Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the ... · Does a change in nutrients translate to a change in star rating?..... 72 Report on the monitoring of the implementation

Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. | 2019 1

Prepared for the Commonwealth Department of Health

Submitted by the National Heart Foundation of Australia, February 2019

Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018.

2019


For enquiries about this report, please contact:

Front-of-Pack Labelling Secretariat Australian Government Department of Health

GPO Box 9848, Canberra, ACT, 2601

Phone: 1800 099 658

Email: [email protected]

© 2019 National Heart Foundation of Australia, ABN 98 008 419 761

Suggested citation: Heart Foundation of Australia 2019, Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the

Health Star Rating system in the first four years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2018. Commissioned

by the Commonwealth Department of Health.

Disclaimer: This material has been developed by the Heart Foundation for general information. The

statements and recommendations it contains are, unless labelled as ‘expert opinion’, based on independent

review of the available evidence.

While care has been taken in preparing the content of this material, the Heart Foundation and its employees

cannot accept any liability, including for any loss or damage, resulting from the reliance on the content, or for

its accuracy, currency and completeness. The information is obtained and developed from a variety of

sources including, but not limited to, collaborations with third parties and information provided by third parties

under licence. It is not an endorsement of any organisation, product or service.

This material may be found in third parties’ programs or materials (including, but not limited to, show bags or

advertising kits). This does not imply an endorsement or recommendation by the National Heart Foundation

of Australia for such third parties’ organisations, products or services, including their materials or information.

Any use of National Heart Foundation of Australia materials or information by another person or organisation

is at the user's own risk.

The entire contents of this material are subject to copyright protection.

mailto:[email protected]


Contents

Contents ........................................................................................................................................................... 3

Acronyms ......................................................................................................................................................... 6

Executive summary ......................................................................................................................................... 7

Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 10

1.1. Context and background .................................................................................................................. 10

1.1.1. HSR calculator............................................................................................................................. 10

1.1.2. HSR system graphics .................................................................................................................. 11

1.2. Monitoring and evaluation of the HSR system ................................................................................. 12

1.2.1. Program logic .............................................................................................................................. 12

1.2.2. Reporting to date ......................................................................................................................... 14

Chapter 2: Monitoring and evaluation methodology ................................................................................ 15

2.1. Conceptual framework ..................................................................................................................... 15

2.1.1. Attitude formation ........................................................................................................................ 15

2.1.2. Decision making .......................................................................................................................... 17

2.2. Evaluation framework ....................................................................................................................... 17

Figure 3: Evaluation framework ............................................................................................................. 18

2.2.1. What is the uptake of the HSR? .................................................................................................. 18

2.2.2. Do manufactures comply with the HSRC and guidelines? ......................................................... 19

2.2.3. Are consumers aware of the HSR system? ................................................................................ 19

2.2.4. Do consumers trust in the HSR system? .................................................................................... 19

2.2.5. Do consumers find the HSR system useful? ............................................................................... 20

2.2.6. Which HSR logos do consumers prefer? .................................................................................... 20

2.2.7. Do consumers understand the HSR? ......................................................................................... 20

2.2.8. Does the HSR system influence consumers to make healthier choices? ................................... 20

2.2.9. Has the HSR system had an impact on manufacturers’ formulation decisions? ........................ 20

2.3. Data sources .................................................................................................................................... 21

2.3.1. FoodTrack ................................................................................................................................... 21

2.3.2. Sales data .................................................................................................................................... 22

2.4. Evaluation tools ................................................................................................................................ 23

2.4.1. Style Guide .................................................................................................................................. 23

2.4.2. HSR calculator............................................................................................................................. 23

2.4.3. HSR Tracker ................................................................................................................................ 24

2.4.4. Additional in-store collections ...................................................................................................... 26

2.4.5. Focus group................................................................................................................................. 26

Chapter 3: What is the uptake of the HSR system? .................................................................................. 28

3.1. Participation in the HSR ................................................................................................................... 28

3.1.1. Annual HSR uptake ..................................................................................................................... 28


3.1.2. Additonal in-store collection ........................................................................................................ 29

3.1.3. Eligibility of uptake ....................................................................................................................... 29

3.1.4. Uptake by Category ..................................................................................................................... 30

3.2. Sales weighted uptake ..................................................................................................................... 32

3.3. How does HSR uptake compare to other front-of-pack labelling schemes? ................................... 34

3.4. Drivers of uptake in participation ...................................................................................................... 35

3.5. Concluding comments ...................................................................................................................... 37

Chapter 4: Do manufacturers comply with the HSRC and guidelines? .................................................. 38

4.1. Style Guide compliance ................................................................................................................... 38

4.2. Assessment against the HSR Calculator ......................................................................................... 41


Chapter 5: Are consumers aware of the HSR system? ............................................................................ 43

5.1. Consumer awareness ...................................................................................................................... 43

5.1.1. Which consumers are more likely to be aware of the HSR system? .......................................... 44


Chapter 6: Attitude formation ...................................................................................................................... 46

6.1. Do consumers trust in the HSR system? ......................................................................................... 46

6.1.1. Who trusts the system? ............................................................................................................... 47

6.2. Do consumers find the HSR system useful? ................................................................................... 48

6.2.1. To whom is the HSR system the most useful? ........................................................................... 48

6.3. Do consumers understand how to use and interpret the HSR? ...................................................... 49

6.3.1. Understanding the ‘stars’ ............................................................................................................. 51

6.3.2. Understanding what can be compared ....................................................................................... 51

6.3.3. Using the HSR system ................................................................................................................ 52

6.4. Which HSR logo do consumers prefer? ........................................................................................... 53

6.4.1. Preferred HSR logo ..................................................................................................................... 53

6.4.2. Consumers preferred attributes for HSR logos ........................................................................... 54

6.4.3. Have preferences changed over time? ....................................................................................... 55

6.4.4. Which logos do manufacturers use? ........................................................................................... 56

6.4.5. Do consumer preferences match logos on packs? ..................................................................... 58


Chapter 7: Does the HSR system influence consumers to make healthier choices? ........................... 61

7.1. Does the HSR influence consumer choices? ................................................................................... 61

7.1.1. Who does the HSR influence? .................................................................................................... 63

7.2. How does the HSR influence? ......................................................................................................... 63

7.2.1. Sales weighting of HSR purachases ........................................................................................... 64

7.2.2. Change in purchasing behaviours for healthier products ............................................................ 65


Chapter 8: Has the HSR system had an impact on reformulation? ........................................................ 68

8.1. Has the star rating changed over time? ........................................................................................... 68

8.2. Have the nutrients in HSR products changed over time? ................................................................ 69

8.3. Does a change in nutrients translate to a change in star rating? ..................................................... 72



Chapter 9: Concluding remarks .................................................................................................................. 75

Appendix A: Style Guide Compliance Checklist ........................................................................................ 76

Appendix B: HSR hierarchy of categories .................................................................................................. 85

Appendix C: HSR Tracker Survey ................................................................................................................ 86

Appendix D: Data tables ............................................................................................................................. 108

Uptake ..................................................................................................................................................... 108

Compliance ............................................................................................................................................. 111

Awareness ............................................................................................................................................. 113

Trust ........................................................................................................................................................ 116

Use ........................................................................................................................................................ 117

Like ........................................................................................................................................................ 119

Influence .................................................................................................................................................. 120

Reformulation ........................................................................................................................................ 122

Appendix E: Text-based Alternatives for Figures .................................................................................... 125


Acronyms

Acronym Term

ADG Australian Dietary Guidelines

AoE Area of enquiry

BMI Body mass index

CSIRO Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organisation

DIG Daily Intake Guide

FoP Front of pack

FoPL Front of pack labelling

FSC Food Standards Code

FV Fruit or vegetables

FVNL Fruit, vegetable, nut and legume

HSR Health Star Rating

HSRAC Health Star Rating Advisory Committee

HSRC Health Star Rating calculator

NIP Nutrition information panel

NGO Non-Government Organisation

NRM Nutrient reference measure

RDI Recommended Dietary Intake


Executive summary

The Health Star Rating (HSR) system, an interpretive front-of-pack nutrition labelling scheme, was

introduced in Australia and New Zealand in June 2014. The HSR aims to provide convenient, relevant, easily

understood nutrition information and/or guidance on food packs to assist consumers to make informed

purchases and healthier eating choices. A secondary objective of the system is to encourage food

manufacturers to reformulate their products to achieve a higher star rating.

The National Heart Foundation was engaged to monitor the implemenatation of the HSR system in Australia.

By using targeted evaluation questions, this report provides an overiew of the progress of implementation of

the HSR system at Year 4 (July 2017 – June 2018).

AoE1: Label implementation and consistency with the HSR system Style Guide

What is the uptake of the HSR?

Industry participation in the HSR system has increased since implementation. In Year 4, 5,448 products, or

30.5 percent of eligible products displayed the system, which was an increase of 51.9 percent from Year 3.

The Confectionary HSR Category had the greatest number of products displaying the HSR system graphic

(n=366) followed by Sugar (or artificially) sweetened beverages (n=314). However, the system was

displayed on the greatest proportion of products in the Hot cereals – flavoured HSR Category (95%).

When uptake was weighted by sales, it showed that market penetration of HSR products was greater than

what raw (unweighted) uptake may indicate. In Year 4, sales weighted uptake was 37.9 percent of eligible

products which was statistically larger than raw uptake, suggesting that products participating in the HSR

system are more frequently purchased than non-HSR products.

Large retailers and manufacturers were identified as key drivers of growth as private label retailers

accounted for over half of all products participating in the HSR system.

Do manufacturers comply with the HSRC and guidelines?

Industry compliance with the HSR Stye Guide increased overtime, reaching 95.8 percent in Year 4. The

proportion of products that have a design or technical variation has decreased since Year 2 and were at their

lowest in Year 4.

However, alignment between the displayed star rating and the calculated HSR has declined over time from

98.1 percent in Year 1 to 89.7 percent in Year 4. Misalignment between the calculated HSR and that

displayed on pack has been driven by both under and overstatement of the HSR, with the difference largely

restricted to 0.5 stars.


AoE2: Consumer awareness and ability to use the HSR system correctly

Are consumers aware of the system?

Consumer awareness has steadily increased since the implementation of the HSR system. Unprompted

awareness of the HSR increased by 61.8 percent, from 12.5 percent in Year 2 to 20.2 percent in Year 4.

Prompted awareness had also increased overtime. By Year 4, more than four in every five (83.3 percent)

consumers were aware of the HSR system.

Do consumers trust in the HSR system?

By Year 4, almost six in every ten consumers trust the system (58.4 percent), and even more find it credible

(61.5 percent). There was recognition that the HSR provides a quick and easy reference on the healthiness

(or otherwise) when buying a product.

Confidence in the HSR system also grew significantly over the three years. The majority of consumers in

Year 2 were not confident in the system however; confidence had increased to over half (51.4 percent) in

Year 3 and continued to almost 70 percent in Year 4.

Do consumers find the HSR system useful?

The HSR system is intended to make it easier for consumers to compare products and make healthier

choices. While over three quarters of consumers (76.8 percent) agree that the HSR system makes

identifying healthier products easier, 28.2 percent of consumers don’t feel the HSR adds value and reports

that it makes shopping confusing.

Do consumers understand how to use and interpret the HSR?

By Year 4, when unprompted, more than half of consumers (55.8 percent) understood that the HSR provides

a rating on the healthiness of the product upon which it appears. Seven in every ten consumers (72.3

percent) agree (or strongly agree) that the system makes it easier to compare products participating in the

HSR system.

Though comparisons should only be made between similar products, more than half of consumers in Year 4

(58.2 percent) believed that the HSR can be used to compare products of different categories (HSR

Category). However, during the focus groups, participants exhibited an intuitive understanding that the HSR

can only be used to compare similar products.

Which HSR logo do consumers prefer?

A food manufacturer or retailer has the choice of five different options to use when displaying their products’

star rating. The options follow a hierarchy where Option 1 provides the greatest amount of information to

Options 2 to 4 which includes decreasing amounts of information on nutrients down to Option 5, which only

includes the energy icon.

In Year 4, consumers preferred Option 1 the most (63.3 percent) followed by Option 4 (21.1 percent).

Consumers indicated they preferred Option 1 because it provides the most detailed information, while those

that preferred Option 4 do so because it is simple.


However, there is limited alignment between what HSR logos consumers prefer to see on packs, and what

manufacturers place on packs. By Year 4, the majority of consumers preferred Option 1, however Option 4

was the most common logo displayed.

Does the HSR influence consumers to make healthier choices?

In Year 4, 70 percent of consumers reported purchasing a HSR product in the last three months with nearly

two thirds reporting that the HSR had influenced their purchasing behaviour.

Of those influenced by the HSR system, more than 50 percent stated that they selected a healthier product.

Overall, 23.4 percent of all consumers changed their purchasing behaviour by selecting a HSR product with

more stars.

AoE3: Nutrient status of products carrying a HSR system label

Has the HSR system had an impact on reformulation?

The propotion of products displaying a lower HSR value has increased with the average HSR decreasing

from 3.8 in Year 1 to 3.4 in Year 4. Correspondingly, the average content of saturated fat, sodium and sugar

(per 100g or 100mL) were higher in Year 4 than Year 1.

Though a decrease in the average HSR throughout the years and increase in average content of certain

negative nutrients was observed, it was important to determine whether HSR products have reformulated

over time. To ascertain whether a decrease in nutrients is unique to HSR products, or reflects a general

trend of reformulation, nutrient content of non-HSR products were also analysed. Results revealed that there

were statistically significant reductions in energy and saturated fat content from products displaying the HSR

system, compared to products not displaying the system. Therefore, participation in the HSR system may be

leading to voluntary reformulation of products to decrease negative components.

Conclusion

At the commencement of the HSR system in June 2014, no specific targets for industry uptake or consumer

use or understanding were established. However, monitoring data indicates that across almost every

evaluation question, the monitored indicators generally have improved over the four years.

Uptake and participation in the HSR system has increased, participating manufacturers and retailers have

largely complied with system guidance and there is some evidence that the HSR system is encouraging

positive reformulation.

From a consumer perspective, there is strong awareness of the HSR, and majority trust the system and

understand how to use it. There is also evidence to suggest that the HSR system is changing purchasing

behaviours and helping consumers make healthier choices.


Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1. Context and background

In 2002 mandatory nutrition labelling was introduced for all manufactured goods sold in Australia and New

Zealand. Standardised nutrition information panels (NIPs) must include the average quantity per serve of

energy, protein, total fat, saturated fat, carbohydrate, sugars and sodium as well as any other nutrition

informationm about which a claim is made.

While the NIP provides comprehensive information to assist consumers in making informed choices about

the food they eat, it is often considered too technical and difficult to understand.1

In 2011, in response to Recommendation 50 of Labelling Logic, The Review of Food Labelling Law and

Policy (2011), the Legislative and Governance Forum on Food Regulation (now known as the Australia and

New Zealand Ministerial Forum on Food Regulation) agreed to the development of an easily understood,

interperative front of pack labelling (FoPL) scheme for packaged food products. In partnership with industry,

public health and consumer groups, the Australian, state and territory governments developed the Health

Star Rating (HSR) system, which was introduced from June 2014.

The HSR system leverages much of the information that is provided in the NIP and summarises it to provide

an overall nutritional rating of the product. Products are rated from half a star to five stars, providing

consumers a quick, easy and standard way to compare similar packaged foods.

Participation is voluntary, with food manufacturers and retailers free to participate in the HSR system at any

point by using the HSR calculator to determine the HSR for their product and selecting an approved logo to

display their star rating. There are no applications or fees for participation.

Though participation in the system is voluntary with no application fee, the Health Star Advisory Committee

(HSRAC) is responsible for overseeing the monitoring and evaluation of the HSR system.

1.1.1. HSR calculator

The HSR calculator (HSRC) is a tool to assist industry in determining the appropriate number of stars for

their product. The HSRC takes into account energy, saturated fat, sodium, total sugars, fruit, vegetable, nut

and legume (FVNL) content, and in some instances dietary fibre and protein of the product.

The HSRC comprises of two components: baseline points, consisting of negative components (energy,

saturated fat, sodium and total sugars) and modifying points consisting of the positive components (FVNL

content and in some instances protein and fibre). Together with the baseline points and the modifying points,

a final score is calculated.

Final score = baseline points – modifying points

The final score, in conjunction with the correct HSR Category Class of the product, is used to determine the

star rating of the product (see Table 1).

Table 1: Final scores used to assign Health Star Ratings

1 Ni Mhurchu, C. Gorton, D. 2007, ‘Nutrition labels and claims in New Zealand and Australia: a review of use and

understanding’, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, vol. 31, issue 2.


Food categories

HSR 1 Non-dairy

beverage

1D Dairy

beverage

2 Non-dairy

foods

2D Dairy

foods

3 Oils and

spreads

3D

Processed

cheese

5 ≤ - 6 ≤ -2 ≤ -11 ≤ -2 ≤ 13 ≤ 22

4 ½ -5 -1 -10 to -7 -1 14 to 16 23 to 24

4 -4 0 -6 to -2 0 17 to 20 25 to 26

3 ½ -3 1 -1 to 2 1 21 to 23 27 to 28

3 -2 2 3 to 6 2 24 to 27 29 to 30

2 ½ -1 3 7 to 11 3 28 to 30 31 to 32

2 0 4 12 to 15 4 31 to 34 33 to 34

1 ½ 1 5 16 to 20 5 35 to 37 35 to 36

1 2 6 21 to 24 6 38 to 41 37 to 38

½ ≥ 3 ≥ 7 ≥ 25 ≥ 7 ≥ 42 ≥ 39

1.1.2. HSR system graphics

A food manufacturer or retailer has the choice of five different options to use when displaying their products’

star rating. Option 1 provides the greatest amount of information, including the energy icon, three prescribed

negative nutrients, and an optional positive nutrient icon. Options 2 to 4 include decreasing amounts of

information on the nutrients, down to Option 5, which only includes the energy icon (see Table 2).

