Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong 3220, Australia.
Nutrients. 2020 May 18;12(5):1463. doi: 10.3390/nu12051463.
Nutrient-based indices are commonly used to assess the health potential of individual foods for nutrition policy actions. This study aimed to evaluate the nutrient profile-informed Australian Health Star Rating (HSR), against NOVA and an index informed by the Australian Dietary Guidelines (ADGs), to determine the extent of alignment. All products displaying an HSR label in the Australian marketplace between June 2014 and June 2019 were extracted from the Mintel Global New Product Database, and classified into one of four NOVA categories, and either as an ADG five food group (FFG) food or discretionary food. Of 4451 products analysed, 76.5% were ultra-processed (UP) and 43% were discretionary. The median HSR of non-UP foods (4) was significantly higher than UP foods (3.5) ( < 0.01), and the median HSR of FFG foods (4) was significantly higher than discretionary foods (2.5) ( < 0.01). However, 73% of UP foods, and 52.8% of discretionary foods displayed an HSR ≥ 2.5. Results indicate the currently implemented HSR system is inadvertently providing a 'health halo' for almost ¾ of UP foods and ½ of discretionary foods displaying an HSR. Future research should investigate whether the HSR scheme can be reformed to avoid misalignment with food-and diet-based indices.
营养指数常用于评估个体食物对营养政策行动的健康潜力。本研究旨在评估基于营养素的澳大利亚健康星级评级（HSR）与 NOVA 和基于澳大利亚饮食指南（ADG）的指数之间的一致性，以确定其一致性程度。在 2014 年 6 月至 2019 年 6 月期间，从明特尔全球新产品数据库中提取了澳大利亚市场上展示 HSR 标签的所有产品，并将其分为 NOVA 四类之一，以及澳大利亚饮食指南中的五类食物（FFG）或随意性食物。在分析的 4451 种产品中，76.5%是超加工（UP）食品，43%是随意性食品。非 UP 食品（4 分）的 HSR 中位数明显高于 UP 食品（3.5 分）（<0.01），FFG 食品（4 分）的 HSR 中位数明显高于随意性食品（2.5 分）（<0.01）。然而，73%的 UP 食品和 52.8%的随意性食品的 HSR≥2.5。结果表明，目前实施的 HSR 系统无意中为 HSR 显示为≥2.5 的近四分之三的 UP 食品和一半的随意性食品提供了“健康光环”。未来的研究应探讨 HSR 计划是否可以进行改革，以避免与基于食物和饮食的指数不一致。
