The George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia.
Faculty of Medicine, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia.
Nutrients. 2018 Aug 10;10(8):1065. doi: 10.3390/nu10081065.
In Australia, manufacturers can use two government-endorsed approaches to advertise product healthiness: the Health Star Rating (HSR) front-of-pack nutrition labelling system, and health claims. Related, but different, algorithms determine the star rating of a product (the HSR algorithm) and eligibility to display claims (the Nutrient Profiling Scoring Criterion (NPSC) algorithm). The objective of this study was to examine the agreement between the HSR and NPSC algorithms. Food composition information for 41,297 packaged products was extracted from The George Institute's FoodSwitch database. HSR and the NPSC scores were calculated, and the proportion of products in each HSR category that were eligible to display a health claim under the NPSC was examined. The highest agreement between the HSR scoring algorithm and the NPSC threshold to determine eligibility to display a health claim was at the HSR cut-off of 3.5 stars ( = 0.83). Overall, 97.3% ( = 40,167) of products with star ratings of 3.5 or higher were also eligible to display a health claim, and 94.3% ( = 38,939) of products with star ratings less than 3.5 were ineligible to display a health claim. The food group with greatest divergence was "edible oils", with 45% products ( = 342) with HSR >3.5, but 64% ( = 495) eligible to display a claim. Categories with large absolute numbers of products with HSR <3.5, but eligible to display a claim, were "yoghurts and yoghurt drinks" (335 products, 25.4%) and "soft drinks" (299 products, 29.7%). Categories with a large number of products with HSR ≥3.5, but ineligible to display a claim, were "milk" (260 products, 21.2%) and "nuts and seeds" (173 products, 19.7%). We conclude that there is good agreement between the HSR and the NPSC systems overall, but divergence in some food groups is likely to result in confusion for consumers, particularly where foods with low HSRs are eligible to display a health claim. The alignment of the NPSC and HSR scoring algorithms should be improved.
在澳大利亚，制造商可以采用两种经政府认可的方法来宣传产品的健康性：一是使用健康星级（HSR）包装营养标签系统，二是使用健康声称。相关但不同的算法分别确定产品的星级（HSR 算法）和展示声称的资格（营养成分特征评分标准（NPSC）算法）。本研究旨在检验 HSR 和 NPSC 算法之间的一致性。从乔治研究所的 FoodSwitch 数据库中提取了 41,297 种包装食品的成分信息。计算了 HSR 和 NPSC 得分，并检查了每个 HSR 类别中符合 NPSC 健康声称条件的产品比例。HSR 评分算法与确定展示健康声称资格的 NPSC 阈值之间的最高一致性出现在 HSR 分界值为 3.5 星（=0.83）。总体而言，星级为 3.5 或更高的产品中有 97.3%（=40,167）有资格展示健康声称，星级小于 3.5 的产品中有 94.3%（=38,939）没有资格展示健康声称。差异最大的食品类别是“食用油”，其中 45%的产品（=342）HSR 大于 3.5，但有 64%（=495）有资格展示声称。有大量 HSR 小于 3.5 但有资格展示声称的产品的类别是“酸奶和酸奶饮料”（335 种产品，占 25.4%）和“软饮料”（299 种产品，占 29.7%）。有大量 HSR 大于等于 3.5 但没有资格展示声称的产品的类别是“牛奶”（260 种产品，占 21.2%）和“坚果和种子”（173 种产品，占 19.7%）。我们的结论是，总体而言，HSR 和 NPSC 系统之间具有良好的一致性，但某些食品类别的差异可能会使消费者感到困惑，尤其是那些 HSR 较低的食品有资格展示健康声称的情况下。应改进 NPSC 和 HSR 评分算法的一致性。