Given there are five options to use, not all options may be available for food products to display. That is, a

product with little nutritional value cannot display Option 1 as the optional nutrient displayed is to comply with

nutrient content claims underpinned by the Food Standards Code (FSC).

Table 2: HSR system graphics

Option Graphic Description

1

HSR + energy icon + 3 prescribed nutrient icons + 1

optional nutrient icon

2

HSR + energy icon + 3 prescribed nutrient icons

3

HSR + energy icon

4

HSR


Option Graphic Description

5

Energy icon

While food manufacturers are free to select the HSR logo that is most appropriate for their product based on

available pack size and label space, they are encouraged to use as many elements of the HSR system

graphic as possible. That is, if there is enough space, manufacturers should select Option 1 over any other

option, as it provides the greatest amount of information.

1.2. Monitoring and evaluation of the HSR system

The primary objective of the HSR system is to provide convenient, relevant, easily understood nutrition

information and/or guidance on food packs to assist consumers to make informed purchases and healthier

eating choices.2

To achieve this objective, it is necessary that manufacturers participate in the system and comply with the

tools and guidelines, and that consumers are aware of the system and how to interpret the HSR.

A secondary intention of the system is that it encourages food manufacturers to reformulate products to

achieve a higher star rating3. In doing so, the HSR system aims to provide greater transparency to the

consumer on how similar products compare healthwise.

The monitoring and evaluation framework capture these elements in its three areas of enquiry:

Area of enquiry 1 (AoE1): assessing uptake of HSR, implementation of HSR against Style Guide, and

comparing HSR displayed on pack to HSRC;

Area of enquiry 2 (AoE2): reporting on consumer awareness and understanding of HSR, accurate use of

the HSR and trust in the system;

Area of enquiry 3 (AoE3): measuring the nutrient status of products participating in the HSR system and

monitoring changes in the nutrient profile over time.

These three areas of enquiry were established and endorsed by the HSRAC, who is responsible for

overseeing the monitoring and evaluation of the HSR system, amongst other things.

1.2.1. Program logic

The areas of enquiry are reflected in the program logic which outlines the sequence of steps required to

achieve the objective of the HSR system (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Program logic framework for the monitoring and evaluation of implementation of the HSR system

2 Front-of-Pack Labelling Project Committee: Objectives and principles for the development of a FoPL scheme. 2012

3 Front-of-Pack Labelling Project Committee: Objectives and principles for the development of a FoPL scheme. 2012,

http://foodregulation.gov.au/internet/fr/publishing.nsf/Content/frontofpackobjectives

http://foodregulation.gov.au/internet/fr/publishing.nsf/Content/frontofpackobjectives


HSR OBJECTIVE: To provide convenient, relevant and readily understood nutrition information

and/or guidance on food packs to assist consumers to make informed food purchases and healthier

eating choices

HEART FOUNDATION OBJECTIVE: To objectively monitor and evaluate the implementation,

awareness and use, and changes in the food supply, of the HSR system.

INPUTS

Funding ↔ Governance ↔ Documents and reports ↔ Staff ↔ Technology, equipment and materials

ACTIVITIES AND OUTPUTS

Area of enquiry 1

Label implementation and

consistency with the HSR system

Style Guide

Area of enquiry 2

Consumer awareness and

ability to use the HSR system

correctly

Area of enquiry 3

Nutrient status of products

carrying a HSR system label

Establishment of analytical

methods

Establishment of standard

operating procedures

Monitoring of:

- Uptake of HSR by

manufacturers and

retailers

- Implementation of

HSR against Style

Guide

- HSR displayed on

pack compared to

HSRC

- Develop / implement

metrics

- Periodic reporting

Determine information and

data requirements

Develop / implement

quantitative and/or qualitative

research to establish and

monitor consumer:

awareness, knowledge,

intentions and behaviours

Develop / implement metrics

Periodic reporting

Establish automated

reporting in FoodTrack™

database

Develop analytical methods,

operating procedures for:

- Nutrient status of

products

- Changes in nutrient

profile

- Develop / implement

metrics

- Periodic reporting

OUTCOMES

Area of enquiry 1



Style Guide

Area of enquiry 2



correctly

Area of enquiry 3



Objective

measurement/assessment

against indicators, including:

- Uptake of HSR by

manufacturers and

retailers

- Implementation of

HSR against Style

Guide

Objective


against consumer indicators,

including:

- Awareness,

understanding of

HSR

- Accurate use of

HSR, trust in HSR

Objective


against indicators, including

- Changes to the

nutrient status of

HSR products over

time

- Changes in the

overall nutrient profile

over time


Area of enquiry 1



Style Guide

Area of enquiry 2



correctly

Area of enquiry 3



- HSR displayed on

pack compared to

HSRC

- Assessment to cover

key population

demographics

1.2.2. Reporting to date

The Heart Foundation was engaged to monitor and evaluate the HSR system in Australia in May 2015.

Since this time, monitoring and evaluation of the HSR has included:

Eight reports on cumulative participation in the HSR system since 2015, complemented with seven

point-in-time snapshots of participation in the HSR system, and annual reports on compliance with Style

Guide and HSRC, addressing AoE1;

Eight surveys of consumers, and one survey of industry for AoE2;

Two reports analysing nutrient status of HSR products for AoE3; and

Two annual reports (Years 1 and 2), reporting on all three areas of enquiry.

In parallel to the monitoring and evaluation undertaken by the Heart Foundation, a review of progress was

undertaken in 2016 and a five-year review by MP Consulting is currently in progress.

This report combines much of the data collected since 2014 to provide a comprehensive assessment on the

progress of implementation, and evaluation of outcomes achieved to June 2018. Results from previous

surveys can be obtained from here.

http://healthstarrating.gov.au/internet/healthstarrating/publishing.nsf/Content/monitoring


Chapter 2: Monitoring and evaluation methodology

This section sets out the methodology that is used to conduct the monitoring and evaluation of the HSR

system. In the first section a conceptual framework is outlined to demonstrate how the consumer is affected

and influenced by the HSR. This was then used to develop an overall evaluation framework.

The final sections of this chapter include the data sources and evaluation tools.

2.1. Conceptual framework

As outlined by the program logic, data collection, analysis and reporting have been structured around the

three areas of enquiry. This structure has provided a convenient framework for collecting data and reporting

on implementation.

In this report we expand beyond monitoring implementation to also evaluate outcomes. To this end, we

leverage the literature to develop a conceptual framework illustrating the components necessary for nutrition

information to affect consumer decision making.4 This is illustrated in

4 Grunert, K.G., Wills, J.M. 2007, ‘A review of European research on consumer response to nutrition information on food

labels’, Journal of Public Health, vol. 15, issue 5, pp. 385-399.


Figure 2 and shows that awareness is the first and necessary condition that must be met if the HSR system

is to have any impact upon the actions of consumers. The second component is attitude formation with the

third looking at how attitude formation impacts upon consumer decisions.

2.1.1. Attitude formation

We make thousands of decisions every day – most of them unconsciously. To simplify decision making,

people have created cognitive short cuts,5 which are often based on positive or negative associations with

groups of ideas. Attitudes help to form these short cuts and therefore, are incredibly important in

understanding whether consumers are positively or negatively disposed to the HSR system.

Attitude formation comprises of four elements: trust or credibility in the HSR system, understanding of the

system, relevance of the system, and whether the logo is liked.6 In this report, like has been measured

through consumer preferences of HSR logos and will therefore be reported as preferred.

Trust in the HSR system is a crucial element of attitude formation, because without it, consumers will be

hesitant to make a purchase based on a products’ participation in the system (hereafter referred to as HSR

status),7 that is whether they are displaying a HSR system graphic or not. Similarly, without an understanding

of the HSR system (perceived or genuine), or perceived usefulness, a consumer is unlikely to decide to

purchase a HSR product because of its participation in the system.

Another effect on the attitude formed to the HSR system is how well the label is liked and which labels

consumers preferred. Preference is an important and separate component to understanding, because

preference for a logo can lead to a more positive evaluation of the HSR system, even when it is not

understood.8

5 Goldstein D.G., Gigerenzer, G. 2002, ‘Models of ecological rationality: the recognition heuristic’, Psychological Review,

vol. 109, issue 1, pp. 75-90.

6 Based upon Grunert and Wills, 2007.

7 Halliburton, C., Poenaru, A. 2010, ‘The role of trust in consumer relationships’, ESCP Business School.

8 Grunert and Wills 2007 citing Petty, R.E, Cacioppo, J.T. 1986, Attitudes and persuasion: classic and contemporary

approaches, Brown Co. publishers, Dubuque Iowa.


Figure 2: Conceptual framework

Click to view the text version of Figure 2.

Source: Heart Foundation; Grunert, K.G., Wills, J.M. 2007, ‘A review of European research on consumer response to

nutrition information on food labels’, Journal of Public Health, vol. 15, issue 5, pp. 385-399.

2.1.2. Decision making

Based on the attitude formation, a consumer typically decides whether to purchase a product. However, it is

possible that a person will choose to purchase a HSR product with no regard for the products participation in

the system, that is whether it is displaying a HSR system graphic or not. It is therefore important to understand

whether the products’ participation in the system has influenced the purchase.

2.2. Evaluation framework

The conceptual framework presented above outlines the elements necessary to determine whether the HSR

influences consumers’ decision to purchase a HSR product. However, the evaluation is broader than this.

The evaluation also includes monitoring implementation and evaluating outcomes beyond those associated

with the consumer, i.e. uptake and correct use by manufacturers and retailers.

Evaluation questions have been developed to address each component of the evaluation: monitoring

implementation and evaluating outcomes. The questions, and how they relate to each component of the

evaluation is illustrated in Figure 3.

Attitude

formation

Awareness

Trust Understanding

Decision

making

Influence

Purchase

PreferenceUsefulness


Figure 3: Evaluation framework

Click to view the text version of Figure 3.

Source: Heart Foundation

For each of these evaluation questions, detail on the methodology for measuring activities or impact is

outlined, including data sources and/or collection tools used.

2.2.1. What is the uptake of the HSR?

As there is no requirement for retailers or manufacturers to inform or notify a central body or agency (e.g.

Department of Health) of their participation in the HSR system, the number of products participating in the

HSR must be directly observed.

The FoodTrack™ (refer to section 2.3.1) database facilitates this by collecting the HSR status of products.

To understand how the number of products participating in the HSR compares to the number of eligible

products in the market, HSR coverage is calculated by dividing the total number of participating products by

the total number of eligible products. This is provided on an annual basis.

To further contextualise participation of HSR in relation to consumption of food products, FoodTrack™

uptake data is weighted by Nielsen sales data (refer to section 2.3.2), where sales data acts as a proxy for

consumption. The purpose of weighting is to reflect that some products have more influence on people’s

consumption than others.


2.2.2. Do manufactures comply with the HSRC and guidelines?

The HSR system is self-regulated, with manufacturers and retailers responsible for correctly using the

available tools to determine their star rating and apply to their product packaging.

Specifically, the HSRC in conjunction with the Guide for Industry is used to determine a product’s star rating

and the Style Guide for guidance on what HSR logo to use, and how to apply it to the product’s packaging.

In Year 1 and 2, when there were 363 and 2,021 products respectively participating in the HSR system, all

products were assessed for compliance. However, as participation in the HSR system grew, a sampling

approach was taken. Since Year 3, annually a sample of 500 products had their HSR independently

calculated to determine whether manufacturers are correctly calculating their HSR. Similarly, a sample of

500 products had their compliance with the Style Guide assessed using the Style Guide checklist.9

A product is deemed non-compliant against the HSRC when the calculated HSR is higher or lower than the

HSR displayed on pack.

On the the other hand, non-compliance with the Style Guide can come from specific design or technical

variations, but it is important to note that a design or technical variation does not automatically imply a

product is non-compliant.

Design variations are those that don’t change the meaning of the HSR system graphic, such as a product

displaying a combination of HSR system graphics on the front of pack (FoP) or using old versions of the HSR

system graphic.

Conversely, technical variations change the meaning of the HSR system graphic and/or content. Examples

include not placing the HSR logo on the front of the pack, mismatch in the energy/nutrient values displayed

on the logo and the NIP and the nominated reference measure (NRM) differing to the guidelines.

2.2.3. Are consumers aware of the HSR system?

Through the HSR survey tracker (see section 2.4.3), prompted and unprompted awareness of the HSR

system has been measured regularly since 2014.

Prompted awareness measured consumer awareness of the HSR system with prompting or assistance. It

consisted of directly surveying consumers whether they were aware of the HSR system or not.

Whereas unprompted awareness measured a consumer awareness without any reference to the HSR

system or assistance. Therefore, consumers were surveyed with an open-ended question asking which food

logos helped them choose to buy food in the supermarket and consumers were assessed whether they were

able to recall the HSR system. The unprompted awareness measure is a better and more valuable indicator

of awareness rather than prompted awareness as it indicates there is a stronger impression of the HSR

system that has registered in the consumers mind/thoughts.

2.2.4. Do consumers trust in the HSR system?

Consumer attitudes and perceptions of the HSR system are obtained through the HSR Tracker. Explored in

detail are consumers’ trust and credibility in the HSR system.

9 See Appendix A for Style Guide Compliance Checklist


To gain further insight into why consumers hold the views they do, the findings from the survey will be

supplemented with the findings from the focus groups (see section 2.4.5).

2.2.5. Do consumers find the HSR system useful?

A system that is not deemed relevant is unlikely to engage consumer interest or trust. Consequently,

consumer views on whether the HSR system is, or is not useful are explored through the HSR Tracker.

2.2.6. Which HSR logos do consumers prefer?

Consumer opinions of the logo play an important role in influencing consumer attitude towards the HSR

system. The presentation of the information can also impact a consumers’ ability to understand and interpret

the information on the logo.

Overall preference for HSR logos is assessed by considering which of the HSR logos consumers preferred

the most through the HSR Tracker, with a focus on specific attributes of the logos. Specifically, consumers’

views on the ease of understanding the logo, ability to recognise the logo, and the volume of information

communicated by the logo was of interest.

Consumers views are contextualised with information from FoodTrack™ on the logos used by manufacturers

and retailers to ascertain whether there is alignment between what manufacturers use and what consumers

prefer.

2.2.7. Do consumers understand the HSR?

Consumers’ understanding of the HSR system explores both their understanding of the system more

generally, such as its design and purpose, and how to use it correctly.

Consumer understanding is explored through the HSR Tracker and supplemented with insights from the

consumer focus group.

2.2.8. Does the HSR system influence consumers to make healthier choices?

The influence of the HSR system on consumers is explored through two different but complementary

approaches.

The first is through the HSR Tracker, where consumers report on the perceived influence of the HSR system

on their purchasing decisions, and whether they’ve been influenced to make healthier choices.

The second approach is through sales data (see section 2.3.2). It is hypothesised that if the HSR system

influences consumers to make healthier purchases, the sales-weighted average HSR will be higher than the

unweighted average HSR.

The sales-weighted average HSR will be constructed for Years 3 and 4, for which sales data is available,

and compared to the corresponding unweighted average HSR.

2.2.9. Has the HSR system had an impact on manufacturers’ formulation decisions?


A secondary intention of the HSR system is to encourage manufacturers to reformulate their products in

order to improve the healthiness of their products and increase their star rating.

Therefore, to assess whether there has been any change in the average HSR of products, the nutrient status

and star rating of products participating in the HSR in Year 4 is compared to their nutrient status and

(calculated) star rating in Year 1.

To determine whether the change between Years 1 and 4 is due to participation in the HSR system, a

sample (see next section) is taken of eligible, but non-participating HSR products. The star rating is

calculated for these products based on their Year 4 and Year 1 data, to determine whether there has been

any change.

The change over time for HSR products can then be compared to that of non-participating products to

ascertain whether any change over time can be attributed to participation in the HSR system.

Sampling

The first step in establishing a sample is to understand how many products in Year 4 were also in the market

in Year 1.

There were 1,802 products participating in the HSR in Year 4 that also existed in the market in Year 1,

accounting for just under 40 percent of all Year 4 HSR products.

As for non-HSR products, there were 4,130 non-participating products in the market both in Year 1 and Year

4, accounting for about one-third of all Year 4 non-HSR products.

As a result of the sampling process, there was a total sample of 319 paired HSR products and 354 paired

non-HSR products selected for analysis. The paired HSR and non-HSR samples was a representative

sample of all HSR categories.

A two one-sampled chi-square test was conducted with results confirming that the HSR and non-HSR

sample of products are representative of their respective populations in terms of HSR categories

(ꭕ2(df=75) = 0.04, p = 1.00 and ꭕ2(df=81) = 0.15, p = 1.00).

However, due to the agreed sampling methodology and lack of statistical power, results cannot be reported

at a category level and will therefore be reported at an aggregate level.10

2.3. Data sources

2.3.1. FoodTrack

FoodTrack™ is a food composition database established in June 2014 as a joint initiative between the Heart

Foundation and the Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO).

For each product collected within FoodTrack™, product information (e.g. brand, package size), nutrition

information (e.g. energy and nutrients), and participation in the HSR is recorded. Eligibility of products to

participate in the system is assessed and mapped to corresponding categories (e.g. HSR Category Class

and HSR Category Name).

