What are the limitations of the Health Star Rating system?

December 31, 2025 •

4 min read

Research has shown that many ultra-processed foods can receive surprisingly high Health Star Ratings, raising significant questions about its accuracy and effectiveness. This article examines the various limitations of the Health Star Rating system that undermine its goal of promoting healthier food choices for consumers.

Quick Summary

The Health Star Rating system is hindered by its voluntary nature, which allows manufacturers to apply it selectively, and a flawed algorithm that can assign high ratings to processed foods. This system's limitations include its inability to guide comparisons across food categories, industry conflicts of interest, and documented low consumer trust. Meaningful reform is required.

Key Points

Voluntary Participation: The system's optional nature allows manufacturers to cherry-pick which products receive a rating, undermining its effectiveness and preventing true market comparisons.
Flawed Algorithm: The algorithm can be manipulated and fails to adequately account for the health impact of ultra-processing and additives, sometimes assigning high ratings to unhealthy products.
Nutrient-Focused vs. Whole Food: By prioritizing individual nutrients, the system can misleadingly favor processed foods fortified with synthetic ingredients over more natural, whole foods.
Limited Comparison: HSRs are only valid for comparing products within the same food category, not across different types, which is a source of confusion for many consumers.
Industry Conflicts of Interest: Significant food industry involvement in the system's governance raises concerns about impartiality and whether public health is truly the top priority.
Low Consumer Trust: Public awareness and trust in the HSR system have been found to be low, partly due to the misleading ratings and the voluntary nature of the scheme.

The Voluntary System: Inconsistent and Selective

The effectiveness of the Health Star Rating (HSR) system is significantly undermined by its voluntary nature. Since manufacturers are not mandated to display a rating, they can pick and choose which products to label. This practice of 'cherry-picking' means companies primarily feature HSRs on their products that score well (e.g., 4 or 5 stars), while often omitting the label from less-healthy items. This creates an incomplete picture for consumers, preventing a genuine comparison across a full range of products, and weakens the system's public health impact by failing to adequately incentivize industry-wide improvements.

Challenges from Low Uptake

Public health advocates have long argued for a mandatory system to ensure consistent application and encourage reformulation. However, voluntary uptake has historically fallen short of government targets. The George Institute for Global Health noted that only about a third of intended products on Australian supermarket shelves had a rating by November 2024, well below the target. This selective application, combined with low overall participation, limits the system's usefulness as a universal guide for healthier shopping.

The Flawed Algorithm and Nutrient Focus

The HSR algorithm, which calculates the score, has been widely criticized for its methodology. It balances 'positive' nutrients (like fibre, protein, and fruit/vegetable content) against 'negative' ones (saturated fat, sodium, and total sugars). However, this nutrient-by-nutrient approach fundamentally ignores the overall quality and processing level of the food.

This flaw has led to several notable anomalies:

Processed Foods vs. Whole Foods: Highly processed products can receive higher ratings than minimally processed, whole foods. For example, some sugary cereals can be rated higher than plain Greek yogurt, and certain processed foods have scored better than fresh salmon. This occurs because manufacturers can add synthetic fibre or other lab-made ingredients to artificially boost a product's 'positive' score, masking its underlying unhealthy properties.
No Penalty for Processing: The current system does not penalize additives, ultra-processing, or nutrient manipulation. This allows products with numerous chemicals and artificial ingredients to appear 'healthy' based on their final nutrient scores, which misleads consumers and undermines trust.

The 'Health Halo' Effect

When a company's healthier products display a high HSR, it can create a 'health halo' effect, casting a positive glow on the brand's other, less healthy products. This is particularly problematic in a voluntary system where manufacturers can choose what to label. Consumers may transfer their positive perception from a 5-star product to other items from the same brand that would score poorly if rated.

Limited Scope and Confusing Comparisons

The HSR system is designed to facilitate comparisons only between similar packaged foods—for instance, comparing different brands of breakfast cereal. It is not intended for comparing products across different categories, such as comparing a cereal's rating to a yogurt's. This limitation is not always clear to consumers, who may be misled into thinking a 4-star packaged snack is a healthier choice than a 3-star frozen meal.

