Food Policy Action Analysis: HSR System in Australia/NZ

This report provides an in-depth analysis of food policy, particularly focusing on front-of-pack nutrition labeling (FOPNL) and the Health Star Rating (HSR) system implemented in Australia and New Zealand. It begins by defining FOPNL as a policy action and its role in guiding consumers toward healthier food choices, considering its alignment with broader food policy objectives and potential stakeholder conflicts. The report then examines the HSR system, detailing its mechanism for promoting healthy food selection through nutrient profiling and star ratings, and evaluates its effectiveness, including consumer awareness, product display rates, and impact on purchasing decisions. Furthermore, it explores the competing worldviews among stakeholders, analyzing the perspectives of diet-, food-, and nutrient-oriented individuals and the application of nutrient, food, and diet profiling within the FOPNL framework. The report also discusses the strengths and weaknesses of FOPNL and HSR, including the need for revisions in the nutrient profile algorithms, the use of warning-oriented systems, and the alignment of food and diet profile classifications. Finally, it emphasizes the importance of governance arrangements involving government and health organizations to ensure the effective implementation and continuous improvement of food policy initiatives. This report provides a detailed overview of the FOPNL and HSR systems.

Running head: FOOD POLICY 1
Analysis of Food Policy Action
Student's name
Professor's name
Institution Affiliation
Date

FOOD POLICY 2
1. FOPNL as a Policy Action
The Front-of-Pack Nutritional Labeling (FOPNL) can be described in relation to the Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO)as a policy action where it is a clear nutritional message aimed at
the diet and health of the people. Through this policy, the general public can make the correct
decisions while selecting their nutritious foods. The labelled nutritional information, according to
the FOPNL, contains regulatory diets as per the national health policy. The main objective of the
FOPNL policy is to provide guidelines to the consumers about the composition of the sold
packed foods while elaborating on the ingredients in those foods. One of the guidelines is the use
of simple language that consumers will understand and make the correct choices of foods. The
primary health purpose of this policy action is to minimize the effects of non-communicable and
chronic illnesses that are related to nutrition [1].
Stakeholder’s Conflicts of Interest
There was a big debate that arose between the stakeholders which required interventions by the
government to change the structure and operations in the food system so that to sort the issue
nutritional health issues. The development and implementation of HSR involve several
government agencies and organizations, which lead to the rise of conflicting views among the
stakeholders. There were conflicting views between the stakeholders which later led to the
solutions on the public health nutritional programs. Some of the partners raised differently
[opinions concerning the HSR system in improving the effectiveness of their operations. Other
stakeholders suggested that the issue of nutrition is much substantive; hence, the HSR should be
nullified in regards to food sustainability from the environment and public health. Nevertheless,

FOOD POLICY 3
such norms have to be ignored to enable the strategies of organizing ideas to change the foods
system into a nutritive and beneficial to public health [2].
2. Use of HSR System to Promote Healthy Food Selection
The Health Star Rating (HSR) system was introduced in Australia in the year 2014. The use of
stars affirms this rating system, and it ranges from 0.5 to 5.0. Foods are natural nutrients
combined with other components that synergistically operate to give a healthful diet. In rating,
the number of stars determines the excellent quality of the product, and thus the more the stars,
the healthier the food product [3].
Nutrient profiling
Nutrient profiling is the scientific technique of assessing and grouping food products by basing
on their nutrition value so that to improve healthy food choices. Profiling of foods helps in
disease prevention and hence promoting public health. Nutrition profiling ranks food based on
their characteristics. This dietary profiling is useful for informing FOPNLE by assisting
customers in understanding the types of nutrients in the menus. Profiling helps in formulating
other nutrients related to health policies. Australia and New Zealand are among the countries in
the world which were applauded for their model and inclusive approach to regulate the
marketing of kid’s food products. HSR system was established mainly to assist in the healthier
selecting of packed food products. It uses the algorithms of dietary profiling where each food is
assigned between 0.5 to 5 stars with regards to their nutritional components. Some of the
nutrients that are common in the foodstuffs which are prioritized while ranking the packaged
foods include; sugar, dietary, fiber, fats, calcium, protein [4].