10 See Figure B.1 of Appendix B for hierarchy of categories used for the HSR system.


FoodTrack™ aims to include all food products sold in supermarkets with more than 17,000 products added

to the database annually. Products are added to the database on a rolling schedule by category, with more

than 80 food and beverage categories collected over a 12-month period. Trained data collection field officers

(qualifications in nutrition and/or dietetics) populate the FoodTrack™ database on an ongoing basis by

collecting data in-store using smartphone technology.

With a systematic and comprehensive method for collecting food products, FoodTrack™ has greater than

90 percent coverage for each category within major supermarket retailers.11

To assist the monitoring and evaluation of the HSR, the functionality of FoodTrack™ has been expanded to

capture images of the HSR graphic with additional information.

Eligibility

The HSR system has been developed for use on packaged products. Nonetheless it’s not suitable for all

packaged products. Products not eligible to display the HSR system are outlined in the HSR system Style

Guide which cross references the FSC and aligns with other restrictions outlined in the Code.

It was not intended that the HSR be applied to single ingredient products and those that didn’t require a NIP.

However, over time an increasing number of manufacturers begun including the HSR system logo on these

kind of products. Examples include seasonings and herbs, packaged plain meat/seafood and unprocessed

fruit and vegetables.

Products that are either not eligible for the HSR, or not intended to display the HSR are considered outside

the scope of eligible products. However, for the purpose of the analysis undertaken for this report, where

products are not intended to display the HSR, but do, these are subsequently considered within the scope of

eligible products.

2.3.2. Sales data

Sales data is from Nielsen, a global measurement and data analytics company. Nielsen has a shopper

panel, called HomeScan®, comprises 10,000 households, which is demographically and geographically

representative of the Australian population.

Each household is provided with a handheld scanner, which is used to enter the details of all products

purchased – product, quantity, price and outlet. The information is then transmitted directly to Nielsen.

Households participate for a period of four weeks at a time. This is aggregated across all households to

provide sales data for a 12-month period, aligning with the HSR reporting periods.

The sales data is then mapped to products from the FoodTrack™ database using a unique product identifier

(i.e. stock keeping unit).

The volume of sales is used to weight each food product in the FoodTrack™ database. The purpose of

weighting is to reflect that some products have more influence than others. For example, the more people

consume of a given product, the more important that product is in terms of its contribution to food supply and

people’s diet.

For Year 3 and 4 products, sales weighted data will be used in the calculation of:

11 Major supermarket retailers include Coles, Woolworths, Aldi (since 2016) and IGA supermarkets (since 2017)


Uptake of HSR

Average HSR rating

Nutrient status of HSR and non-HSR products.

2.4. Evaluation tools

2.4.1. Style Guide

The Style Guide is the key tool available for manufacturers and retailers to know what HSR logo they can

use, and how to apply it to their product’s packaging.

Leveraging the Style Guide, a checklist has been developed as a series of yes/no questions designed to

systematically and objectively assess participating products. As the requirements for compliance vary by

HSR logo, a separate checklist has been developed for each logo, which includes five core questions

regardless of logo used.

2.4.2. HSR calculator

Using the HSRC, the star rating for HSR products was independently calculated and compared to the HSR

displayed on pack.

The star rating is only assessed for products that use a version of the HSR system graphic that involves the

star rating (i.e. not for products using the energy icon).

The majority of the information required to independently calculate the HSR is drawn from FoodTrack™,

which pulls information from the NIP and ingredients list. However, presentation of some nutrients (e.g.

Fibre) is optional under the labelling legislation and not all FVNL content can be quantified from the

ingredients list, which means there are instances where information required for the calculation of the star

rating is missing.

In Years 1 and 2, products with incomplete information were excluded from further analysis because they

accounted for less than 5 percent of all products (see Table 3). However, in Year 3 and 4 the proportion of

the sampled products with incomplete information was greater than 50 percent.

Table 3: Proportion of products with incomplete information

Year Products with missing or

incomplete information

Products eligible

for assessment

Proportion of products with missing

or incomplete information (%)

Year 1 11 320 3.4

Year 2 87 1,822 4.8

Year 3 308 543 56.7

Year 4 305 496 61.5

Source: FoodTrack™; Heart Foundation calculations

Consequently, excluding products with incomplete information from the sample in Years 3 and 4 would

potentially bias the sample and would therefore not be statistically representative of the total HSR

population. Therefore, in these circumstances, missing or incomplete information was imputed from another


equivalent product for which the information is available. Depending on the information missing, different

approaches are taken to its imputation. These approaches are outlined further below.

Managing missing fibre values

It is not mandatory that fibre be listed on the NIP for products, however, if there is more than 0.9g/100g fibre

in the product, additional points can be attracted in the calculation of the HSR.

To determine whether it is likely (or not) that a product contains more than 0.9g/100g fibre, similar products

are reviewed using the FoodTrack™ database, or the standard reference food composition database,

AUSNUT 2013.

For products considered unlikely to contain more than 0.9g/100g fibre (e.g. confectionary), the missing

value is assumed to be zero for the purposes of the star calculation.

For products considered likely to contain more than 0.9g/100g fibre (e.g. cereal) the data is imputed from

a similar generic product from the FoodTrack™ or AUSNUT 2013 database.

Where it is not possible to impute from a similar product, such as ready meals, the fibre content is

estimated by creating a recipe using the nutritional analysis software, FoodWorks Professional.

Managing missing or incomplete FVNL and/or concentrated FV values

FVNL or concentrated fruit or vegetable (FV) are estimated based on the products’ ingredients list. Products

containing at least 25 percent concentrate FV content or more than 40 percent FVNL content can attract

additional points in the calculation of the HSR. A different number of points are awarded depending on the

percent of concentrated FV and/or percent of FVNL, making it important to specify the exact percent (correct

to the whole number) of FVNL and/or concentrate FV.

Where FVNL and/or concentrated FV data is incomplete, it is sometimes possible to determine the

complete values through deduction, using the data from the remaining ingredients list

Where there is a mixture of complete and incomplete FVNL and/or concentrated FV data, minimum

quantifiable values are used.

If there is insufficient information to deduce an exact or minimum FVNL and/or concentrated FV share,

the additional points could not be calculated and therefore the products were excluded from the

analaysis.

2.4.3. HSR Tracker

A national online consumer survey12 has been conducted since September 2015, with each survey

exploring:

General supermarket shopping behaviour;

Awareness of food logos;

Knowledge and understanding of the HSR system;

Purchasing behaviour;

12 Appendix C: HSR Tracker Survey


Awareness and influence of advertising (not presented in this report); and

Attitudes and perception of the HSR system.

Since July 2017, one component of the survey is varied in each ‘wave’ of the survey, enabling the

exploration of topical areas of interest. Variable questions have covered the following topics:

Influence of advertising or promotion on thought or behaviour (July 2017)

Application of the HSR system to pre-packaged foods (November 2017)

Increasing trust in the HSR (March 2018)

Fresh/packaged foods (July 2018)

Results from previous surveys exploring these variables can be found on the HSR monitoring website here

The survey sample is nationally representative of approximately 2,500 households in each wave, stratified by

demographics and consumer characteristics, including:

Age group (under 35 years of age, 35 to 54 years of age and those aged 55 and over),

Household income per annum (less than $50,000, between $50,000 to $99,000 and $100,000 or

greater),

Gender (male or female),

Body mass index (less than 25, equal to or greater than 25 and less than 30, equal to or greater than

30),

Level of education (high school, diploma and/or tafe, or university),

Language spoken at home (English spoken only at home or language other than English spoken at

home), and

Location (respondent residing in metropolitan area or in regional/rural area).

Findings from the consumer surveys have been reported to the Department of Health on the completion of

each survey. To generate insights additional to those already reported, responses are aggregated for Years

2, 3 and 4 of the HSR system. As the sample size for each period increases (see Table 4), this provides

greater statistical power to explore how the demographic and social characteristics of respondents influence

people’s responses.

Table 4: Sample size for each survey

HSR Year 2

Period Sample

September 2015 2,036

February 2016 2,005

Total Sample: 4,041

HSR Year 3

Period Sample

July 2016 2,003

December, January, February, March 2017 2,507

April, May, June, July 2017 2,501

http://healthstarrating.gov.au/internet/healthstarrating/publishing.nsf/Content/monitoring


Total Sample: 7,010

HSR Year 4

Period Sample

August, September, October, November 2017 2,531

December, January, February, March 2018 2,514

April, May, June, July 2018 2,436

Total Sample: 7,481

2.4.4. Additional in-store collections

Historically, uptake using the FoodTrack ™ database could only be reported on an annual basis. For the

purposes of reporting uptake on more regular intervals, additional in-store collections were required. The

additional in-store collection takes place over eight consecutive weeks in major retailers,13 where product

information and HSR status is collected.

The additional in-store collection is then supplemented with retailer data from ALDI and Woolworths, which

include private label HSR products intended to display the HSR but waiting for a print run, FoodTrack ™ data

and online desktop research.

Since 2015, seven additional in-store collections have been undertaken with uptake figures reported directly

to HSRAC for the following time periods:

1. September 2015

2. January 2016

3. May 2016

4. August-September 2016

5. February-March 2017

6. August-September 2017

7. February-March 2018

The additional uptake data provides a cumulative measure of the number of products that are currently

displaying the HSR, have displayed the HSR since inception and those that intend to display the HSR in the

near future. It does not reflect the total number of products available for sale at the given timepoint.

2.4.5. Focus group

Focus groups were undertaken in July 2018 to explore in further detail consumers perceptions, opinions and

beliefs towards the HSR. Specifically, the focus group discussed:

Food claims and logos – what are they familiar with, and what impact does it have upon their behaviour;

13 Two large metropolitan Coles, Woolworths, Aldi (since 2016) and IGA supermarkets (since 2017) in Victoria.


HSR logos – what they preferred and why;

Trust in the HSR system – why do or don’t they trust the system, and what could be done to increase it;

and

Understanding the HSR – what do the stars mean, and how does or doesn’t it help to select products.

Four focus groups were held in July 2018, two in South Melbourne, Victoria (metropolitan) and two in

Traralgon, Victoria (regional). The different location of the focus groups providing a greater variety in the type

of participants, particularly in relation to socio economic status, employment status and family structure.

There were approximately six to eight participants in each focus group.


Chapter 3: What is the uptake of the HSR system?

In this section the number of products participating in the HSR system is explored

by category,

relative to eligible products, and

weighted with sales data

to gain further insight into coverage of HSR in relation to people’s consumption.

3.1. Participation in the HSR

3.1.1. Annual HSR uptake

In the first year of the HSR system, there were 363 products participating (see Chart 1). In Year 2, more than

four times as many products were participating than Year 1 (2,021). In Year 3, participation grew further,

although at a slower rate (77.5 percent). In Year 4, participation grew again, but at an even slower rate

(51.9 percent) with a total of 5,448 products displaying the HSR over the year.

Since the HSR system was introduced, a total of 7,312 products have participated in the HSR system. This

figure includes products currently dipalying the HSR, but also captures products that no longer display the

HSR or products that have been delisted. Therefore, this figure does not reflect the number of HSR products

currently in the market.

Chart 1: Participation of HSR products from FoodTrack™, by Year

Click to view text version of Chart 1.

Source: FoodTrack ™; Heart Foundation calculations

363

2,021

3,587

5,448

7,312

-

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Cumulative

Total

Part

icip

ation (

no.

of

pro

ducts

)

457.7%

77.5%

51.9%


3.1.2. Additonal in-store collection

Participation of products in the HSR system has also been measured using an additional in-store collection.

The additional in-store collection provides a cumulative measure of the number of products participating in

the HSR, while also capturing products that are anticipated to be available on shelves in the near future.

As illustrated in Chart 2, this in-store collection method shows that by March 2018, 10,333 products have

participated, are participating, or are soon to be participating in the HSR system. Participation measured

using the additional in-store collection is approximately 3,000 products more than the cumulative uptake

measure reported through FoodTrack™. This is a combination of additional products that have been

identified through the additional in-store collection which have not yet been captured in the annual

FoodTrack™ collection and the inclusion of products soon to be participating in the HSR system.

Chart 2: Participation of HSR products from additional in-store collections

Click to view the text version of Chart 2.

Source: Heart Foundation additional in-store collection; Heart Foundation calculations.

Therefore, depending on purposes of reporting, either figure may be appropriate. Both data sets are equally

valid and provide different measures of industry uptake. However, for most purposes and for the purpose of

this report, the rolling annual collection using FoodTrack™ figures will be used for analysis. It is more

definitive in reporting actual use of the HSR (i.e. doesn’t include products that are not intended to display the

HSR) and is based on a longer and more thorough in-store collection process.

3.1.3. Eligibility of uptake

Missing from both measures (section 3.1.1 and 3.1.2) is a sense of context; how does the number of

products participating in the HSR compare to the total number of products eligible for participation?

(Eligibility = products intended to display the HSR as outlined in section 2.3.1). This is provided in Chart 3

which shows the number of products participating (measured using FoodTrack™) divided by the total

number of eligible products. This shows that the proportion of products displaying the HSR system has

grown from 2.9 percent in Year 1 to 30.5 percent in Year 4.

1,526 3,024

3,956

5,560 7,048

8,400

10,333

-

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

Sep 2015 Jan 2016 May 2016 Aug-Sep2016

Feb-Mar2017

Aug-Sep2017

Feb-Mar2018

Pa

rtic

ipa

tio

n (n

o. o

f p

rod

ucts

)


Chart 3: Uptake of HSR products as a proportion of eligible products


Source: FoodTrack ™; Heart Foundation calculations

As uptake of the HSR has increased, so too has the coverage of categories. There are 83 categories14 in

total, with Year 1 products drawn from just 36 categories. Fast forward to Year 4, and the HSR now includes

products from all but two categories: Poultry – plain and Bakery fats.

3.1.4. Uptake by Category

Presented in Chart 4 is the uptake of the top five categories that have the greatest proportion of products

participating in the HSR system in Year 4. Two out of the five categories had no products participating in

Year 1 however by Year 4, they had contributed to the top five which shows that different categories had

differing trends in uptake.

14 See Figure A.1 of Appendix A for hierarchy of categories used for the HSR system.

2.9

14.6

22.7

30.5

21.8

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Total

Upta

ke (

%)


Chart 4: Proportion of products participating in the HSR system from the top five categories



Other categories that had a relatively big impact on uptake of the HSR are Confectionary and Sugar (or

artificially) sweetened beverages. These categories had the largest number of products participating in the

HSR system. They collectively accounted for 680 products and together accounted for over 12 percent of all

products participating in the HSR system in Year 4. Except for the Confectionary category in Year 4, the

proportion of products displaying the HSR for these two categories continued to increase each year (see

Chart 5).

Chart 5: Categories with the largest contribution to uptake




3.2. Sales weighted uptake

To understand the market penetration of the HSR, uptake is weighted by sales data. Sales weighted uptake

of the HSR is compared to unweighted uptake for Years 3 and 4 in Chart 6. This shows that in Year 3 there

is no difference between unweighted and sales weighted uptake, whereas in Year 4, sales weighted uptake

is statistically larger than unweighted. This suggests that in Year 4, products participating in the HSR formed

a relatively larger proproprtion of products purchased compared to non-HSR products.

Chart 6: Sales weighted HSR uptake versus unweighted HSR uptakea,b


Notes: a. HSR product sample: Year 3 n=3,461, Year 4 n=5,203; Eligible product sample: Year 3 n=14,864, Year 4

n=16,339; b. Products have been excluded from the calculation where sales data is not available.

Source: FoodTrack ™; Heart Foundation calculations; Nielsen HomeScan ®

In Year 4 at a category level, sales weighted uptake was higher for six out of ten categories. For most

categories, the change has been relatively small, increasing or decreasing between 0 to 10 percentage

points (see Chart 7).15 But for a handful of categories, the change has been significant, with a change

greater than 10 percentage points.

15 See Table D.1 of Appendix D


Chart 7: Distribution of difference between sales weighted uptake and unweighted uptake, Year 4



To observe the change in uptake at a category level in further detail, Table 5 looks at the top five categories

that had the greatest change in sales weighted uptake compared to unweighted uptake. For all five

categories, there was a change of greater than 20 percentage points. This indicates that products from these

categories displaying the HSR system were were more frequently purchased.

Table 5: Top 5 categories with greatest increase in sales weighted uptake compared to unweighted

HSR Category Uptake

Sales

weighted

Change (%

points)

Water 27.3 56.9 29.6

Pastry 15.6 41.2 25.6

Eggs 10.1 35.2 25.1

Dairy milks – plain 33.7 57.9 24.2

Butter 21.4 45.4 24.0


On the contrary and as presented in Chart 7, just over a third of categories had a lower sales weighted

uptake when compared to unweighted uptake. Table 6 presents the top five categories with the greatest

decrease in sales weighted uptake where three out of the five catgories had change of greater than 20

percentage points.

Table 6: Top 5 categories with greatest decrease in uptake and sales weighted uptake

HSR Category Uptake

Sales

weighted

Change (%

points)

Dried fruit & nut mixes 48.3 26.3 22.0

Spreads – nuts & seeds 49.4 28.2 21.2

Nut and seed bars 37.9 17.9 20.0

Fruit – plain 31.0 16.9 14.1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Greater than -20

-20 to -10 -10 to 0 0 0 to 10 10 to 20 Greater than20

Pro

port

ion o

f cate

gories (%

)

Difference in uptake (percentage points)

Decreased Increased


HSR Category Uptake

Sales

weighted

Change (%

points)

Grains – processed 32.7 19.8 12.9


3.3. How does HSR uptake compare to other front-of-pack labelling schemes?

Other FoPL schemes have previously been introduced in Australia with a similar objective to the HSR. In

2006 the industry led Daily Intake Guide (DIG) was introduced to empower consumers to make informed

choices. Results show that 78 months post implementation, the DIG appeared on over 7,200 products in all

major categories.16 This compares to 7,312 products displaying the HSR 48 months post implementation.

