious than diet (my highlight) cola if a decision to classify it alongside soft drink goes ahead”.

Health Star Ratings are more than about a food being full of nutrients they also look at the deeper health issues associated with consuming the food. By definition…nutritious adjective nourishing, beneficial, wholesome, healthful, health-giving, nutritive. I wouldn’t and most health professionals wouldn’t consider that a high sugar content meets that definition.

[syncretic]

Food labels can make you healthier, without you even realising

An estimated two in three Australian adults are overweight or obese, and Bablani says enforcing the health star rating is a way to help address this.

Dr Alexandra Jones, a public health lawyer from the George Institute, agrees, saying that this would make the system work for consumers and not just for food companies.

[Fred123]

@Fred123

Another article regarding it.

An update.

Downgrade proposal of fresh juice health rating 'mind-numbingly dumb',...

[mark_m]

Tongue in cheek, but factual!

It seems fish and chips is the healthier option.
Both the following products rate 4 stars for that perfectly healthy meal.

At the end of the meal based on the recommended serving sizes:
1637kJ of energy
756mg of sodium
39.8gms of carbs
16.2gms total fats
20gms of protein

We had fresh asparagus and a green salad with feta on the side. Almost guilt free.

For comparison purposes the alternatives from fast food giant MacDonalds can be found here.

A single cheese burger and small fries hits 2150kJ of energy. No soft drink!

[Fred123]

We but the Extra Crunchy version of the chips and I was intrigued when I noticed the 4 star rating on the pack the other day.

[grahroll]

Interesting detail on the chips is for 100g of them when totaling up the protein etc it comes to a total of slightly more than 36g, the rest is ?? (likely water). Fresh potatoes contain about 79% water, so I assume they have lost some during processing/pre-cooking. Still a consumer is paying for a lot of water

[Fred123]

@Fred123

An update.

And a further update.

On ice: Ministers delay decision on health rating for 100pc fruit juice

How can anyone realistically give McCains chips a 4 star rating and fresh fruit juice a mere 2.5 star rating?

[syncretic]

Health experts back treating juice as ‘soft drink’ as industry fights star rating change

Once again advocates from all sides making comparisons that they think show the absurdity of their opposition’s position. Some of these pile on the naturalistic fallacy for extra weight.

Then there are those who want the whole system changed. To what we don’t know.

If you are going to have a comparatively simple guide there are going to be at least superficial anomalies - especially when the spinmeisters get involved.

My two-bobs worth: juice has too much sugar to be treated as ‘healthy’ and calling it natural or saying that artificially sweetened soft drinks are somehow worse will not change that.

[mark_m]

@syncretic

advocates from all sides making comparisons

From ‘the Sydney Morning Herald’

Citrus Australia CEO Nathan Hancock said he was concerned “that sends a poor message to consumers … that you should be drinking diet soft drink rather than natural juices at a time when Australians are under-consuming fruit and vegetables.”

What Cirtus CEO Nathan Hancock omitted to say is that Orange Juice is not really fruit or vegetables in a full dietary sense.

It’s just Juice Mr CEO!
No amount of extra consumption of OJ or other natural fruit juices will make up for not eating fresh whole fruit.

If we used the same argument for sugar cane, raw sugar is just crystallised pure sugar cane juice and it too is poorly done by in star ratings. Perhaps have a glass of pure cane sugar juice for breakfast instead. It’s full of goodness (vitamins, minerals, fibre) and approx 50gms of sucrose or 12 teaspoons of sugar. Nah!

The alternative of eating a whole orange, peel excepted is likely much healthier. It takes typically 3 oranges to produce just one cup (250ml) of OJ. Which is not the same as eating 3 oranges for breakfast? My morning cuppa is more than 300ml. With no sugar, skim milk optional, it’s likely much healthier than the same in OJ.

Better to have some whole fresh fruit and skip the juice? OJ, Pineapple, Cane Sugar, …etc included.

The revised ‘Health Star’ ratings got OJ right IMO.
Now they need to sort out the sweeteners, natural or synthesised etc on low cal soft drinks to be sure they are not detrimental compared to consuming reticulated Aussie tap water.

[gregcarman]

Am I the only one with a sense of déjà vu about the latest ludicrous declaration from the health “experts”?

Back in the last millennium, even Choice Magazine was sucked in by the bogeyman of the moment, fat.

Choice did a product review on breakfast cereals, and recommended eating Kellogg’s All Bran because it was low in fat and high in fibre (now there’s a surprise).

