Can Health Star Ratings be misleading? The surprising truth about food labels

December 31, 2025 •

4 min read

A 2024 analysis showed only a quarter of eligible products with a rating of 3 stars and below displayed a Health Star Rating, in comparison to over half of products with a rating of 3.5 and above. This voluntary and selective system is just one reason why consumers often ask, 'Can Health Star Ratings be misleading?'.

Quick Summary

The Health Star Rating system, while intended to simplify healthy choices, can be misleading due to loopholes that benefit manufacturers of ultra-processed foods. This voluntary system often overemphasises certain nutrients while ignoring the level of processing, leading to ratings that can contradict nutritional advice. Understanding these flaws is crucial for informed purchasing.

Key Points

Inaccurate comparisons: The Health Star Rating (HSR) system can produce misleading comparisons, sometimes rating ultra-processed snacks higher than whole foods like natural Greek yoghurt due to algorithm flaws.
Manufacturer manipulation: Companies can exploit loopholes by adding isolated fibre or protein to highly processed foods, boosting their HSR without making them genuinely healthier.
Ignores food processing: The system fails to account for the level of food processing, allowing highly-processed products with added chemicals and additives to receive a 'health halo'.
Voluntary and selective: Because the HSR is voluntary, manufacturers often only display it on their higher-scoring products, creating a biased view of the food supply and limiting consumers' ability to compare.
Prioritise whole foods: Rather than relying solely on the HSR, consumers should check the full nutrition panel and ingredient list, prioritising whole foods with fewer, more natural ingredients.
Lack of consumer trust: Significant numbers of consumers distrust the system, perceiving a lack of transparency and expressing concerns that ratings are easily manipulated by the food industry.

The Health Star Rating System: A Flawed Compass

The Health Star Rating (HSR) system, adopted in Australia and New Zealand, was designed with good intentions: to help consumers quickly and easily identify healthier packaged food options. However, a closer look reveals significant flaws that can lead to misleading conclusions. The system's voluntary nature, combined with its reliance on a nutrient-based algorithm rather than a whole-food approach, creates a landscape where some genuinely healthy foods are rated poorly, while highly processed products get a "health halo". This article explores the limitations and reveals why consumers need to look beyond the stars.

The Problem with a Nutrient-Based Approach

One of the most criticised aspects of the HSR system is its focus on individual nutrients rather than the food as a whole. A product gains points for fibre and protein content and loses points for energy, saturated fat, sodium, and total sugars. The issue is that manufacturers can manipulate this algorithm without fundamentally improving the product's health profile. For example, adding isolated fibre or low-quality protein can boost a score, even if the product remains ultra-processed and packed with additives. This stands in stark contrast to the Australian Dietary Guidelines, which recommend a diet based on whole foods.

Comparing Apples and Oranges (or Greek Yoghurt and Licorice)

The HSR system was designed for comparing similar packaged foods (e.g., one brand of cereal versus another) and is not suitable for cross-category comparisons (e.g., chips versus yoghurt). However, this distinction is often lost on consumers, who assume a higher star count universally means a healthier choice. This leads to anomalous results that are deeply counterintuitive.

Yoghurt vs. Confectionery: A full-fat, unsweetened natural Greek yoghurt may receive a lower score than some sugary confectionery because of its saturated fat content, even though the yoghurt is a whole, nutrient-dense food.
Processed vs. Natural: A highly processed margarine can achieve a higher rating than natural butter simply because the algorithm unfairly penalises saturated fat.
Beverages: Milo, a highly processed chocolate powder, controversially received a 4.5-star rating based on its preparation with skim milk, not the powder's own merits, highlighting the potential for gaming the system.

The Ultra-Processing Blind Spot

A major failing of the HSR system is its complete ignorance of the level of food processing. Ultra-processed foods, which are linked to a range of chronic health issues, can often score highly by adding isolated nutrients. The system does not penalise manufacturers for including additives, emulsifiers, or artificial sweeteners, which are common in these products. This is a significant concern for public health, as it gives a health halo to products that are fundamentally unhealthy.