Chart 8 plots the uptake of the DIG and HSR at the equivalent points in time post implementation and

demonstrates that uptake of the HSR has been higher and faster.

Chart 8: Comparison in uptake of HSR system and DIG, by months post implementation


Source: FoodTrack™; Australian Food and Grocery Council

In addition, uptake of the HSR system in Australia can be compared to the same HSR system in New

Zealand. From implementation, uptake of the HSR system in Australia has been higher. In Year 2 uptake in

New Zealand had only reached 5.5 percent of eligible products compared to 14.6 percent in Australia. By

Year 4, the HSR system in Australia had nearly two times as many products as New Zealand (n=2,297) (see

Chart 9).

Chart 9: Comparison in uptake of the HSR system in Australia and New Zealand, by yeara

16 Australian Food and Grocery Council Submission to Senate Select Committee Inquiry into the Obesity Epidemic, 2018



Notes: a. The different time periods for data collection varies between the two databases. The New Zealand Nutritrack

database annual data collection occurs from February to April each year therefore results need to be interpreted with

caution

Source: FoodTrack™; The National Institute for Health Innovation (New Zealand)

3.4. Drivers of uptake in participation

At an aggregate level, the key driver of uptake was the participation of large retailers, who expanded the

HSR across their suite of products. This can be seen at both the category level, and at the system as a

whole.

The key players that have driven uptake are the private label retailers: Coles, Woolworths and Aldi. As

illustrated in Chart 10 the three private label retailers account for over half of all products participating in the

HSR system.


Chart 10: Coverage of Private labels



The growth of HSR products among private labels increased from Year 1 to Year 2 as Woolworths expanded

its coverage 9-fold, and Coles 4-fold to each cover approximately one-third of their eligible products (27

percent and 36 percent respectively). This increase continued in Year 3. However, by Year 4, the overall

coverage of private labels decreased by 2.59 percentage points. In Year 4, the proportion of Private Label –

Coles and Woolworths products had decreased (compared to Year 3 proportions) in contrast to Private Label

– Aldi which increased by 2-fold.

As the private label retailers expanded the number of their products participating in the HSR, they have also

driven overall growth in the number of products participating in the HSR system. This is illustrated in Chart

11 which shows the proportion of growth in HSR products attributed to the participation of private labels.

Chart 11: Proportion of growth in HSR due to growth in private labels, by HSR year


Source: Heart Foundation calculations; FoodTrack™

59.5 60.3 51.4

-

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Year 2 Year 3 Year 4

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

SR

gro

wth

(%

)


In addition to the three private label retailers previously discussed, a further 12 manufacturers (participating

in Year 3 and 4, out of a total 97 and 134 manufacturers respectively) contributed to more than 80 percent of

products participating in the HSR system (see Table 7).

Table 7: Proportion of products participating by manufacturer and year

Manufacturer Year 1 (%) Year 2 (%) Year 3 (%) Year 4 (%)

Arnott’s Biscuits - 0.2 1.0 1.1

Cereal Partners Australia 15.4 3.6 1.8 1.5

Coca-Cola Amatil - 0.8 1.9 2.4

HJ Heinz Company Australia 3.0 1.9 1.2 1.1

Kellogg (Aust) - 2.9 1.8 1.4

Lion – Dairy & Drinks 5.5 3.6 2.5 2.5

Mars Chocolate Australia - - 0.9 1.1

Nestle Australia 0.8 4.9 4.1 3.1

Private Label – Aldi - 1.1 5.0 10.2

Private Label – Coles 36.4 29.9 29.8 25.2

Private Label – Woolworths 14.0 26.9 24.2 21.0

Sanitarium Health Foods Company 4.4 4.1 2.6 1.7

Schweppes Australia - - 0.2 1.2

Simplot Australia 0.6 4.4 4.7 5.5

Unilever Australasia - 1.1 2.5 2.2

Total Contribution 80.2 85.4 84.2 81.1

Source: FoodTrack™; Heart Foundation calculation

The pattern of uptake of the HSR may provide learnings to other countries that are interested in introducing

or attempting to increase participation in voluntary FoPL scheme; participation of large retailers and

manufacturers is instrumental to delivering rapid uptake of the scheme.

3.5. Concluding comments

Uptake of the HSR in Australia has been rapid when compared to uptake of one other FoPL scheme

introduced in Australia, or the uptake of the HSR system in New Zealand.

Uptake of the HSR has been increasing year on year, with large retailers being the key driver of growth.

However, since Year 2 the rate of growth in participation has declined.

Sales weighted uptake is larger than unweighted uptake in Year 4. This tells us that the market penetration

of the HSR system is greater than understood by considering unweighted uptake alone.

`


Chapter 4: Do manufacturers comply with the HSRC and guidelines?

The objective of this chapter is to report on manufacturers and retailers’ compliance with the system by

assessing whether the HSR is displayed correctly with outlined design specifications, and the HSR value

displayed is true and accurate.

4.1. Style Guide compliance

Using the Style Guide assessment checklist, products are systematically and objectively assessed for design

and technical variations. Design variations don’t change the meaning of the HSR system graphic and/or

content, however they may create confusion, and the information displayed could be misleading. On the

contrary, a technical variation can change the meaning of the HSR system graphic.

Presented in Chart 12 is the proportion of products that have design or technical variations based on the

sampling approach undertaken (see section 2.2.2). This shows that the proportion of overall variations were

at their lowest in Year 4. Chart 12 also shows that the majority of variations are design variations and the

proportion of technical variations decreased each year.

Chart 12: Proportion of technical and design variations, by yeara


Notes: a. Sample: Year 1 n=382, Year 2 n=2,109, Year 3 n=628, Year 4 n=520


The most common design variation in Year 1 was a combination of HSR logos displayed on pack. That is,

one product displayed two out of the five HSR system graphics available. In many cases it was an Option 1-

4 accompanied by the energy icon being (Option 5). This variation accounted for 80.8 percent of design

variations (see Chart 13). However, this type of variation declined over time, and by Year 4 the most

common design variation was the placement of a second HSR logo with a varying design on the back of

pack (34.1 percent). In Year 4 the second most common design variation was the rounding of nutrient values

`


to the incorrect decimal place – the Style Guide requires that nutrients measured in grams be reported to

one decimal place and nutrients measured in milligrams be reported as a whole number.17

Chart 13: Type of design variation, by yeara


Notes: a. Sample: Year 1 n=26, Year 2 n=190, Year 3 n=61, Year 4 n=41


As illustrated in Chart 14, the incorrect NRM is the most common technical variation. This error is specific to

beverages and confectionary products which are required by system guidance to use the industry agreed

standardised serve size. As the intention of the NRM is to ensure that consumers’ dietary intake is in

alignment with the Australian Dietary Guidelines (ADG), use of the incorrect NRM amongst these categories

can lead to excess intake of energy dense and relatively nutrient-poor foods.18

17 See Table D.2 of Appendix D for distribution of products with a design variation

18 See Table D.3 of Appendix D for distribution of products with a technical variation

80.8

31.1 37.7

17.1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4

Pro

port

ion o

f pro

ducts

with d

esig

n

va

riatio

n (%

)

Combination of HSR logoson FoP

Second logo on back of pack

Nutrient value expressed to incorrect decimal place

16.8 1.6

34.1


17.9 27.9 26.8


`


Chart 14: Type of technical variation by Yeara


Notes: Sample: Year 1 n=31, Year 2 n=148, Year 3 n=28, Year 4 n=21


Through the identification of design and technical variations, compliance (or otherwise) with the Style Guide

can be determined. While some products may be classified as having design or technical variations, it does

not automatically imply that the product is non-compliant. Non-compliance is determined from specific

technical variations where the HSR displayed is classified as an error and/or inconsistent with Style Guide.

As illustrated in Chart 15, in every year since implementation more than nine in every ten products have

been compliant with the Style Guide. In Year 1, compliance with the HSR Style Guide was at 92.7 percent of

products participating. This has increased over time and by Year 4, compliance reached 95.8 percent.

Chart 15: Compliance with the HSR Style Guidea


Notes: a. Sample: Year 1 n=382, Year 2 n=2,109, Year 3 n=628, Year 4 n=520


64.5

35.8

60.7

33.3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


Pro

po

rtio

n o

f p

rod

ucts

with

te

ch

nic

al

va

ria

tio

n (%

)

Incorrect NRM %DI displayed differs to guidelines

9.7

23.0

3.6

19.0


92.7 94.4 95.7 95.8

0

20

40

60

80

100


Pro

po

rtio

n o

f p

rod

ucts

(%

)

`


4.2. Assessment against the HSR Calculator

To assess whether manufacturers and retailers are correctly calculating their star rating, a sample of

products have had their star rating independently calculated. This assessment shows that compliance is

greater than 90 percent, although there has been a decline in compliance since Year 1 (see Chart 16).

Chart 16: Compliance of products with the HSR calculatora


Notes: a. Sample: Year 1 n= 320, Year 2 n=1,822, Year 3 n=543, Year 4 n=496


Where a product doesn’t comply, it can be due to the star rating displayed on pack being higher or lower

than independently calculated. With the exception of Year 4, more manufacturers and retailers are

understating their HSR than overstating it (see Chart 17), and cumulatively over the four years, the same

pattern has been observed.

Chart 17: Proportion of products displaying the HSR system with star rating over or understateda


Notes: a. Sample: Year 1 n= 320, Year 2 n=1,822, Year 3 n=543, Year 4 n=496.


98.1 97.1 92.4 89.7

0

20

40

60

80

100


Pro

port

ion

of

pro

du

cts

(%)

1.9

1.6

4.8

5.0

0510

Understated Overstated

Proportion of products (%)

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Year 4

1.0

2.8

5.2

0 5 10

`


Across all years, the proportion of products with a calculated HSR that differed to that displayed on pack was

generally over or understated by 0.5 stars. This is illustrated in Chart 18 which presents the distribution of

products that have over or understated the star rating.

Chart 18: Distribution of over and understated HSR calculations, by Yeara


Notes: a. Sample: Year 1 n= 6, Year 2 n=49, Year 3 n=41, Year 4 n=51.



Compliance with the HSR Style Guide is over 90 percent for products each year. And despite Year 4 with a

slight decline, compliance with the HSRC was also at almost 90 percent.

Over the four years, misalignment between the HSR calculated and that on pack has been driven by both

under and overstatement of the HSR, suggesting there is no systematic bias towards overstating a products

star rating.

-

10

20

30

40

50

60

2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

Pro

port

ion o

f pro

ducts

m

ism

atc

hed (%

)

Year 4

Year 3

Year 2

Year 1

Understated Overstated

`


Chapter 5: Are consumers aware of the HSR system?

Consumer awareness can be broken into prompted and unprompted awareness, with unprompted

awareness indicating a greater awareness (see section 2.2.3).

To ascertain whether demographic or social characteristics are associated with awareness (or lack thereof),

additional analyses are undertaken.

5.1. Consumer awareness

Consumers were asked about their awareness of different logos that help customers choose food to buy in

supermarkets (unprompted). By Year 4, 20.2 percent of consumers recalled the HSR, only 3 percentage

points behind the Heart Foundation Tick, and this was a 61.8 perecent increase from Year 2 (see Chart 19).

In comparison, during the same period, unprompted awareness of Australian Made logo has increased just

5.3 percent and the Heart Foundation Tick has fallen by 35.6 percent.

Chart 19: Unprompted awareness of food logosa


Notes: a. Sample: Year 2 n=4,041, Year 3 n=7,012, Year 4 n=7,481.

Source: Heart Foundation HSR Tracker

Prompted awareness of the HSR has steadily increased over time. By Year 4, four out of every five

consumers were aware of the HSR. This is up from 56.8 percent in Year 2, which is an increase of

46.6 percent (see Chart 19).

`


Chart 20: Prompted awareness of the HSRa




5.1.1. Which consumers are more likely to be aware of the HSR system?

This section looks at whether awareness of the HSR differs signifcantly by socio demographic characteristics

of the consumer.

At an individual level, females (compared to males), younger consumers (compared to those 55 years and

older), those who are university educated (compared to high school or tafe/diploma), and those with a BMI in

the healthy weight range (compared to overweight or obesity), are significantly more likely to be aware of the

HSR, be that prompted or unprompted.22,23

At a household level, those with a higher household income (greater than $50,000 compared to less than

$50,000), and households with children (compared to without children) are significantly more likely to be

aware of the HSR, be that prompted or unprompted.19,20

These findings are similar to those observed in other studies of FoPL schemes, which also find that women,

those on higher incomes and those who have attained a higher level of education are most likely to report

awareness of labels.21



21 Cowburn, G., Stockley, L. 2005, ‘Consumer understanding and use of nutrition labelling: A systematic review’, Public

Health Nutrition, vol. 8, issue 1.

56.8

74.0 83.3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Pro

port

ion o

f consum

ers

(%

)

`


Studies have found that parents of children living at home are more interested in nutrition, which likely

explains the greater awareness for persons from households with children.22

The fact that people with a BMI in the healthy weight range are more likely to be aware of the HSR system

suggests there may be an element of ‘preaching to the converted’ with FoPL, as those who look at health

labels are more likely to be health conscious. However, it is important to note that this phenomenon is not

unique to the HSR23 and is a challenge common to the design of many programs or interventions attempting

to engage the unengaged.24


Consumer awareness of the HSR continues to increase. The demographic profile of those most likely to be

aware of the HSR are similar to those of other studies of FoPL schemes, however, it raises some concern

that awareness is lower for consumers that are overweight and obese than those with normal BMI, who

could potentially benefit the most from the system in terms of making healthier food choices.

22 Cowburn, G., Stockley, L. 2005, ibid.

23 European Food Information Council 2012, EUFIC reviews European evidence on whether nutrition labelling has

helped encourage healthy eating, https://www.eufic.org/en/healthy-living/article/eufic-reviews-european-evidence-on-

whether-nutrition-labelling-has-helped-e, accessed 1 October 2018.

24 Shaw, A.E., Miller, K.K. 2016, ‘Preaching to the converted? Designing wildlife programs to engage the unengaged’,

Applied Environmental Education and Communication, vol. 15, issue 3.

https://www.eufic.org/en/healthy-living/article/eufic-reviews-european-evidence-on-whether-nutrition-labelling-has-helped-e

https://www.eufic.org/en/healthy-living/article/eufic-reviews-european-evidence-on-whether-nutrition-labelling-has-helped-e

`


Chapter 6: Attitude formation

Unlike other chapters in this report which present a singular evaluation question, in this chapter all the

evaluation questions related to attitude formation are presented together. Each evaluation question is

addressed in turn, with concluding remarks used to bring together the findings of each of the evaluation

questions to provide insight into consumers’ attitude towards the HSR system.

6.1. Do consumers trust in the HSR system?

Trust in the HSR system is a crucial element of attitude formation, as without it, consumers will be hesitant to

make a purchase based on a product’s HSR status. To understand consumers’ sentiments on the HSR

system, consumers were asked directly through the HSR Tracker how strongly they agree that the HSR

system is one they trust and perceive as credible.

As illustrated in Chart 21, by Year 4 almost six in every ten consumers trust the system, and even more find

it credible. Also illustrated in Chart 21 is the growth in trust and credibility over time; 8.0 percent per annum

for trust, and 5.4 percent per annum for credibility.

Chart 21: Proportion of consumers that trust in the HSR systema

Click to view the text version Chart 21.



Findings from the focus groups convey participants generally trusted the HSR system. There was recognition

that the HSR provides a quick easy reference on the healthiness (or otherwise) when buying a product.

Some participants also highlighted that its placement on products they trust is the reason they trust the HSR

system.

Credibility of the system is one area that received more vocal criticism in the focus group, particularly from

those who take a stronger interest in nutrition. These participants had their own understanding of

healthy/unhealthy, which lead them to disagree with the star rating for some products. For example, one

`


participant felt that the star rating for yoghurt is too low, while the star rating for certain breakfast cereals is

too high. For this participant, this undermined the credibility of the system as a whole.

Perceived confidence in the HSR system is presented in Chart 22 and shows that confidence in the HSR has

increased significantly over the three years. In Year 2 the majority of consumers were not confident in the

system, however; confidence had increased to just over half in Year 3, and then further again to almost 70

percent in Year 4.

This may suggest that as consumers have had greater exposure to the HSR system, their level of

confidence has correspondingly grown.

Chart 22: Confidence in the HSR systema




6.1.1. Who trusts the system?

To understand whether demographics or household characteristics have any influence over who is more

likely to trust the HSR system, for those who said they trusted the HSR system, their characteristics were

explored.

At an individual level, males (compared to females), those who are university educated (compared to high

school or Tafe/diploma), those with a BMI in the healthy weight range (compared to overweight or obese),

are significantly more likely to trust the HSR system.

At a household level, those with children at home (compared to households without children), those that

speak a language other than English (compared to English speaking households), those that live in

metropolitan regions (compared to rural regions), and those with higher household income (greater than

$50,000 compared to less than $50,000) are significantly more likely to trust the HSR system.25


`


6.2. Do consumers find the HSR system useful?

Consumer attitudes towards the HSR system are a reflection of the relevance and usefulness of the system

to an individual or household.

The HSR system is intended to make it easier for consumers to compare products and make healthier

choices. Most consumers agree that the HSR system makes identifying healthier products easier (see Chart

23), however, some consumers don’t feel the HSR adds value. Over one in four consumers reported that

the HSR is just another thing on a pack that makes shopping more confusing.