It recommended against eating any of the mueslis they tested, because they were all too high in fat. Where was the fat coming from? It was coming from the raw seeds and raw nuts (and in one case some flaked natural coconut) mixed in with the unprocessed rolled grains and the dried fruit.

These days they would have to recommend against eating muesli because the dried fruit would contain fructose which is a sugar and we all know sugar is the worst thing you can possibly consume. Fat, of course, is now a good thing to consume, so long as it is a good fat like the kind you find in raw seeds and raw nuts.

Mind you, back in the last millennium Choice recommended everyone should be using margarine instead of butter. Clearly they had never read a famous High Court case where the judges looked at how margarine is made in order to determine whether Tasmania was entitled to restrict its imports into the state on health grounds, or whether this was just a cover for protectionist legislation demanded by Tasmanian dairy farmers and thus unconstitutional.

The court found in favour of Tasmania, and described margarine as a product of the worst a modern chemical factory had to offer.

These days Choice recommends against margarine, on the modern understanding that hydrogenated vegetable oils (a.k.a. trans fats) are not good for us, but stand by for the next Orwellian reversal.

I imagine that the government experts that have declared an artificially-sweetened soft drink to be healthier than pure fresh fruit juice are also just looking at the “crude analysis” panel on the back of the bottle, and getting triggered by today’s bogeyman, sugar.

They don’t call it “crude analysis” for nothing!

[Gregr]

Well stated @gregcarman.

Couldn’t agree more. Today’s top nasty seems to be sugar. Any type, not just sucrose.
A few years ago it was almost a criminal offense to have more than one egg a week because of the lethal cholesterol. Oops, turns out there is ‘good’ and ‘bad’ types, and eggs are actually good for you. Of course in moderation. Like most things.

Same applies to good old water. Drinking too much of that and you could well get hyponatremia, perhaps even die. People have.

[mark_m]

There’s an existing topic, along with my comments.

Health Star Rating (HSR) - Review, Consultations etc

From ‘the Sydney Morning Herald’ Citrus Australia CEO Nathan Hancock said he was concerned “that sends a poor message to consumers … that you should be drinking diet soft drink rather than natural juices at a time when Australians are under-consuming fruit and vegetables.” What Cirtus CEO Nathan Hancock omitted to say is that Orange Juice is not really fruit or vegetables in a full dietary sense. It’s just Juice Mr CEO! No amount of extra consumption of OJ or other natural fruit juices will…

The problem is not with the ranking of OJ. Just eat an orange instead or fresh squeeze your own. Orange growers will not be complaining. Only the juice factory because of the profit loss.

For those happy to have a glass of OJ or other pure fruit juice prepared in a factory,

@Gregr

Of course in moderation. Like most things.

Which for Orange Juice is just 80ml per day, or just 1/3 of a cup. IE the juice of one orange. For anyone struggling with how little 80ml is a standard tea cup holds twice that IE 150ml or a double shot of coffee approx 80ml. For those who don’t drink tea, a midi/pot of beer is 285ml, a standard glass of wine 100ml and a glass of port 60ml.

A 1litre bottle or Woolies Essentials ‘Impressed’ Pulp Free OJ will last 12 days at that rate of consumption. Although the recommended dosage is 250 ml equal to approx 3 oranges and 500kJ of energy.

Without arguing about the types of sugars, the recommended single serve of juice is well on the way to filling up your daily energy needs, and zero - zilch - none of your daily fibre needs. I prefer my oranges frozen then lightly thawed in summer, (first peel and re-wrap in the skin and a reusable zip bag before freezing).

[phb]

@gregcarman

declared an artificially-sweetened soft drink to be healthier than pure fresh fruit juice

The health star system isn’t a measure of nutritional value or if a product makes one healthier, but is a simplified measure of some key food parameters known to have health impacts if eaten in excess.

The use of the word ‘health’ in health star rating can easy cause confusion, like you have raised. It may not be the most appropriate word, but it does give guidance to those comparing products, which is one of the main functions of the health star system…to allow consumer selection of same product lines based on health star ratings. The ratings are not designed to be used comparing say cereals to bread to baked beans to determine what is nutritionally healthier. This is what nutritional panels are for (even these are not comprehensive).

Notwithstanding this how could an artificial drink like diet soft drinks be healthier than a natural unadulterated product like fresh fruit juice".

This state is also conditioning we as consumers have been subject to that natural is far better than artificial/synthetic/processed products. In general, this is true but there will always be exceptions like diet soft drinks and orange juice.