FOOD POLICY 4
The calculations of the nutrient composition in the foods using the HSR system involve the
following stages;
1. Determining the quantity of sodium, fats, sugar, and energy per 100grams
2. Giving the points where necessary for the FNVL content
3. Calculations by deductions and modifying the scores for the baseline points so that to get
the overall score.
4. Rating and assigning the HSR [5]
The Importance and Ineffectiveness of HSR System
The following subtopics explain the ineffectiveness and the importance of the HRS system in
rating and ranking of the foods.
Products displaying the HSR
31% of the available foods products eaten within Australia used the HSR rating, while 21% of
the foods eaten in New Zealand indicated an HSR system in 2017 and 2018. This market display
has decreased by 1% in New Zealand and increase by 3 percent in Australia. This rate shows that
HSR is effective, but more effort is required to maximize the uptake of the eligible foods
products [6].
Accuracy of the HSR Display
The HSR has shown the high efficiency of the HSR due to the high demand and compliance by
the consumers while applying the provided guidance for dietary. Around 90% of the food
companies in Australia have shown adherence to the HSR system. The harm associated with the

FOOD POLICY 5
food processing and manufacturing companies due to the introduction of the HSR system is that
5% of the companies are understated, and 5% are overstated.
Awareness creation to the consumers
Many consumers in both Australia and New Zealand support and appreciate the HSR system and
apply it while selecting the healthy packed products and as it makes it easy fo their shopping.
The current studies have shown that approximately 76% of the consumers in New Zealand and
83% in Australia have knowledge of the HSR system.
Effect of HSR to the consumers in purchasing decisions
According to the investigation conducted in the local market and shopping centers in Australia,
there are around 70% of the consumers influenced to buy goods due to their HSR display. Two -
thirds of this 70% of consumers remember that the numbers of stars in the food products
determined their preference to make choices on the products [7].
3. Competing worldviews among the stakeholders
Public relationships and views between diet-, foods- and nutrient- oriented
Australians eat the food for their health and to satisfy the stomach demands. Australian
perspective towards foods has been influenced by the HSR system whereby they consume foods
as the labeling suggests. Nutrients are food components that, after consumption, affect the
individual health system. Food is a component that a person consumes to obtain energy and to
survive. According to the Adriouch world’s perspective of the dietary oriented nations have
struggled to fight poverty and hunger. However, the are other countries that have enough food
and are concentrating on issues of malnutrition, obesity, and other nutrient-related diseases. This

FOOD POLICY 6
is where the issue of diet-oriented views arises to fight nutritional deficiency diseases. The
complications of malnutrition and obesity have led many countries to emphasize the nutritional
compounds than to focus on the food sufficiency [8].
Application of nutrient profiling to the FOPNL
Nutrient profiling
It involves the profiling model and algorithms to transform food elements and the levels of the
nutrients into specific classifications and scores. The classifications and ranks range from simple
scores such as low fats to the more refined ones. Nutrient profiling is applicable in determining
the health quality of the food in regulatory and non- regulatory circumstances. This involves the
4P’s model of marketing. The 4P's abbreviates for the products, price, place, and promotion. In
FOPNL, nutrient profiling is useful in food reformulation to increase their healthiness (products),
accessible in the vending machines in the school (place), the type of food being advertised
(promotion) [10].
Food profiling
Food profiling is applied in the FOPNL, where it involves reference standards labeled as the
fundamentals to express the food's information to the buyers. Food profiling indicates every
nutrient and its importance to the consumers [9].
Diet profiling
Diet profiling is used in Australia and New Zealand to reduce some of the dietary illnesses
associated with dietary imbalance. The nutritional agencies in the two countries offer advice to