Chart 23: Usefulness of the HSR, proportion of consumers that agree or strongly agreea




6.2.1. To whom is the HSR system the most useful?

To understand whether demographics or household characteristics have any influence over who is more

likely to perceive the HSR system as useful, their characteristics were explored.

HSR 'makes it easier for me to identify the healthier option within a category’

At an individual level, consumers aged 55 years and older are statistically more likely than younger

consumers to report the HSR helps them to identify healthier options.

At a household level, those with children are more likely to agree the HSR assists them in identifying

healthier options than households without children. Also, households with higher income (greater than

$50,000 compared to less than $50,000) are significantly more likely to report the HSR assists them in

identifying healthier options.26

HSR ‘helps me make decisions about which foods to buy’


76.8

65.3

28.2

0 20 40 60 80 100

Makes it easier for me to identify the healthieroption within a category

Helps me make decisions about which foods tobuy

It’s just another thing on a pack that makes shopping more confusing

Proportion of consumers (%)

`


At an individual level, consumers with a BMI in the healthy weight range (compared to overweight or obese)

are more likely to report HSR helps them to decide about what to buy than consumers in the overweight or

obese range.27

At a household level, those with a higher income (greater than $50,000 compared to less than $50,000) are

significantly more likely to report the HSR helps them to decide about which foods to buy.

6.3. Do consumers understand how to use and interpret the HSR?

The objective of the HSR system is to make it easier for consumers to compare packaged products and

make healthier choices. As illustrated in Chart 24, when unprompted, more than half of consumers

understand that the HSR provides a rating to the healthiness of the product upon which it appears,

increasing significantly in Year 4.


`


Chart 24: Unprompted understanding that HSR is rating or guide to the healthiness of a producta

Click to view the text version chart 24.



In rating the healthiness of individual products in a standardised way, the HSR system facilitates comparison

of products participating in the HSR system. This is understood by consumers, with more than seven in

every ten consumers agreeing (or strongly agreeing) that the HSR makes it easier to compare products (see

Chart 25).This proportion of consumers was quite consistent throughout the years.

Chart 25: Proportion of consumers that agree the HSR makes it easier compare productsa


Notes: a. Sample: Year 2, n=2,297; Year 3, n=5,191; Year 4, n=6,233.


Less well understood is that participation in the HSR system is voluntary, or that it was developed by the

Australian, state and territory governments in collaboration with industry, public health and consumer groups.

This was a finding from the focus groups. In fact, some participants had assumed that it was licenced and

that manufacturers pay to have the HSR on their products. Once participants had a greater understanding of

the system, the majority thought it should be compulsory across all packaged products. It was stated that this

54.0 53.6 55.8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


Pro

pro

rtio

n of consum

ers

(%

)

72.3 71.1 72.3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


Pro

pro

rtio

n of consum

ers

(%

)

`


would provide greater transparency as to the healthiness of all products and improve the ability to compare

all products.

6.3.1. Understanding the ‘stars’

While consumers have a general understanding that the star rating is an indication of the healthiness of the

product, it is necessary that consumers understand how to interpret the number of stars correctly. That is,

the higher the number of stars, the healthier the product, and conversely, the lower the stars the less healthy

the product.

Most consumers understand that a product with five stars is the healthiest choice, and a product with one

star, the least (see Chart 26).

Chart 26: Consumer understanding of one versus five starsa




6.3.2. Understanding what can be compared

As outlined earlier, there is a good understanding that the HSR system can be used to compare products.

However, comparison should only be made between similar products.

According to the HSR Tracker, this nuance is not well understood; more than half of consumers mistakenly

agree (or strongly agree) that it can be used for comparison across different food categories (HSR

Category). This is illustrated in Chart 27.

During the focus groups participants were presented with pairs of products and asked whether they could or

would compare the HSR on the products. In this environment, participants exhibited an understanding that

the HSR should only be compared for similar products.

83.2 86.7 88.3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Pro

port

ion o

f consum

ers

(%

)

5 star = most healthy 1 star = least healthy

86.5 84.2 88.7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


`


Chart 27: Understanding of the HSR systema




6.3.3. Using the HSR system

Reflecting consumers’ understanding of the HSR system, the largest proportion of consumers said they

would use the HSR system to compare products (27.2 percent) (see Chart 28). A further 19.0 percent would

use it as a general or quick guide to determine the healthiness of a food product.

Chart 28: Use of the HSR, Year 4a


Notes: a. Sample: n=6,233; b. From 2016 onwards.


72.3 71.1 72.3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Pro

port

ion o

f consum

ers

(%

)

Easier to compare products of same category

57.9 57.1 58.2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Easier to compare products of different category

27.2

19.0

12.9

12.9

9.0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Comparing products/betterchoice

General/quick guide tohealthiness

Wouldn't use it

The more stars the better/healthier

Looking at it/checking thenutritional value


b

`


6.4. Which HSR logo do consumers prefer?

6.4.1. Preferred HSR logo

There are five different variations of the HSR logo that can be displayed on pack. Consumers were asked

directly which logo they prefer. As illustrated in Chart 28, most consumers prefer Option 1 (63.3 percent),

followed by Option 4 (21.1 percent).

Chart 29: Overall preference of HSR logo, Year 4a


Notes: a. Sample: n=6,233


For those that prefer Option 1, the main reason is because it provides the most detailed information, while

those that prefer Option 4 do so because it is simple and uncomplicated.28

The conflicting preference for lots of information (Option 1) or simplicity (Option 4) reflects the complexity of

consumer preferences, as found in other studies.29 Some consumers prefer the nutrient information provided

by Option 1, as consumers look more closely at nutrients they are trying to avoid.30 Conversely, some

consumers find the nutrient information difficult to interpret, and that it increases the cognitive load

associated with the logo.31

As most consumers preferred the detailed information provided by Option 1, it could be hypothesised that

consumers would also appreciate the detailed information provided by Options 2 and 3, over Option 4. This


29 Campos, S. et al 2010, op cit.

30 Campos, S et al 2010 citing Shine A., O’Reily, S., O’Sullivan, K. 1997, ‘Consumer use of nutrition labels’, British Food

Journal, vol. 99, no.8

31 Campos, S. et al 2010, op cit

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Pro

port

ion o

f consum

ers

(%

)

Option 1

Option 3

Option 2

Option 4

Option 5

`


was put to participants of focus groups, which reported that they liked ‘to have either lots of the detailed

information (Option 1) or none (Option 4). Participants felt that Option 2 and 3 were compromises that didn’t

deliver on the benefits of either Option 1 or 4.

6.4.2. Consumers preferred attributes for HSR logos

To understand consumers’ preference, consumers were surveyed to ascertain which logo is easiest to

understand, easiest to recognise and which logo provides the most appropriate/preferred level of

information. Consumer preferences have been brought together into one chart to provide an overall picture

of which logo has the best combination.

Consumers were most likely to choose Option 1 when asked which logo provides sufficient information,

followed by Option 4. Consumers were also most likely to report Option 1 was the easiest to understand.

However, Option 4 was most likely to be voted ‘easiest to recognise’, followed by Option 1.

`


Chart 30: Consumer preference for HSR logos, Year 4a


Notes: a. Sample: n=6,233


6.4.3. Have preferences changed over time?

As illustrated in Chart 31, there has been a notable shift in preferences towards Option 4 for its ease of

recognition. There has also been a small shift in preference for Option 4, over Option 1, for ease of

understanding. But overall, preference for Option 1 was, and is, higher than Option 4.

`


Chart 31: Consumer preference for Option 1 and 4 over timea




6.4.4. Which logos do manufacturers use?

Presented in Chart 32 is the proportion of products displaying the different HSR logo options. This shows

that in Year 4, the most common logo on packs is Option 4, with almost four in every ten using the option.

`


Chart 32: Distribution of logos displayed across HSR products, Year 4a


Notes: a. Sample: n=6,223.


Looking at the proportion of logos on products since Year 1 shows that there has been a significant shift over

time (see Chart 33). In Year 1, Option 1 was the most common, but by Year 4 it was the least common.

Chart 33: Distribution of logos displayed across HSR products over timea


Notes: a. Sample: Year 1 n=362, Year 2 n=2,021, Year 3 n=601, Year 4 n=507.


5.1

23.1

17.0

38.9

14.8

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Pro

port

ion o

f H

SR

pro

ducts

(%

)

Option 1

Option 2

Option 3

Option 4

Option 5

`


In Year 2 the Heart Foundation undertook consultations with industry, which included exploring the rationale

for selecting logos.32 Manufacturers and retailers reported that the most important factor when deciding on a

logo was the size of the package and available space. Given the prevalence of Option 4 and 5 (54.3

percent), this suggests that the significant shift away from Option 1 may be due to lack of available space on

the package.

During industry consultations, simplicity was another important consideration identified. Manufacturers and

retailers highlighted that ‘simple was better’, in recognition that FoP ‘real estate’ is limited, and that too much

information can overwhelm consumers and dilute the message. This reflects the literature which finds simple

labels promote more accurate nutrition judgements on unhealthy products.33

6.4.5. Do consumer preferences match logos on packs?

Based on the HSR Tracker and uptake data, there is limited alignment between what HSR logos consumers

prefer to see on packs, and what manufacturers place on packs. As illustrated in Chart 34, this is particularly

the case for Option 1, which is most preferred by consumers (63.3 percent) but is used least on packs

(5.2 percent) in Year 4.

32 National Heart Foundation of Australia 2017, Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating

system in first two years of implementation: June 2014 to June 2016, commissioned by the Commonwealth Department

of Health.


`


Chart 34: Consumer preferences compared to logos on pack, Year 4a


Notes: a. Sample: n=507.


The misalignment between consumer preferences and logos on packs has been prevalent since the HSR

Tracker commenced in Year 2. This is illustrated in Chart 35 which shows that the gap between consumer

preference and logos displayed on pack has grown over time for Option 1.

Chart 35: Option 1 – consumer preference compared to logos displayed on packa


Notes: a. Consumers preference sample: Year 2 n=2,297, Year 3 n=5,191, Year 4 n=6,233; Displayed on pack sample:

Year 2 n=2,021, Year 3 n=601, Year 4 n=507


5.2

23.4

17.2

39.3

15.0

01020304050

Proportion of packs (%)

On packs Preferred by consumers


Option 5

63.3

9.8

4.9

21.1

0.9

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Option 4

Option 3

Option 2

Option 1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


Pro

port

ion o

f pro

ducts

(%

)

Consumerspreference

Displayed onpack

`



Trust in the HSR system amongst consumers and the perception the HSR is a credible system continues to

increase, both reaching their peak in Year 4.

Most consumers know how the system works, that is, they can interpret the number of stars correctly. Almost

three quarters of consumers also have a good understanding that the HSR system makes it easier to

compare products. However, comparison should only be made between similar products. This level of detail

is not well understood, with more than half of consumers agreeing that the HSR can be used for comparison

across different food categories (HSR Category).

A large proportion of consumers find the HSR system useful in identifying the healthier option and also in

making purchasing decisions.

Overall, consumers prefer Option 1, which provides the star rating and additional nutrient information.

However, this is the least common logo placed on products by manufacturers.

`


Chapter 7: Does the HSR system influence consumers to make healthier choices?

The HSR has the objective of assisting consumers to make healthier choices. In this section we explore the

influence of the HSR on consumers when making purchases, and whether this is leading to consumers

making healthier choices.

7.1. Does the HSR influence consumer choices?

In Year 4, the majority of consumers (69.5 percent) reported purchasing a HSR product in the last three

months. The proportion of consumers who recalled purchasing a HSR product has increased by greater than

40 percent compared to Year 2 (Chart 36).

Chart 36: Purchase of HSR products over the past 3 monthsa




Of these consumers, almost two thirds (64.4 percent) stated that the HSR status of the product influenced

their decision (Chart 37). With increasing awareness of the HSR system, consumers were more likely to

state the HSR influenced their decision when purchasing food products, significantly higher in Year 3 and

Year 4 compared to Year 2 (Chart 36).

`


Chart 37: Influence of HSR on purchasesa


Notes: a. Sample: Year 2 n=1,115, Year 3 n=3,358, Year 4 n=4,330


Just over half of consumers in Year 4 who had either not purchased a HSR product or had but weren’t

influenced by the HSR status of the product stated that the HSR status is likely to influence their choice

when purchasing food in the future (see Chart 38).

Chart 38: Proportion very likely or likely to be influenced by the HSR in the futurea




However, as illustrated in Chart 38, the proportion of consumers stating they are likely (or very likely) to be

influenced in the future has decreased significantly overtime.

71.0 60.2

53.0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Pro

port

ion o

f consum

ers

(%

)

`


This decrease is strongly negatively correlated with an increase in the proportion of consumers having made

a recent purchase of a HSR product (r=-0.98, p<0.05). This suggests that consumers who have previously

indicated they are likely (or very likely) to purchase a HSR product in the future have followed through on

their intention to act, thereby reducing the remaining people likely to make a future purchase.

7.1.1. Who does the HSR influence?

At an individual level, males (compared to females), Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (compared

to non-Indigenous population), those who are university educated (compared to high school or

Tafe/diploma), those with a BMI in the healthy weight range (compared to overweight or obese), are

significantly more likely to report the HSR system influenced their purchasing decisions.

At the household level, those that live in metropolitan regions (compared to rural regions), those that speak a

language other than English (compared to English speaking households), and those with higher annual

household income (greater than $50,000 compared to less than $50,000) are significantly more likely to

report the HSR system influenced their purchasing decisions.34

The influence of the HSR by demographic and household characteristics largely reflects the purchasing

pattern which can be found from the latest survey results here. The one clear exception to this is younger

people. While younger people (under 35 years of age) are more likely to purchase a HSR product than older

people (35 years and over), they are not more likely to report the HSR system influenced their purchasing

decisions.

7.2. How does the HSR influence?

Reflecting upon how consumers are influenced by the HSR, just over 50 percent of consumers who

purchased a HSR products stated that it influenced them to purchase a product with a higher HSR that they

have never tried, or don’t usually purchase (see Chart 39). The remaining stated that the HSR status

confirmed their usual purchase.


http://healthstarrating.gov.au/internet/healthstarrating/publishing.nsf/Content/474CBBEC911CFF01CA25803A007E7B2B/$File/HSR-Area-of-Enquiry-2-Wave-5-July-2018.pdf

`




Notes: a. Sample: Year 2 n=641, Year 3 n=2,136, Year 4 n=2,790.


7.2.1. Sales weighting of HSR purachases

To investigate whether this means consumers are making healthier purchases in practice, the sales

weighted average HSR is compared to the unweighted average HSR. If the HSR is a factor contributing to

consumers purchasing healthier products (i.e. a product with a higher HSR), it is anticipated that the sales-

weighted average HSR will be higher than the unweighted average HSR.

Presented in Chart 40 is the sales weighted average HSR and unweighted average HSR for products

participating in Year 3 and 4. This shows that there is minimal difference in the sales weighted HSR

compared to the unweighted HSR for either Year 3 or Year 4

`


Chart 40: Sales weighted average HSR versus unweighted average HSR,a Year 3 and Year 4b


Notes: a. Only products for which sales data is available and sufficiently robust are included in the calculation. Where the

RSE of a product is greater than 25 percent they are excluded from the calculation; b. Sample: Year 3 n=2,371, Year 4

n=3,372.

Source: FoodTrack™; Heart Foundation calculations; Nielsen HomeScan®

These findings conclude that more than half of consumers who purchased a HSR product stated that they

were influenced by the HSR to choose healthier products, however this is not yet reflected in the purchasing

behaviour of all consumers that are purchasing HSR products.

7.2.2. Change in purchasing behaviours for healthier products

To investigate the overall proportion of consumers who purchased a product with more stars, analysis was

conducted on those who purchased a HSR product (69.5% of consumers, Chart 36), regardless of whether

the HSR influenced the purchase or not.

It is important to note that findings in this section differ to the result in Chart 39 as it solely focuses on

consumers purchasing behaviours irrespective of influence as opposed to how the HSR has influenced

consumers.

As illustrated in Chart 41, consistently over the three years, there was a greater proportion of consumers

(two third of consumers who purchased a HSR product in the last three months) who reported that the HSR

had made no change to their purchases, that is, they were uninfluenced by the HSR or the HSR confirmed

their usual purchase.

The remaining proportion of consumers who purchased a HSR product had changed their purchasing

behaviour. From Year 3, one in three consumers were influenced by the HSR system and purchased a HSR

product with a higher star rating.

`


Chart 41: Composition of those who purchased a HSR product with more stars, by year a,b


Notes: a. Sample: Year 2 n= 1,115, Year 3 n=3,358, Year 4 n=4,330; b. Includes those respondents who were ‘unsure’.

Source: Heart Foundation calculations; Heart Foundation HSR Tracker

Therefore, when looking at it at an overall population level, 23.4 percent of consumers had made changes to

their purchasing behaviours by purchasing a HSR product with more stars, see Chart 42.

Chart 42: Composition of population who purchased a HSR product with more stars by influence, Year 4a,b

Click to view the text version Chart 42.

Notes: a. Sample: Year 4 n=6,223; b. Includes those respondents who were ‘unsure’

Source: Heart Foundation calculations; Heart Foundation HSR Tracker

`



Of those consumers who had purchased a HSR product, one third were influenced by the HSR to change

their purchasing behaviour. That is 23.4 percent of all consumers had changed their purchasing behaviour

by purchasing a product with more stars.

`


Chapter 8: Has the HSR system had an impact on reformulation?

The objective of this chapter is to analyse the nutrients and star rating of HSR products from Year 1 to Year

4 and determine whether they have changed over time. Furthermore, if there has been a change, analysis

was conducted to assess whether it can be attributed to participation in the HSR system.

To this end, a sample of products not participating in the HSR system is analysed and the change over time

is compared to HSR products.