There are no ingredients in diet soft drinks which are known to have long term health consequences. There are components of juices, sugar, which are known to have long term health consequences when eaten in excess. What product is better to consume in excess? Possibly neither but if one chooses to, maybe the diet soft drink based on best available information today as it indicates it would be the better choice.

Edit: I personally believe the Health Star Rating given to a product is a step to far in relation to oversimplification. I know why it possibly was adopted, to replicate the star systems used for water and energy efficiency…as consumers know broadly how these work and what they mean.

I have seen other labelling systems used in the world as have been fortunate to travel to a few other countries. The system I favour the most is the one use in Chile, I have made posts in other threads about its labelling system. The Chilean systems is about presenting clearly on the packaging when the level of those parameters (same as those used in the Australian health star rating) are in excess…for example products high is sugar, salt or fats. It is clear to the consumer at purchase what products possibly should be avoided. Unfortunately with the Australian health star rating, one doesn’t know what is high unless one reads and can understand the nutritional panel on the label.

The Chilean system also removes comparing the overall rating between different products…say olive oil against GM canola oil or juices and diet soft drinks. In the case of the Chilean type system, juice could be labeled high in sugar, where the diet soft drink would be devoid of such a label. Such is also factually correct and presents clear information to the consumer, especially those trying to reduce sugar intake, such as diabetics.

[syncretic]

@gregcarman

Am I the only one with a sense of déjà vu about the latest ludicrous declaration from the health “experts”?

What is ludicrous about down-rating high sugar products?

@gregcarman

I imagine that the government experts that have declared an artificially-sweetened soft drink to be healthier than pure fresh fruit juice are also just looking at the “crude analysis”

Do you say that artificially sweetened soft drink is less healthy than fruit juice? Why?

[gregcarman]

To syncretic:

I’m not alone in finding this declaration ludicrous – just look at most of the media coverage! And not just here, look at how this is making us (again) a laughingstock in the rest of the world.

If pure orange juice gets just two stars because of its high sugar level, then the oranges it is squeezed from get at most three stars, and sweeter fruit gets perhaps just a single star.

Meanwhile Diet Coke continues to get two-and-a-half stars.

If you can’t see how ludicrous that is, there is no helping you.

And if you aren’t aware of the list of nutritious ingredients in an orange – a list as long as your arm, and that’s just the things we have already identified, with the things we are yet to identify probably making up a list as long as your other arm – then I certainly can’t help you.

As for the list of synthetic chemicals in artificially-sweetened soft drink…

[mark_m]

@gregcarman

then the oranges it is squeezed from get at most three stars,

Is this relevant or applicable? Considering the following it’s an incorrect assumption that all foods require star ratings.

The oranges they are squeezed from do not get stars. The star system is designed to assist consumers to assess packaged and processed food products. Further details can be determined from the nutrition panels.

For whole natural foods the Australian Dietary Guidelines are applicable. If one follows these the RDI of any fruit is 2 serves. Less for younger children. There is no need to look for star ratings or nutrition panels. The guidelines recommend varying the choices within each food group.

https://nutritionaustralia.org/fact-sheets/australian-dietary-guidelines-recommended-daily-intakes/

My personal approach is to use the star ratings to identify products I should avoid. It saves time by not needing to read the nutrition panels on those products to determine they are poor choices. I only need to look at the panels on the products that score highly. That’s after Input on the reading glasses and apply the mobile phone camera to make the panels readable.

[syncretic]

@gregcarman

I’m not alone in finding this declaration ludicrous

I know your point of view is popular but that is not helping me understand your reasoning. The press is often following the lobbyists who are fond of the argument that oranges are natural, natural is good so OJ must be good. This does not follow.

Yes there are nutrients in OJ but also much sugar. The beneficial nutrients in OJ are nowhere near as much as fresh oranges. And in a world of the obese the extra calories are not welcome. Our distant ancestors would have loved OJ and done well on it but we are not scrambling for enough calories in our diet - quite the reverse.

@gregcarman

If you can’t see how ludicrous that is, there is no helping you.

You don’t say why Diet Coke getting 2 1/2 stars is so bad so I have to guess that

@gregcarman

As for the list of synthetic chemicals in artificially-sweetened soft drink…

has something to do with it.

In general this is the continuation of the naturalistic fallacy that natural=good and synthetic=bad. In particular the artificial sweetener industry gets a bum rap (especially from the fruit juice lobby).

This was dealt with at some length here: Artificial Sweeteners and I suggest you have a look at that thread before we traverse the same ground.