FOOD POLICY 7
the public on how to improve their lifestyles so that to combat such diseases. Therefore dietary
profiling plays a role of advisory in the FOPNL. It also assists healthcare providers in allocating
and patients on different dietary patterns [11].
The main actors of the HSR system
Manufacturers are among the actors that use HSR to advertise their products in terms of their
healthiness. The government of Australia and New Zealand endorsed this system to monitor and
for the regulation of the food products packaging and FOPNL. These governments formed the
Nutrients Profiling Score Criteria (NPSC), which helps manufacturers to determine the food
product that is eligible to be displayed in the HRS [12}.
Consumers are the other actors who use the scores on a particular during food selection. The
NPSC uses an algorithm to assign ratings of the products in the nutrient profiling. The HSR
system makes it easier for consumers to identify and choose healthier products and scoring to
personal demands.
4. Weaknesses and Strength of the FOPNL
Strengths
The front-of-pack nutrient labeling system is the most effective policy action that provides
accurate information that does not mislead the consumer regarding the types of nutrients in the
foods, thus simplifying their selection. The government of New Zealand and Australia gave this
mandate to the manufactures indicating the nutrient profiling system to make it simple for the
consumers to access the best food product for their respective diets. The FOPNL system has

FOOD POLICY 8
become famous worldwide due to its impressing formats and symbols in marking to display the
information of the packed foods.
Weaknesses
The concurrence of several FOPNL policies in the same market can confuse many consumers
and may result in misinterpretation and misguidance on the packed products [13].
Strengths and weaknesses of HSR
Strengths
The use of the HSR system in Australia and New Zealand by several manufacturing and
processing companies have attracted a lot of customers to their products. Consumers have
encouraged manufacturers to improve their activities through the HSR system to display food
products. This has also raised the popularity of the HSR system [14].
Weaknesses
There are slow actions by the manufacturers to integrate the HSR system, and also there has been
little certainty on the continuation of the system as some manufacturers complain that it delays
the delivery of their products to the markets.
In some places, the no proper clarification of the results that have been achieved by the Health
Star Rating system. The clarifications of the HSR results are crucial for the resolution of the
critical issues impounded to the HSR uptake and set goals and objectives of what to be
implemented in the future [15].
Revision of the HSR in terms of:

FOOD POLICY 9
a. Technical incidence of nutrients profile algorithm
The algorithm in the HSR system has to be revised to distinguish the core foods and optional.
The use of food sugars instead of the added sugars in calculating the rate of food products is the
leading faultfinders that strengthen the HSR system. This mistake leads to the treatment of the
natural sugar inside the fruits, vegetables, and dairy products as other added sugars [16].
b. Use of warning-oriented systems
The HSR guideline enables the manufactures to have time to elaborate and consider the proper
ways to present their products to the consumers, and this results in inconsistency. Therefore the
government has to introduce a standard Health Star Rating model and graphics to moderate the
manufacturers on how to display and advertise their foods [17].
c. Alignment of the food profile classification
The system classification, for instance, the use of NOVA, had used AUSNUT in the year 2011 to
2013, which exemplified the manner of the food supply in Australia. Nevertheless, the NOVA
can be brought into line with food profiling to improve the technique of healthier foods
classifications.
d. Alignment of the diet profile system
There is a need to reform the goals and aims of the HSR system into dietary strategies, so it has
to map them with the national and regional dietary patterns. There have been various
recommendations, for example, in Europe, which vary in terms of the food products that are
available for consumption [18].
e. Arrangements of the Governances

FOOD POLICY 10
The governments of both New Zealand and Australia have to create a relationship with the health
organizations to have inclusivity to set standards of production of health food products. The
government health agencies should enforce mandatory guidelines to ensure the production of
health products and meet the NPSC requirements for the government to ensure the protection of
the customers. This is because the HSR system is voluntary in Australia, and the manufacturer
can choose whether to use it or not [19].