8.1. Has the star rating changed over time?

In Year 1, the most common star rating was 4.0 (32.3 percent), and the average HSR was 3.8 (see Chart

43). Since then, a wider range of products have joined the HSR, which has led to more products with a lower

star rating, and a corresponding decrease in the average HSR.

In Year 4, a star rating of 4.0 was still the most common, but it accounted for 22.4 percent – almost 10

percentage points lower than in Year 1. The increase in more products with a lower star rating saw the

average HSR fall to 3.4 in Year 4.

Chart 43: Proportion of HSR products by year and star rating, and average HSRa,b


Notes: a. Sample Year 1 n=331, Year 2 n=1,907, Year 3 n=3,225, Year 4 n=4,617; b. See Table D.11 of Appendix D for

data.


To assess the change in proportion of products displaying a HSR, it was identified that 77.7 percent of

products in Year 1 displayed a HSR with ratings of 3.0 to 5.0 stars however, by Year 4, this had decreased

-

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

-

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Ave

rag

e H

SR

0.5 1 1.5 2

2.5 3 3.5 4

4.5 5 Average HSR

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

SR

pro

ducts

by

sta

r ra

tin

g (%

)

`


to 63.1 percent. Therefore, this confirms that the superficial appearance of HSR products becoming less

healthy over time is likely driven by new products with lower HSRs joining the system.

8.2. Have the nutrients in HSR products changed over time?

As the average HSR decreased over time, further analysis was conducted to consider whether the nutrient

content in HSR products have changed, therefore attention was focused on the negative nutrients (energy,

saturated fat, total sugars and sodium). These nutrients are considered in the calculation of the star rating,

and are the key nutrients that consumers look for on front of pack.35

Therefore, the average nutrient content of Year 1 and Year 4 HSR products were compared. As illustrated in

Chart 44, average saturated fat, sodium and sugar (per 100g or 100mL) in HSR products are higher in Year

4 than Year 1. Superficially at least, it appears that the HSR products have become less healthy over the last

four years. However, it is likely that new products with a lower HSR joining the HSR system are the driver of

change as opposed to existing products adding saturated fat, sodium and sugar.


`


Chart 44: Change in average nutrient content for HSR productsa


Notes: a. Sample: Year 1 n=363, Year 2 n=2,021, Year 3 n=3,578, Year 4 n=5,448.


Therefore, to determine whether HSR products have reformulated over time, the nutrient content of Year 4

HSR products was compared to their Year 1 nutrient content. Results from the analysis36 show that the

average content is statistically lower in Year 4 than Year 1 for energy, saturated fat and sodium, with the

greatest reduction over time in sodium (5 percent).37 That is, HSR products have become healthier, on

average, over the last four years.


37 Paired products are analysed using a paired t-test, which compares the average of the difference between each paired

product.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16


Ave

rag

e s

ug

ar (g

/10

0g

or 1

00

mL

)

Saturated fat

Sugar Sodium

Energy

Ave

rag

e e

ne

rgy

(kJ/

10

0g

or

10

0m

L)

Ave

rag

e s

at f

at

(g/1

00

g o

r 1

00

mL

)A

vera

ge

so

diu

m(g

/10

0g

or 1

00

mL

)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6


0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200


0

50

100

150

200

250

300


`


To ascertain whether the decrease in nutrients is unique to HSR products, or reflects a general trend of

reformulation, average nutrient content for non-HSR products has also been analysed. These results show

that there was no statistical change in the nutrient content between Year 1 and 4 for products not

participating in the HSR system at Year 4.38

Given that energy, saturated fat and sodium have decreased over time for HSR products, and there has

been no change for non-HSR products, it appears these nutrients have decreased for HSR products relative

to non-HSR products.

To confirm this observation and conclude with statistical confidence that reformulation is attributable to

participation in the HSR, the difference over time in HSR products is compared to the difference over time in

non-HSR products39 (see Chart 45).


39 T-test with unequal variances.

`


Chart 45: Difference in nutrient status over time for HSR and non-HSR products, per 100g or 100mL


Source: FoodTrack™, Heart Foundation calculations

The results from this analysis show that the difference is only statistical for energy and saturated fat.40 This

means that while HSR products have reformulated to reduce energy, saturated fat and sodium, only

reformulation of energy and saturated fat in HSR products may be attributed to participation in the HSR

system.

8.3. Does a change in nutrients translate to a change in star rating?

To ascertain whether the reformulation of these nutrients translates to a change in the average star rating,

the HSR of a sample of Year 4 products is compared to their HSR in Year 1.41 It is important to note that the

average HSR in section 8.1 is obtained from products participiating in the system and displaying a HSR.

Whereas, in this section, the average HSR refers to the calculated (hypothetical) HSR for products that have

been sampled for analysis. Chart 46 presents both the average and median for Years 1 and 4 for products

participating in the HSR system. This chart illustrates that both the average and the median star rating are

higher in Year 4 than Year 1.


41 Most Year 1 products had their HSR calculated, as there were only 363 products participating in Year 1.

`


Chart 46: Average and median star rating for paired sample HSR products, Year 1 c.t. Year 4a


Notes: a. Sample for HSR product n=319


Analyses were undertaken to assess whether the difference between the average and median star rating of

Year 1 and 4 products was statistical. Results from analyses revealed that both the average and median star

rating is statistically larger in Year 4 than Year 1.42,43 To understand whether this is due to participation in

the HSR system encouraging reformulation, a paired sample of products not participating in the HSR was

taken. Star ratings were calculated for Year 1 and Year 4 based on the products’ nutrition information.

The average and median calculated star ratings are presented in Chart 47 for the non-HSR products in

Years 1 and 4. This shows that the average star rating has not changed, while the median appears to have

decreased. Analyses on the average and the median confirm that there is no statistical difference between

Years 1 and 4 for products not participating in the HSR system.44


43 A t-test is used to compare the means, while the Wilcoxin signed rank test is used to compare medians.


3.3 3.4

-

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Year 1 Year 4

Sta

r ra

ting

Average Median

3.0 3.5

Year 1 Year 4

`


Chart 47: Star rating for paired sample of non-HSR products, Year 1 c.t. Year 4a


Notes: a. Sample for HSR product n=354

Source: FoodTrack™; Heart Foundation calculations.

In summary, we observe that the star rating has increased over time for products that are participating in the

HSR system, but not for products that are not participating in the HSR system. The difference is significant,

which indicates participation in the HSR system may be driving healthier reformulation of products that have

adopted the system45.


In this section, we have analysed the nutrients and star rating for products participating in the HSR and

compared them to products not participating.

Though results revealed that the average star rating of products decreased throughout the years, this is

likely driven by new products with lower HSRs joining the system.

Furthermore, results from the analysis also indicated that participation in the HSR system is leading to

voluntary reformulation of products, which is in turn increasing the healthiness of products that have adopted

the system.

These findings are similar to those reported on the HSR in New Zealand, which have also shown that the

HSR system is driving healthier reformulation of some products.46


46 Ni Mhurchu, C., Eyles, H., Choi, Y-H. 2017, ‘Effects of voluntary front-of-pack nutrition labelling system on packaged

food reformulation: the Health Star Rating system in New Zealand’, Nutrients, vol. 9, issue 8.

2.7 2.7

-

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Year 1 Year 4

Sta

r ra

ting

Average Median

3.0 2.5

Year 1 Year 4

`


Chapter 9: Concluding remarks

Across almost every evaluation question, the HSR system has shown to have a positive impact. Uptake and

participation in the HSR has been increasing year on year with sales weighted data indicating that products

participating in the HSR system formed a relatively larger proportion of products purchased compared to

non-HSR products.

Participating manufacturers and retailer’s have largely complied with system guidance which enabled the

HSR system to be displayed correctly and accurately on packaged foods. In addition, some manufacturers

and retailers may also be reformulating their products to make them healthier.

From a consumer perspective, there is strong awareness of the HSR, they trust the system and understand

how to use it. Given that HSR products formed a relatively larger proportion of products purchased

compared to non-HSR products, the HSR is helping some consumers make healthier choices and therefore

leading to a change in purchasing behaviour.

`


Appendix A: Style Guide Compliance Checklist

# Question Answer Next step

1 Does the product display a HSR system

graphic?

1 = Yes

2 = No

1 = Go to Q2

2 = End of questions

2 Is the product one that can display a

HSR system graphic?

1 = Yes

2 = No

Go to Q3

3 Is the product one that is intended to

display a HSR system graphic?

1 = Yes

2 = No

Go to Q4

4 Which version of the HSR system

graphic does the product display?

1 = HSR + energy icon +

3 prescribed nutrients + 1

optional nutrient

2 = HSR + energy icon +

3 prescribed nutrients

3 = HSR + energy icon

4 = HSR

5 = Energy icon

1 = Go to Q5

2 = Go to Q6

3 = Go to Q7

4 = Go to Q8

5 = Go to Q9

HSR + energy icon + 3 prescribed nutrients + 1 optional nutrient


5A Which HSR system graphic

configuration has been used?

1 = Horizontal

2 = Vertical

Go to Q5B

5B Is the HSR system graphic on the front

of pack? Note location if not front of

pack or is there are additional HSR

system graphics on pack.

1 = Yes

2 = No

Go to Q5C

5C Is the HSR element of the graphic

larger than the nutrient information

elements?

1 = Yes

2 = No

Go to Q5D

5D Is the HSR system graphic presented

with contrasting background and text?

1 = Yes

2 = No

Go to Q5E

5E Is the HSR system graphic a rating of

½ star to 5 stars in ½ star increments?

1 = Yes

2 = No

Go to Q5F

5F Does the HSR system graphic value

match the numerical rating value?

1 = Yes

2 = No

Go to Q5G

5G Are the words ‘Health Star Rating’

displayed prominently below the HSR

element of the graphic?

1 = Yes

2 = No

Go to Q5H

`



5H Has sufficient space been provided to

accommodate energy and nutrient

names and values in a clear and

legible way?

1 = Yes

2 = No

Go to Q5I

5I Have the correct prescribed nutrients

been used?

1 = Yes

2 = No

Go to Q5J

5J Are all nutrient icons displayed in

conjunction with the energy icon and

does the order of the prescribed

nutrient icons reflect their order in the

NIP?

1 = Yes

2 = No

Go to Q5K

5K Does the optional nutrient icon provide

nutrition information only?

1 = Yes

2 = No

Go to Q5L

5L Do the energy and nutrient values

reflect those stated in the NIP?

1 = Yes

2 = No

Go to Q5M

5M Have the energy and nutrient values

been recorded in the correct units?

1 = Yes

2 = No

Go to Q5N

5N Have the energy and nutrient values

been recorded to the correct decimal

places?

1 = Yes

2 = No

Go to Q5O

5O Does the energy icon display %DI? 1 = Yes

2 = No

1 = Go to Q5P

2 = Go to Q5Q

5P If %DI is used, is the HSR system

graphic displayed 'per serve' or 'per

pack' and according to guidelines?

1 = Yes

2 = No

3 = N/A

Go to Q5Q

5Q Does the product contain the dietary

intake guide on pack? Please note

where on pack.

1 = Yes

2 = No

1 = Go to Q5R

2 = Go to Q5S

5R If the dietary intake guide has been

used on pack, has it been displayed in

a manner not to mislead the consumer

that the two systems are linked?

1 = Yes

2 = No

3 = N/A

Go to Q5S

5S Do the nutrients use the terms ‘high’ or

‘low’?

1 = Yes

2 = No

1 = Go to Q5T

2 = Go to Q5U

5T If the nutrients use the terms 'high' or

'low', have they been used correctly?

1 = Yes

2 = No

3 = N/A

Go to Q5U

5U Is the nominated reference measure

appropriate?

1 = Yes

2 = No

Go to Q5V

5V Is the nominated reference measure

placed to the right hand side of the

HSR system graphic (for horizontal

1 = Yes

2 = No

Go to Q5W

`



graphics) or at the bottom of the HSR

system graphic (for vertical graphics)?

Note any variations.

5W Is the serve size specified in the NIP? 1 = Yes

2 = No

Go to Q5X

5 Is the nominated reference measure

legible?

1 = Yes

2 = No

Go to Q5Y

5Y Is the product a multipack? 1 = Yes

2 = No

1 = Go to Q5Z


5Z If the product is a multipack, how is the

HSR system graphic displayed?

1 = One HSR system

graphic reflecting a single

variant multipack

2 = One HSR system

graphic that is an average

of all flavour variants

3 = One HSR system

graphic of one of the

flavour variants

4 = Multiple HSR system

graphics for all flavour

variants

5 = Other (please specify)

6 = N/A

End of questions

5AA What optional nutrient has been used? C = Calcium

F = Fibre

Fo = Folate

I = Iron

M = Magnesium

Ma = Manganese

O = Omega 3

P = Protein

Se = Selenium

VA = Vitamin A

VC = Vitamin C

VE = Vitamin E

HSR + energy icon + 3 prescribed nutrients




1 = Horizontal

2 = Vertical

Go to Q6B



1 = Yes

2 = No

Go to Q6C

`





6C Is the HSR element of the graphic larger

than the nutrient information elements?

1 = Yes

2 = No

Go to Q6D



1 = Yes

2 = No

Go to Q6E

6E Is the HSR system graphic a rating of ½

star to 5 stars in ½ star increments?

1 = Yes

2 = No

Go to Q6F



1 = Yes

2 = No

Go to Q6G




1 = Yes

2 = No

Go to Q6H


accommodate energy and nutrient

names and values in a clear and legible

way?

1 = Yes

2 = No

Go to Q6I

6I Have the correct prescribed nutrients

been used?

1 = Yes

2 = No

Go to Q6J

6J Are all nutrient icons displayed in

conjunction with the energy icon and

does the order of the prescribed nutrient

icons reflect their order in the NIP?

1 = Yes

2 = No

Go to Q6K

6K Do the energy and nutrient values

reflect those stated in the NIP?

1 = Yes

2 = No

Go to Q6L

6L Have the energy and nutrient values

been recorded in the correct units?

1 = Yes

2 = No

Go to Q6M

6M Have the energy and nutrient values

been recorded to the correct decimal

places?

1 = Yes

2 = No

Go to Q6N

6N Does the energy icon display %DI? 1 = Yes

2 = No

1 = Go to Q6O

2 = Go to Q6P

6O If %DI is used, is the HSR graphic

displayed 'per serve' or 'per pack' and

according to guidelines?

1 = Yes

2 = No

3 = N/A

Go to Q6P

6P Does the product contain the dietary


where on pack.

1 = Yes

2 = No

1 = Go to Q6Q

2 = Go to Q6R

6Q If the dietary intake guide has been

used on pack, has it been displayed in a

1 = Yes

2 = No

3 = N/A

Go to Q6R

`



manner not to mislead the consumer


6R Do the nutrients use the terms ‘high’ or

‘low’?

1 = Yes

2 = No

1 = Go to Q6S

2 = Go to Q6T

6S If the nutrients use the terms 'high' or

'low', have they been used correctly?

1 = Yes

2 = No

3 = N/A

Go to Q6T

6T Is the nominated reference measure

appropriate?

1 = Yes

2 = No

3 = N/A

Go to Q6U

6U Is the nominated reference measure

placed to the right hand side of the HSR

system graphic (for horizontal graphics)

or at the bottom of the HSR system

graphic (for vertical graphics)? Note any

variations.

1 = Yes

2 = No

Go to Q6V

6V Is the serve size specified in the NIP? 1 = Yes

2 = No

Go to Q6W

6W Is the nominated reference measure

legible?

1 = Yes

2 = No

Go to Q6X

6 Is the product a multipack? 1 = Yes

2 = No

1 = Go to Q6Y


6Y If the product is a multipack, how is the


1 = One HSR system


variant multipack

2 = One HSR system

graphic that is an

average of all flavour

variants

3 = One HSR system


flavour variants



variants

5 = Other (please

specify)

6 = N/A

End of questions

HSR + energy icon




1 = Horizontal (refer to

image)

Go to Q7B

`



2 = Vertical (refer to

image)





1 = Yes

2 = No

Go to Q7C

7C Is the HSR element of the graphic larger

than the nutrient information elements?

1 = Yes

2 = No

Go to Q7D



1 = Yes

2 = No

Go to Q7E

7E Is the HSR system graphic a rating of ½


1 = Yes

2 = No

Go to Q7F



1 = Yes

2 = No

Go to Q7G




1 = Yes

2 = No

Go to Q7H


accommodate energy name and value

in a clear and legible way?

1 = Yes

2 = No

Go to Q7I

7I Does the energy value reflect that

stated in the NIP?

1 = Yes

2 = No

Go to Q7J

7J Has the energy value been recorded in

the correct unit?

1 = Yes

2 = No

Go to Q7K

7K Has the energy value been recorded to

the correct decimal place?

1 = Yes

2 = No

Go to Q7L

7L Does the energy icon sit to the right of

the HSR element of the system graphic

(if horizontal option) or below (if vertical

option)?

1 = Yes

2 = No

Go to Q7M

7M Does the energy icon display %DI? 1 = Yes

2 = No

1 = Go to Q7N

2 = Go to Q7O

7N If %DI is used, is the HSR graphic



1 = Yes

2 = No

3 = N/A

Go to Q7O

7O Does the product contain the dietary


where on pack.

1 = Yes

2 = No

1 = Go to Q7P

2 = Go to Q7Q

7P If the dietary intake guide has been


1 = Yes

2 = No

3 = N/A

Go to Q7Q

`





7Q Is the Nominated Reference Measure

appropriate?

1 = Yes

2 = No

Go to Q7R

7R Is the Nominated Reference Measure

placed to the right hand side of the HSR

system graphic (for horizontal graphics)

or at the bottom of the HSR system

graphic (for vertical graphics)? Note any

variations.

