Imagine you’re in a supermarket aisle, swamped by rows of colourful packaging claiming “natural,” “no added sugar,” or “high-in-protein.” Most of us haven’t got time to parse every ingredient list — and that’s where Australia’s Health Star Rating system was born: to give a quick, at-a-glance sense of how nutritious a packaged food product is. The Australian government is now pushing to make the Health Star Rating mandatory on all packaged foods, but not everyone thinks that’s the right recipe for better public health. The idea for a simple front-of-pack label came out of a 2011 government review into food labelling. Health experts, industry representatives, and government officials considered a few options and eventually landed on a star system. After testing it out, the Health Star Rating officially launched in 2014 in Australia and New Zealand.
The goal was pretty straightforward: make it easier to compare similar foods at a glance so you do not need a nutrition degree to shop. More stars generally mean a healthier nutritional profile, while fewer stars mean less so. To help the system catch on, the government ran promotional campaigns and commercials encouraging shoppers to look for the stars in the supermarket aisle.
What those promotions often left out is how companies calculate their own scores, which opens the door to gaming the system. Experts have flagged that some highly processed foods can boost their stars by adding isolated protein or fibre, or swapping sugar for artificial sweeteners — even if dietitians would still consider the product unhealthy. The formula does not fully account for how processed a food is or whether it contains artificial ingredients, which can mislead shoppers.
Companies also often treat the stars as a marketing tool, placing four or five stars prominently on packaging to make a product appear healthier and grab attention, rather than letting the rating serve as a neutral guide to nutrition. This selective use and potential manipulation have left many consumers confused and skeptical about what the stars really mean. Right now, the Health Star Rating is completely voluntary, which means food companies are not required to display it on their products. That has led to much lower participation than officials hoped. According to government reports, by late 2025 only about 39% of products that should carry a star rating in Australia actually did. In New Zealand, participation was similarly low at around 36%, both well short of the 70% target agreed by food ministers.
Because many manufacturers place the stars only on higher-scoring foods, it has been difficult for shoppers to compare the full range of options on shelves and make informed choices. This patchy uptake under the voluntary system has disappointed public health advocates and is a major reason ministers are now moving toward mandatory labelling that could take effect within the next year or so.
Not everyone believes the Health Star Rating system works. Critics are pushing for clear warning labels instead. These labels use simple symbols or statements to show if a product is high in fat, sugar, salt, or ultra-processed ingredients. Countries like Mexico, Canada, and the United States are already adopting them, and India is now considering them too. A global study from late 2025 found warning labels are more effective at reducing ultra-processed food consumption than star-style rating systems.