FOOD POLICY 11
References
1. Julia C, Kesse-Guyot E, Ducrot P, Péneau S, Touvier M, Méjean C, Hercberg S. Performance
of a five category front-of-pack labelling system–the 5-colour nutrition label–to differentiate
nutritional quality of breakfast cereals in France. BMC public health. 2015 Dec;15(1):179.
2. Chausa G. Implementation of service agreement in provision of medical care under public-
private partnership: A case study of St. Francis hospital (Doctoral dissertation).
3. Russell CG, Burke PF, Waller DS, Wei E. The impact of front-of-pack marketing attributes
versus nutrition and health information on parents' food choices. Appetite. 2017 Sep 1;116:323-
38.
4. Benson T, Lavelle F, McCloat A, Mooney E, Bucher T, Egan B, Dean M. Are the Claims to
Blame? A Qualitative Study to Understand the Effects of Nutrition and Health Claims on
Perceptions and Consumption of Food. Nutrients. 2019 Sep;11(9):2058.
5. Nikolova HD, Inman JJ. Healthy choice: the effect of simplified point-of-sale nutritional
information on consumer food choice behavior. Journal of Marketing Research. 2015
Dec;52(6):817-35.

FOOD POLICY 12
6. Lawrence M, Dickie S, Woods J. Do nutrient-based front-of-pack labelling schemes support
or undermine food-based dietary guideline recommendations? Lessons from the Australian
Health Star Rating System. Nutrients. 2018;10(1):32.
7. Carrad AM, Louie JC, Yeatman HR, Dunford EK, Neal BC, Flood VM. A nutrient profiling
assessment of packaged foods using two star-based front-of-pack labels. Public health nutrition.
2016 Aug;19(12):2165-74.
8.Volkova E, Mhurchu CN. The influence of nutrition labeling and point-of-purchase
information on food behaviours. Current obesity reports. 2015 Mar 1;4(1):19-29.
9. Hamlin R, McNeill L. Does the Australasian “health star rating” front of pack nutritional label
system work?. Nutrients. 2016;8(6):327.
10. Egnell M, Talati Z, Hercberg S, Pettigrew S, Julia C. Objective understanding of front-of-
package nutrition labels: An international comparative experimental study across 12 countries.
Nutrients. 2018 Oct;10(10):1542.
11. Cavaliere A, De Marchi E, Banterle A. Exploring the adherence to the Mediterranean diet
and its relationship with individual lifestyle: The role of healthy behaviors, pro-environmental
behaviors, income, and education. Nutrients. 2018;10(2):141.
12. Ridgway EM, Lawrence MA, Woods J. Integrating environmental sustainability
considerations into food and nutrition policies: insights from Australia’s National Food Plan.
Frontiers in nutrition. 2015 Sep 17;2:29.

FOOD POLICY 13
13. Kleef EV, Dagevos H. The growing role of front-of-pack nutrition profile labeling: a
consumer perspective on key issues and controversies. Critical reviews in food science and
nutrition. 2015 Feb 23;55(3):291-303.
14. Ducrot P, Julia C, Méjean C, Kesse-Guyot E, Touvier M, Fezeu LK, Hercberg S, Péneau S.
Impact of different front-of-pack nutrition labels on consumer purchasing intentions: a
randomized controlled trial. American journal of preventive medicine. 2016 May 1;50(5):627-
36.
15. Julia C, Péneau S, Buscail C, Gonzalez R, Touvier M, Hercberg S, Kesse-Guyot E.
Perception of different formats of front-of-pack nutrition labels according to sociodemographic,
lifestyle and dietary factors in a French population: cross-sectional study among the NutriNet-
Sante cohort participants. BMJ open. 2017 Jun 1;7(6):e016108.
16. Scrinis G, Parker C. Front‐of‐pack food labeling and the politics of nutritional nudges. Law
& Policy. 2016 Jul;38(3):234-49.
17. Talati Z, Norman R, Pettigrew S, Neal B, Kelly B, Dixon H, Ball K, Miller C, Shilton T. The
impact of interpretive and reductive front-of-pack labels on food choice and willingness to pay.
international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity. 2017 Dec;14(1):171.
18. Talati Z, Pettigrew S, Kelly B, Ball K, Dixon H, Shilton T. Consumers' responses to front-of-
pack labels that vary by interpretive content. Appetite. 2016 Jun 1;101:205-13.
19. Talati Z, Pettigrew S, Dixon H, Neal B, Ball K, Hughes C. Do health claims and front-of-
pack labels lead to a positivity bias in unhealthy foods?. Nutrients. 2016 Dec;8(12):787.

FOOD POLICY 14