1 = Yes

2 = No

Go to Q7S

7S Is the serve size specified in the NIP? 1 = Yes

2 = No

Go to Q7T

7T Is the Nominated Reference Measure

legible?

1 = Yes

2 = No

Go to Q7U

7U Is the product a multipack? 1 = Yes

2 = No

1 = Go to Q7V


7V If the product is a multipack, how is the


1 = One HSR system


variant multipack

2 = One HSR system

graphic that is an


variants

3 = One HSR system


flavour variants



variants

5 = Other (please

specify)

6 = N/A

End of questions

HSR


8A Is the HSR system graphic on the front




1 = Yes

2 = No

Go to Q8B

8B Is the HSR system graphic presented


1 = Yes

2 = No

Go to Q8C

8C Is the HSR system graphic a rating of ½


1 = Yes

2 = No

Go to Q8D

`



8D Does the HSR system graphic value


1 = Yes

2 = No

Go to Q8E

8E Are the words ‘Health Star Rating’



1 = Yes

2 = No

Go to Q8F

8F Does the product contain the dietary


where on pack.

1 = Yes

2 = No

1 = Go to Q8G

2 = Go to Q8H

8G If the dietary intake guide has been




1 = Yes

2 = No

3 = N/A

Go to Q8H

8H Is the product a multipack? 1 = Yes

2 = No

1 = Go to Q8I


8I If the product is a multipack, how is the


1 = One HSR system

graphic reflecting a

single variant multipack

2 = One HSR system

graphic that is an


variants

3 = One HSR system


flavour variants



variants

5 = Other (please

specify)

6 = N/A

End of questions

Energy icon


9A Is the HSR system graphic on the front


pack or there are additional HSR system

graphics on pack.

1 = Yes

2 = No

Go to Q9B

9B Is the HSR system graphic presented


1 = Yes

2 = No

Go to Q9C

9C Has sufficient space been provided to

accommodate energy name and value in

a clear and legible way?

1 = Yes

2 = No

Go to Q9D

9D Does the energy value reflect that stated

in the NIP?

1 = Yes

2 = No

Go to Q9E

`



9E Has the energy value been recorded in

the correct unit?

1 = Yes

2 = No

Go to Q9F

9F Has the energy value been recorded to

the correct decimal place?

1 = Yes

2 = No

Go to Q9G

9G Does the energy icon display %DI? 1 = Yes

2 = No

1 = Go to Q9H

2 = Go to Q9I

9H If %DI is used, is the HSR graphic



1 = Yes

2 = No

3 = N/A

Go to Q9I

9I Does the product contain the dietary


where on pack.

1 = Yes

2 = No

1 = Go to Q9J

2 = Go to Q9K

9J If the dietary intake guide has been used

on pack, has it been displayed in a



1 = Yes

2 = No

3 = N/A

Go to Q9K

9K Is the Nominated Reference Measure

appropriate?

1 = Yes

2 = No

Go to Q9L

9L Is the Nominated Reference Measure

above or below the energy icon?

1 = Below

2 = Above

Go to Q9M

9M Is the serve size specified in the NIP? 1 = Yes

2 = No

Go to Q9N

9N Is the Nominated Reference Measure

legible?

1 = Yes

2 = No

Go to Q9O

9O Is the product a multipack? 1 = Yes

2 = No

1 = Go to Q9P


9P If the product is a multipack, how is the


1 = One HSR system

graphic reflecting a

single variant multipack

2 = One HSR system

graphic that is an


variants

3 = One HSR system


flavour variants



variants

5 = Other (please

specify)

6 = N/A

End of questions

`


Appendix B: HSR hierarchy of categories

Figure B.1: Hierarchy of categories used for the HSR system

Click to view the text version.

`


Appendix C: HSR Tracker Survey

Introduction

Thank you for agreeing to participate in this important survey.

We are conducting research to understand how Australians go about their grocery shopping. Your input

will help shape future aspects of grocery shopping in Australia.

The survey will take about 15 minutes to complete and is being conducted on behalf of a well-known

organisation.

Your answers will be de-identified and held in the strictest confidence, and the responses of everyone

who participates in this survey will be combined for analysis. Under the Privacy Act, all information

provided will only be used for research purposes.

Thank you for your time.

Profile Section

ASK ALL

QS1. To begin with could you please confirm your age?

Under 18 [Terminate]

18 to 24

25 to 29

30 to 34

35 to 39

40 to 44

45 to 49

50 to 54

55 to 59

60 to 65

Over 65

SINGLE RESPONSE

ASK ALL

QS2. Are you the main or shared grocery buyer in your household?

Main grocery buyer

Shared grocery buyer

Not the grocery buyer [Terminate]

`


Unsure [Terminate]

SINGLE RESPONSE

[NB: Main grocery buyer is the person in your household who does most of the grocery shopping]

ASK ALL

QS3. What gender are you?

Male

Female

Intermediate/Intersex/Unspecified

SINGLE RESPONSE

ASK ALL

QS4. Where do you live?

NSW

VIC

QLD

SA

WA

NT

TAS

ACT

SINGLE RESPONSE

ASK ALL

QS5. What is your postcode?

OPEN VERBATIM

Module A: General Supermarket Shopping

The first set of questions are some general questions about supermarket shopping.

ASK ALL

QA1. When buying food at the supermarket, what is the main thing that influences your choice

between two similar products? (ROTATE ORDER)

Price

`


Product quality

Product taste

Product advertising or promotions

Personal or family preference

Portion size

Nutritional value

How healthy I think it is

Front-of-pack labelling

Other (please specify)

Unsure

SINGLE REPSONSE

ASK ALL

QA2. When choosing a new food during grocery shopping, how often do you compare how

healthy products are?

Always

Most of the time

Sometimes

Just occasionally

Never

Not sure

SINGLE RESPONSE

ASK ALL

QA3. On average, when at the supermarket, do you look at the nutrition information panel on…?

All food products

Most food products

Some food products

Few food products

Never

Unsure

SINGLE RESPONSE

`


Module B: Awareness of HSR / Food Labels

The next set of questions is about labelling on food products

ASK ALL

QB1. Apart from brand names, thinking about different logos that help customers choose the food

they buy in the supermarket, which ones are you aware of?

OPEN VERBATIM

ASK ALL

QB2. Are you aware of the Health Star Rating system?

Yes

No

Unsure

SINGLE RESPONSE

QB2a AND QB2b ASKED ONLY IN WAVE 5 – ASK ONLY IF AWARE OF THE HSR SYSTEM

QB2a. How many stars do you think indicate a healthy product?

SINGLE RESPONSE

1. 2. 3. 4, 5.

6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

`


QB2B. How many stars do you think indicate an unhealthy product?

SINGLE RESPONSE

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

ASK ALL

QB3. Which of the following are you aware of on food packaging? (ROTATE ORDER)

GI (glycaemic index)

No added salt/reduced salt

Fat reduced/low fat

Lite

Fat-free

Cholesterol free

Heart Foundation Tick

Low joule/low calories

Energy/kilojoules

Unsweetened/no added sugar/sugar-free

Gluten-free

Weight Watchers

% Dietary intake

Be treatwise

None of the above

Unsure

MULTIPLE RESPONSE

`


Module C: Knowledge of the HSR

The next set of questions is about your knowledge of the Health Star Rating system.

ASK SECTION C ONLY IF AWARE OF THE HSR – OTHERWISE SKIP TO SECTION K

QC1. When the Health Star Rating system is on the packaging of food, what do you think it

means?

OPEN VERBATIM

QC2. In your opinion, how is the number of stars on a product determined?

OPEN VERBATIM

QC3. Below are a series of statements about the Health Star Rating system.

Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree that the Health Star Rating system…

a. Makes it easier for me to compare products that are in the same category in the supermarket

b. Makes it easier for me to compare products that are in different categories in the supermarket

c. Makes it easier for me to identify the healthier option within a category

d. Makes it easier for me to identify the healthier option across all categories

e. Helps me think about the healthiness of food

f. Helps me make decisions about which foods to buy

g. Makes me want to buy healthier products

h. It’s just another thing on a pack that makes shopping more confusing

Strongly agree, Agree, Neither agree nor disagree, Disagree, Strongly disagree, Unsure

QC4. How would you use the Health Star Rating system?

OPEN VERBATIM

QC5. If a food product has one star, what do you think this means?

OPEN VERBATIM

QC6. If a food product has five stars, what do you think this means?

OPEN VERBATIM

Module D: Understanding of the HSR

The next set of questions is about your understanding of the Health Star Rating system.

QD1. Below are a series of statements about the Health Star Rating system.

How strongly do you agree or disagree that a product with more stars means…?

a. It is a healthier option compared to a similar food product with less stars

b. It is a healthier option compared to a food product with less stars

c. You can eat it as much as you like compared to a product with less stars

`


d. It is more expensive than a product with less stars

e. It is healthy

f. It does not taste as good as a product with less stars


QD2. The Health Star Rating can be displayed in five different ways. Please select the style you

believe…

a. Is easiest to understand.

b. Is easiest to recognise.

c. Provides sufficient information.

QD3. Overall, please select the style you prefer the most

SINGLE RESPONSE

QD4. Why do you prefer that option?

OPEN VERBATIM

`


Module E: Understanding of the HSR

QE1. When purchasing packaged foods, how often would you include any items that have the

Health Star Rating?

Always

Most of the time

Sometimes

Just occasionally

Never/Do not currently use

Not sure/Don’t notice

I don’t buy packaged foods

SINGLE RESPONSE

QE2. Which of the following best describes whether you look out for the Health Star Rating when

shopping for food in the supermarket? Do you…?

Always look out for it

Most times look out for it

Might look for it now and again

Good to have but I don’t look out for it

Don’t look out for it/don’t care if it has it or not

Unsure

SINGLE RESPONSE

QE3. What are the reasons you [Insert response from QE2]?

OPEN VERBATIM

QE4 – QE6 ASKED ONLY IN WAVE 5

QE4. When shopping at the supermarket, what types of food do you mostly buy? (ROTATE

ORDER)

Packaged processed foods (e.g. ready meals, deli meats, confectionary, canned goods)

Fresh produce (e.g. fruits, vegetables, meat)

Packaged foods (e.g. rice, bread, grain products, frozen vegetables/fruit)

Mixture of packaged/processed foods and fresh produce

Unsure

SINGLE RESPONSE

`


QE5. Are you aware that the Health Star Rating system is typically only displayed on packaged

and processed foods, and not on fresh produce?

Yes

No

Unsure

SINGLE RESPONSE

QE6. How does the Health Star Rating system (displayed only on packaged/processed foods),

influence your decision to buy fresh produce? (e.g. fruits and vegetables).

To buy more fresh produce

To buy less fresh produce

It does not influence my decision

Unsure

SINGLE RESPONSE

Module F: Use of HSR (ASKED ONLY IN WAVE 3)

QF1. Do you follow the provided instructions when preparing packaged foods?

Yes

No

Unsure

SINGLE RESPONSE

ASK IF FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS WHEN PREPARING PACKAGED FOODS

QF1a. Which products do you do this for?

Cake mixes/pancake mixes

Breakfast cereals (e.g. ready-to-eat, muesli, oats)

Canned soups

Coffee powder mixes

Cordial

Cooking sauces (pasta & other)

Finishing sauces

Dehydrated powdered pasta and rice products

Gravy

Hot chocolate mixes

Mashed potato mix

`


Flavoured milk powders

Powered custard

Pasta & noodle products

Powdered soup

Ready meals, meal kits

Recipe bases

Sauce mixes (including liquid sauce packs for casseroles/slow cookers)

Spice mixes

Cookie/biscuit mixes


None of the above (Exclusive)

QF2. Are you aware that the HSR on some foods/products is based on the food being prepared as

per pack instructions?

Yes

No

Unsure

SINGLE RESPONSE

ASK IF FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS WHEN PREPARING PACKAGED FOODS

QF2a. On these foods/products, do you find the HSR useful when comparing foods within these

categories?

OPEN VERBATIM

ASK IF NO OR UNSURE ABOUT FOLLOWING INSTRUCTIONS WHEN PREPARING PACKAGED

FOODS

QF2b. Now that you are aware – would you use the HSR when comparing foods within these

categories?

OPEN VERBATIM

`


Module F: Purchasing Behaviour (Potential & Current)

The next set of questions is about purchasing a product with the Health Star Rating system.

QF1. In the past three months have you purchased a product that had the Health Star Rating

System?

Yes

No

Unsure

SINGLE RESPONSE

(ASK IF HAVE PURCHASED A PRODUCT WITH THE HSR IN THE LAST THREE MONTHS, IF NO OR

UNSURE GO TO QF6)

QF2. Did the Health Star Rating system on the product influence your choice?

Yes

No

Unsure

SINGLE RESPONSE

(ASK IF INFLUENCED BY HSR, IF NO GO TO QF5, IF UNSURE GO TO QF6)

QF3. How did it influence your choice?

Yes, it confirmed I should buy my usual product

Yes, I chose a product with more stars that I don’t often buy

Yes, I chose a product with more stars that I’ve never tried before

Yes, I chose not to buy my usual product because it had fewer stars than other options

(ASK IF CHOSE PRODUCT DON’T OFTEN BUY, NEVER TRIED BEFORE, OR DIDN’T BUY USUAL

PRODUCT, IF CONFIRMED USUAL PRODUCT GO TO MODULE G)

QF4. Have you continued or will you continue to buy the product?

Yes

No

Unsure

SINGLE RESPONSE

QF5. Why didn’t the Health Star Rating system influence your choice?

OPEN VERBATIM

`


QF6. How likely or unlikely is the Health Star Rating to influence choices you make in the future

when buying food?

Very likely

Likely

Unlikely

Very unlikely

Unsure

SINGLE RESPONSE

Module G: Comparison

QG1. Of the Health Star Ratings below, please select which you think is a healthier option in each

pair?

A

These are the same

B

These are the same

C

These are the same

D

These are the same

E

These are the same

The next set of questions is related to the Health Star Rating and food categories

Module H: HSR & Food Categories

ASK QH1 ONLY IF PURCHASED PRODUCT WITH HSR IN THE LAST 3 MONTHS, IF HAVE NOT

PURCHASED OR UNSURE IN THE LAST 3 MONTHS GO TO QH2

QH1. Please select which foods and/or beverages you purchased in the supermarket which had

the Health Star Rating system on them? (ROTATE ORDER)

Bread

Breakfast cereals (e.g. ready-to-eat, muesli, oats, breakfast drinks)

`


Cereal bars, nut/seed bars, fruit bars

Cheese

Confectionery (e.g. lollies, chocolates)


Crisps and similar snacks

Fruit and vegetables (frozen, fresh, canned, or dried)

Finishing sauces

Legumes (canned, e.g. baked beans)

Margarines and spreads (including butter)

Meat, poultry, seafood (plain, processed, canned, fresh, frozen)

Milks (plain and flavoured)

Non-alcoholic beverages (e.g. soft drinks, fruit/vegetable juices)

Nuts and seeds

Pasta & noodles, and products

Pastries – sweet or savoury (e.g. pies/pasties, fruit pies, tarts)


Recipe bases

Rice & rice products

Salad dressings and mayonnaise

Savoury biscuits, crackers, crispbreads

Spreads (e.g. peanut butter, jam)

Sweet biscuits, cakes, muffins

Table sauces (e.g. tomato sauce)

Vegetable oils

Yoghurt & dairy desserts (incl. custards, ice-cream, frozen yoghurt)

None of the above

MULTIPLE RESPONSE

QH2. Please select which foods and/or beverages you believe it is important to have the Health

Star Rating System on them? (ROTATE ORDER)

Bread

Breakfast cereals (e.g. ready-to-eat, muesli, oats, breakfast drinks)

Cereal bars, nut/seed bars, fruit bars

Cheese

`


Confectionery (e.g. lollies, chocolates)


Crisps and similar snacks

Fruit and vegetables (frozen, fresh, canned, or dried)

Finishing sauces

Legumes (canned, e.g. baked beans)

Margarines and spreads (including butter)

Meat, poultry, seafood (plain, processed, canned, fresh, frozen)

Milks (plain and flavoured)

Non-alcoholic beverages (e.g. soft drinks, fruit/vegetable juices)

Nuts and seeds

Pasta & noodles, and products

Pastries – sweet or savoury (e.g. pies/pasties, fruit pies, tarts)


Recipe bases

Rice & rice products

Salad dressings and mayonnaise

Savoury biscuits, crackers, crispbreads

Spreads (e.g. peanut butter, jam)

Sweet biscuits, cakes, muffins

Table sauces (e.g. tomato sauce)

Vegetable oils

Yoghurt & dairy desserts (incl. custards, ice-cream, frozen yoghurt)

None of the above

MULTIPLE RESPONSE

`


Module I: Advertising / Campaign

The next set of questions is about your awareness of advertising of the Health Star Rating system.

QI1. In the last three months, do you remember seeing, hearing or reading any advertising or

promotions about the Health Star Rating system?

Yes

No

Unsure

SINGLE RESPONSE

ASK IF HAVE SEEN ADVERTISING IN THE LAST THREE MONTHS, OTHERWISE GO TO MODULE J

QI2. Where had you seen or heard about the Health Star Rating?

On food packaging

In-store promotion

On posters/digital posters in shopping centres

On a bus shelter/other outdoor area

In a newspaper/magazine

In a catalogue (i.e. Coles/Woolworths)

In online reviews/blogs

In an online ad

On the radio

News program

TV ad

Supermarket website

Food product website

Social media (e.g. Facebook)

Word of mouth

Other (specify)

Unsure

MULTIPLE RESPONSE

`


QI3. After seeing or hearing this advertising or promotion(s) for products with a Health Star

Rating, did it influence you to buy a product or products you normally wouldn’t buy?