Exemptions for Key Foods

Additionally, many food items are exempt from displaying an HSR, including fresh fruits, vegetables, unprocessed meats, and most single-ingredient foods. This means the system fails to provide guidance on some of the most fundamental components of a healthy diet, reinforcing its focus on packaged goods over whole foods.

Governance and Industry Influence

The governance of the HSR system has faced scrutiny over significant industry involvement, which is contrary to best practice recommendations for public health policy. Critics highlight the potential for commercial conflicts of interest when the food industry has a key role in developing and implementing labeling standards. This involvement can lead to decisions that favor industry interests over public health outcomes, eroding consumer trust in the system's impartiality.

Comparison of HSR System: Intended vs. Reality


Feature	Intended Benefit	Observed Limitation
Application	Universal, standardized comparison for packaged foods.	Voluntary, leading to inconsistent and selective use by manufacturers.
Rating Basis	Based on Australian Dietary Guidelines.	Flawed nutrient-focused algorithm that ignores processing and additives.
Scope	Helps consumers make healthier choices at a glance.	Limited to within-category comparisons, not across different food types.
Credibility	Independent rating developed collaboratively.	Weakened by industry influence in governance and misleading high ratings for some processed foods.
Market Impact	Incentivizes manufacturers to reformulate products.	Encourages ingredient manipulation to boost scores rather than promoting overall food integrity.

Proposed Reforms for a More Robust System

Mandatory Ratings: A mandatory system would force all eligible packaged food products to display a rating, eliminating the issue of selective labeling and enabling meaningful comparisons across the board.
Revised Algorithm: Updates to the calculation method could include stronger penalties for sugars, sodium, and highly processed ingredients, while also rewarding minimally processed, whole foods more appropriately.
Improved Governance: Strengthening government oversight and limiting industry influence on the advisory committee would enhance public trust and ensure the system prioritizes public health outcomes.
Traffic Light System: Integrating interpretive colors, similar to the UK's traffic light system, could provide a clearer, more detailed guide to nutritional content at a glance.

Conclusion

While the Health Star Rating system was introduced with the admirable goal of simplifying nutritional information for consumers, its numerous limitations severely compromise its effectiveness. The voluntary nature of the system, combined with a flawed algorithm that can be exploited by manufacturers, results in inconsistent ratings and often misleading perceptions of health. For the system to be a truly reliable tool for public health, significant reforms are necessary, including making it mandatory, revising the calculation process, and strengthening its governance. Without these changes, consumers will continue to face challenges in using the HSR to make genuinely healthier choices in the supermarket.

Learn more about the Health Star Rating system on its official Australian government website

Frequently Asked Questions

The HSR system was introduced as a voluntary scheme based on collaboration between government, public health, consumer groups, and the food industry. However, its voluntary nature is considered a major limitation, as it allows manufacturers to only display the ratings on their healthier products.

Unhealthy or highly processed foods can receive a high rating because the system's algorithm focuses on balancing 'good' and 'bad' nutrients, rather than the overall food quality. Manufacturers can exploit this by adding synthetic fibre or other ingredients to boost the 'good' nutrient score and offset negative elements like sugar.

No, a significant limitation of the HSR is that its algorithm does not consider the level of processing or the use of food additives. This can result in heavily processed foods receiving deceptively high ratings.

No, the HSR system is designed only for comparing similar packaged foods within the same category. The calculation varies by food type, so a rating for one category cannot be compared to another.

The 'health halo' effect occurs when consumers assume a company's other products are healthy simply because one of their products displays a high HSR. This is made possible by the voluntary nature of the system, which encourages selective labeling.

Critics argue that significant involvement from the food industry in the system's governance creates potential conflicts of interest. This can lead to decisions that protect commercial interests rather than solely serving public health.

Alternative proposals and systems include making the HSR mandatory for all products, revising the calculation algorithm to better account for processing, or implementing an alternative like a traffic light labeling system, as used in the UK.