Ultra-Processed vs. Whole Foods: A Comparison


Feature	Ultra-Processed Food (High HSR)	Whole Food (Low HSR)	Observation
Example	5-star diet soft drink	2.5-star natural Greek yoghurt	The highly processed drink scores higher, showing a flaw in the system's focus on fat over overall processing.
Processing Level	High; contains additives, emulsifiers, artificial sweeteners	Low; minimally processed, contains natural ingredients	The HSR fails to capture the adverse health effects of ultra-processing.
Nutrient Manipulation	Manufacturers add isolated fibre or protein to boost score	Rating is based on the natural nutritional profile	Incentivises superficial changes rather than genuine product improvement.
Satiety & Gut Health	Engineered to override satiety, potentially harming gut health	Nutrient-dense, beneficial for gut microbiome	A stark contradiction between the HSR and actual nutritional impact.

The Voluntary Nature and Lack of Transparency

Because the system is voluntary, manufacturers are free to display the HSR only on products that receive a favourable score, leaving unhealthy products unmarked. This creates a selection bias and prevents consumers from making a proper comparison across all products. Furthermore, a significant number of consumers distrust the system, perceiving a lack of transparency in how ratings are calculated. Stronger government leadership and mandatory implementation are needed to address these issues.

How to Navigate the Supermarket Aisles

For the time-poor shopper, the HSR can offer a quick comparison tool within a single product category. However, relying solely on it is a mistake. Informed consumers should follow a few key steps to make healthier choices:

Look beyond the stars: Always check the full nutrition information panel and the ingredients list.
Prioritise whole foods: As a general rule, choose products with fewer, and more recognisable, ingredients. A long list of unfamiliar names is a red flag for ultra-processing.
Be aware of manipulation: Understand that added fibre or protein doesn't necessarily make a highly-processed food healthy.
Trust your judgement: If a product seems too good to be true, it probably is. Your common-sense perception of a whole food is likely more accurate than a flawed algorithm.

Conclusion: Time for a Reformulation

While the Health Star Rating system was introduced with the admirable goal of simplifying consumer choices, its execution has created significant, misleading anomalies. The system's overemphasis on isolated nutrients and neglect of food processing levels means that it frequently rewards ultra-processed foods over genuinely healthier, whole food alternatives. The voluntary nature of the scheme further undermines its integrity, allowing manufacturers to 'cherry-pick' which products receive a visible rating. For consumers, relying solely on the HSR is a risk. By learning to scrutinise the full nutritional panel and prioritise whole, less-processed foods, shoppers can make truly informed and healthier decisions. Urgent reform is needed to ensure the system serves public health interests, not just marketing purposes.

The Australian Dietary Guidelines

For a comprehensive guide on healthy eating from an authoritative source, refer to the Australian Dietary Guidelines.

Frequently Asked Questions

Healthy whole foods like natural Greek yoghurt or salmon can receive a lower HSR due to the system's algorithm, which penalises them for naturally occurring saturated fat and energy content. It fails to adequately differentiate between these natural components and unhealthy, added fats or sugars found in processed foods.

Not always. While a 5-star rating can indicate a healthier choice, particularly within a category, it doesn't guarantee a product is a whole food. The rating can be achieved by adding fibre or protein to a highly processed product, giving it a 'health halo'.

No, the Health Star Rating system is voluntary for food manufacturers. This allows companies to selectively apply the rating, typically only placing it on products with a high score, and leaving unhealthy products unmarked.

The HSR system was designed to evaluate the nutritional profile based on key nutrients, not to judge the 'naturalness' or additive content of a product. This means products filled with additives and artificial ingredients can still score highly, as the system does not penalise them.

The most effective way to use HSRs is for comparing similar products within the same category, for example, choosing the highest-rated breakfast cereal. However, for a full picture, you should always check the ingredients list and the full nutrition information panel on the back of the packaging.

Manufacturers can manipulate the rating by tweaking their product's formula. They can add isolated nutrients like synthetic fibre or protein to boost the score while keeping the product highly processed, high in sugar, or full of additives.

The best approach is to focus on whole, unprocessed foods. Read the ingredients list and prioritise products with a short list of recognisable ingredients. If you're unsure, consulting the detailed nutrition information panel is a more transparent alternative to the star rating.