Yes

No

Unsure

SINGLE RESPONSE

(QI4 – Q18 ASKED IN WAVE TWO ONLY)

QI4. What, if anything, did you think about doing in response to seeing or hearing this advertising

or promotion(s)?

OPEN VERBATIM

QI5. What, if anything, did you do in response to seeing or hearing this advertising or

promotion(s)?

OPEN VERBATIM

QI6. As a result of seeing or hearing the advertisement or promotion(s), have you…? (ROTATE

ORDER)

a. Looked up further information about the Health Star Rating

b. Purchased a product(s) with the Health Star Rating displayed when at the supermarket

c. Looked out for products with the Health Star Rating displayed when at the supermarket

d. Chosen and/or cooked healthier food for you and your family

e. Visited the http://healthstarrating.gov.au website for information

f. Talked to others about the Health Star Rating

g. Avoided a product because of its Health Star Rating

h. Compared the Health Star Rating to other nutritional information on the product pack

Yes, No but intending to, No and not intending to.

QI7. Would you say that seeing or hearing this advertising has had a positive or negative impact

on your opinion of the Health Star Rating system?

Very positive

Positive

Neither positive nor negative

Negative

Very negative

Unsure

SINGLE RESPONSE

`


QI8. What are the reasons you feel seeing or hearing this advertising has had a [insert response

from QI10] impact on your opinion of the Health Star Rating system?

OPEN VERBATIM

Module J: General Attitudes Towards the HSR

QJ1. Below are a series of statements about the Health Star Rating system.

How strongly do you agree or disagree that the Health Star Rating system…?

a. Is a system I trust

b. Is easy to understand

c. Is easy to use

d. Makes choosing food easier

e. Has a poor reputation

f. Is a reliable system

g. Is a credible system

h. Is personally relevant to me

i. Is relevant to my family

j. Is open and transparent


(QJ1a – QJ1c ASKED IN WAVE 4 ONLY)

ASK QJ1a & QJ1b IF DISAGREE OR STRONGLY DISAGREE THAT HSR IS A “SYSTEM THAT I

TRUST”, OTHERWISE GO TO QJ1c.

QJ1a. Why don’t you trust the Health Star Rating System?

OPEN VERBATIM

QJ1b. How strongly do you agree or disagree, that the following actions would increase your trust

in the Health Star Rating system? (ROTATE ORDER)

More advertising campaigns that explain how to use the Health Star Rating system

Greater explanation about how the stars are calculated

The stars were on more products

More posters/fliers in the supermarket that explain how to use the Health Star Rating

system

Information on the packaging of food products that explain how to use the Health Star

Rating system

Clearer Government backing of the system

Clearer backing of the system by nutritionists/dieticians

`


Changing the Health Star Rating slogan from “the more stars, the healthier”

Strongly Agree, Agree, Neither Agree nor Disagree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree, Unsure.

QJ1c. If you wanted to know more about the Health Star Rating system, where would you go to

find more information?

Health Star Rating Website

General Practitioner

Dietitian/Nutritionist

Other health professional

Supermarket

Food product manufacturer

Social media (e.g. Twitter, Facebook, Pinterest)

I wouldn’t want to know more about the HSR

Unsure


MULTIPLE RESPONSE

QJ2. Overall, what level of confidence do you have in the Health Star Rating system?

High

Somewhat high

Indifferent

Somewhat low

Very low

Unsure

SINGLE RESPONSE

ASK IF HAVE LOW CONFIDENCE IN HSR SYSTEM, OTHERWISE GO TO MODULE K

QJ3. Why Do you have low confidence in the Health Star Rating system?

OPEN VERBATIM

`


Module K: Healthy Weight

The next set of questions is about health behaviours.

ASK ALL

QK1. What is your height?

Metres (e.g. 1.65 m) (Specify)

Centimetres (e.g. 165 cm) (Specify)

Feet and inches (e.g. 5 ft, 5 in) (Specify)

Prefer not to say/Unsure

SINGLE RESPONSE

ASK ALL

QK2. What is your weight?

Kilograms (e.g. 65 kg) (Specify)

Pounds (e.g. 150 Ib) (Specify)

Stones and Pounds (e.g. 10 st, 10 Ib) (Specify)

Prefer not to say/Unsure

SINGLE RESPONSE

Module L: Respondent Profile

ASK ALL

QL1. Which of the following best describes your household structure?

Single person, living alone

Single person, living with parents/family

Single person, living with one or more children

Couple

Couple living with one or more children

Share house (group home of unrelated adults)

Other

Prefer not to say

SINGLE RESPONSE

`


ASK IF HAVE CHILDREN LIVING AT HOME

QL2. What age ranges do your children (living at home) fall into?

Under 6 years

16–12 years

13–17 years

18 years or over

Prefer not to say

MULTIPLE RESPONSE

ASK ALL

QL3. What is the highest level of education that you have completed?

Year 11 or below

Year 11

Year 12

Vocational qualification (e.g. trade/apprenticeship)

Other TAFE or technical certificate

Diploma

Bachelor Degree (including Honours)

Post graduate degree


Prefer not to say

SINGLE RESPONSE

ASK ALL

QL4. Which of these categories best describes your main activity at the moment?

Working full-time

Working on a part-time or casual basis

Doing study or training

Looking for work

Doing unpaid voluntary work

Retired

Home duties

Something else (please specify)

Prefer not to say

SINGLE RESPONSE

`


ASK ALL

QL5. Which of the following broad ranges best describes your TOTAL GROSS ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD

INCOME from all sources? Please include all income including pensions and allowances for all

household members?

Below $30,000

Between $30,000 to $39,999

Between $40,000 to $49,999

Between $50,000 to $59,999

Between $60,000 to $69,999

Between $70,000 to $99,999

Between $100,000 to $119,999

Between $120,000 to $149,999

Between $150,000 to $199,999

$200,000 or more

Prefer not to say

SINGLE RESPONSE

ASK ALL

QL6. Are you of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander origin?

Neither

Aboriginal

Torres Strait Islander

Both

Prefer not to say

SINGLE RESPONSE

ASK ALL

QL7. Were you born in Australia or overseas?

Australia

Overseas

Prefer not to say

SINGLE RESPONSE

ASK ALL

QL8. Do you speak a language other than English at home?

Yes

No

`


Prefer not to say

SINGLE RESPONSE

`


Appendix D: Data tables

Uptake

Table D.1: Uptake of HSR (%), sales weighted versus unweighted, by category, Year 4a,b

HSR Category Sales

weighted Uptake ±CIc

Bakery fats 0.0 0.0 0.0

Baking goods 27.4 26.2 1.8

Biscuits – savoury 37.1 22.6 0.3

Biscuits - sweet 29.3 22.0 0.1

Bread 35.9 18.7 0.2

Breakfast drinks 91.1 77.5 1.6

Breakfast spreads 11.8 9.4 0.2

Butter 45.4 21.4 1.4

Cakes muffins and other baked products 54.3 42.2 0.3

Cereal-based bars 44.9 48.2 0.4

Cheese - hard and processed 38.5 17.5 0.2

Cheese – soft 30.2 18.7 0.3

Confectionary 38.2 34.5 0.1

Cooking sauces 57.1 41.9 0.2

Cream and cream alternatives 48.1 26.8 0.5

Crisps and similar snacks 7.4 19.5 0.1

Custards and dairy desserts (non - frozen) 18.5 15.8 0.5

Dairy milks - flavoured 35.1 43.1 1.0

Dairy milks - plain 57.9 33.7 0.5

Dessert toppings and baking syrups 34.1 39.7 0.9

Dips 23.5 12.7 0.4

Dried fruit and nut mixes 26.3 48.3 1.2

Edible oil spreads 24.6 28.0 0.4

Eggs 35.2 10.1 1.3

Finishing sauces 16.8 20.7 0.6

Flour 20.1 21.2 0.7

Formulated foods - protein bars protein shakes meal

replacements 0.0 0.0 0.0

Frozen dairy (and soy) desserts 25.4 26.9 0.1

`


Frozen desserts (fruit-based only) 50.4 24.4 1.8

Frozen potato products 61.7 64.5 0.6

Fruit - dried 25.6 20.1 0.6

Fruit - plain 16.9 31.0 0.3

Fruit - shelf stable 45.4 44.0 0.4

Fruit and vegetable juices 46.9 52.9 0.3

Fruit bars 59.5 45.1 2.7

Fruit pies tarts crumbles 29.3 29.3 0.7

Grains - plain 36.1 31.3 0.4

Grains - processed 19.8 32.7 0.7

Hot cereals - flavoured 99.6 94.6 2.0

Hot cereals - plain 96.1 83.8 2.4

Jelly 9.0 13.7 0.4

Legumes - canned/shelf-stable 70.1 52.3 0.6

Mayonnaise and aioli products 20.2 22.1 0.6

Meal kits 0.0 2.5 0.0

Meat - plain 0.5 3.4 0.3

Meat - processed 71.4 65.1 0.5

Milk modifiers and flavourings 48.7 30.0 1.2

Milk substitutes - plain and flavoured 69.3 51.5 1.4

Mueslis 68.2 65.6 0.7

Nut and seed bars 17.9 37.9 0.5

Nuts and seeds 47.3 38.8 0.3

Pasta and noodles - plain 40.5 17.5 0.3

Pasta and noodles - processed 29.1 30.3 0.2

Pastry 41.2 15.6 1.9

Poultry - canned 32.4 40.0 3.5

Poultry - plain 0.0 0.0 0.0

Poultry - processed 32.4 32.8 0.3

Ready meals 63.3 58.2 0.2

Ready to eat breakfast cereals 93.6 90.7 0.3

Recipe concentrates 62.7 49.7 0.4

Relishes chutneys and pastes 21.2 13.0 0.2

Salad dressings and mayonnaise type dressings 16.7 26.7 0.4

`


Notes: a. HSR product sample: Year 3 n=3,461, Year 4 n=5,203; Eligible product sample: Year 3 n=14,864, Year 4

n=16,339; b. Products have been excluded from the calculation where sales data is not available; c. confidence interval

applies to sales weighted uptake, as sales data is derived from a sample. Presented is the 95 percent confidence interval

Source: FoodTrack™; Heart Foundation Calculations; Nielsen HomeScan®

Sandwiches 11.9 18.8 6.5

Savoury pies pastries and pizzas 40.4 38.9 0.2

Savoury snack combinations 25.8 24.6 0.9

Seafood - canned 45.4 34.2 0.4

Seafood - plain 43.8 31.9 1.7

Seafood - processed 42.4 40.2 0.3

Seasonings herbs and spices 8.1 4.8 0.3

Smallgoods 10.6 8.9 0.2

Soups - all 73.6 55.7 0.2

Spreads - nut and seeds 28.2 49.4 0.5

Stocks 8.2 11.6 0.3

Sugar (or artificially) - sweetened beverages 56.0 44.7 0.3

Sugar and sugar alternatives 28.3 9.3 0.7

Tea and coffee 4.7 9.5 0.5

Tomato and other table sauces 10.6 10.5 0.2

Vegetable oils 35.0 24.0 0.2

Vegetables - plain 18.0 26.9 0.1

Vegetables - processed 60.0 51.6 0.3

Vegetarian - processed 55.6 57.6 1.1

Water 56.9 27.3 1.9

Yoghurt 18.8 21.2 0.2

`


Compliance

Table D.2: Distribution of products with a design variation

Health Star Rating System Graphic

Characteristic Year 1 (n) Year 2 (n) Year 3 (n) Year 4 (n)

Products displays a combination of HSR system

graphics on the front of pack (FoP)

21 59 23 7

HSR elements is on the FoP and the 'snail' wraps

around the side of the pack, still joined

0 4 1 1

One HSR option is displayed on the FoP and a

different HSR option is on the back of pack (BoP) or

top of pack; or the 'snail' is on the BoP

0 32 1 14

HSR system graphic is displayed on the box and not

actual product

0 2 2 0

HSR value is not a valid number 0 1 0 0

Manufacturer has placed a sticker over one nutrient

value in the HSR system graphic with correct

information

2 0 0 0

Star highlighting different to the recommended

guidelines

0 0 5 4

The snail located to the left of the HSR 0 0 2 4

Font size displayed differently to the recommended

guidelines

0 0 1 0

Energy and nutrient icons, including % dietary intake (%DI)


Nutrient or energy icons display the older version of

the HSR system graphic

3 22 1 0

Use of optional nutrient differs to the

recommendations in the guidelines

0 1 0 0

Nutrient value is expressed to decimal place other

than what is suggested in the HSR Style Guide

N/A 34 17 11

Sugar-free beverages display energy values to one

decimal place, however match the nutrition

information panel (NIP)

0 3 0 0

Nominated Reference Measure (NRM)


NRM is in a different position to what is suggested in

the HSR Style Guide

0 10 2 0

NRM is per 100g, which matches the serve size;

however potentially confusing because it uses %DI

0 9 1 0

`



NRM is a different version to the Style Guide but still

appropriate

0 7 1 0

NRM is 'per row' which is implied to be the sme as

the serve size in the NIP, however not stated

0 6 4 0

Total Graphics 26 190 61 41


Table D.3: Distribution of products with a technical variation

Health Star Rating System Graphic


HSR system graphic is not on the front of pack 0 29 3 3

Incomplete five-star rating scale 0 6 0 0

Mismatch of the HSR system graphic value to the

numerical rating value

0 3 0 0

Energy and nutrient icons, including % dietary intake (%DI)


Use of prescribed nutrients differ to guidelines 0 1 2 1

Nutrient order and/or display varies to recommended

guidelines

1 4 0 0

Mismatch of energy and/or nutrient values to those

stated in the nutrition information panel

2 4 0 1

Nutrient(s) values displayed with units different to

guidelines

1 1 0 0

Nutrient(s) values displayed with decimal places

diffeent to the guidelines

3 N/A N/A N/A

%DI implemented differently to recommended

guidelines

3 34 1 4

DIG implemented with the HSR system graphic

differently to recommendations in the guidelines

0 8 4 4

Nutrient(s) do not meet the condiitons to use the

terms 'high' or 'low'

1 5 1 1

Nominated Reference Measure (NRM)


Nominated reference measure differs to the

reccomendations in the guidelines

20 53 17 7

Total Graphics 31 148 28 21


`


Awareness

Table D.4: Proportion of respondents that are aware of the HSR system (unprompted), Year 4a,b

Characteristic Proportion of respondents (%)

All respondents 20.2

Gender


Males 18.0

Females 22.2

Age group


Under 35 23.4

35 to 54 20.2

Over 55 11.6

Level of education


High school 16.0

Tafe or diploma 18.9

University 24.3

Indigenous status


Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander 9.2

Non-Indigenous 20.8

Body mass index


Normal range (<24.99) 25.8

Overweight or obese (≥25) 19.3

Household structure


Children at home 20.7

No children 18.8

`


Language spoken at home


English 21.2

Language other than English 16.9

Household income


Less than $50,000 15.2

$50,000 to $99,999 19.4

Greater than $100,000 25.1

Notes: a. Sample: n=7,481; b. Only results that are statistically significant are presented.


Table D.5: Proportion of respondents that are aware of the HSR system (prompted), Year 4 a,b



Gender


Males 80.4

Females 86.1

Age group


Under 35 89.3

35 to 54 82.8

Over 55 68.6

Leve of education


High school, tafe or diploma 82.5

University 84.5

Indigenous status



Non-Indigenous 83.3

Body mass index



`




Household structure



No children 81.5

Household income


Less than $50,000 81.6




`


Trust

Table D.6: Proportion of respondents that agree (or strongly agree) that the HSR is a system I trust, Year 4a,b



Gender


Males 60.9

Females 56.2

Level of education



University 62.6

Body mass index




Household structure



No children 57.2

Location


Metro 59.5

Non-metro 55.6



English 56.2


Household income


Less than $50,000 56.5

$50,000 or more 60.6

`




Use

Table D.7: Proportion of respondents that agree (or strongly agree) that the HSR makes it easier to identify

healthier options, Year 4a,b



Age group


Under 54 76.2

55 and over 80.4

Level of education



University 78.8

Household structure



No children 75.8



English 75.9


Household income


Less than $50,000 75.0

$50,000 or more 78.0



Table D.8: Proportion of respondents that agree (or strongly agree) that the HSR helps me make decisions about

what to buy, Year 4a,b



`


Level of education



University 69.0

Body mass index




Location


Metro 66.7

Non-metro 61.6



English 62.9


Household income


Less than $50,000 62.4

$50,000 or more 67.0



`


Like

Table D.9: Main characteristics of each HSR logo by respondents

Option 1:

Option 2:

Option 3:

Option 4:

Option 5:

Year 2 Year 3

Detailed information 964 509

Detailed information (%) 42.0 38.1

Year 2 Year 3

Detailed information 249 162


Year 2 Year 3

Easy to understand 1.7 1.7


Year 2 Year 3

Simple/uncomplicated 172 109

Simple/uncomplicated (%) 7.5 8.2

Year 2 Year 3

Easy to understand 6 3

Easy to understand (%) 0.3 0.2

`


Notes: a. Sample Year 2 n=2,297, Year 3 n=1,335.


Influence

Table D.10: Proportion of respondents that report the HSR system influenced their purchasing decisionsa,b



Gender


Males 68.2

Females 60.7

Level of education


High school 59.0

Diploma/tafe 61.0

University 70.5

Indigenous status



Non-Indigenous 63.8

Body mass index



Overweight (25.00 - 29.99) 64.2

Obese (≥ 30) 54.8

Location


Metro 67.4

Non-metro 56.3



English 59.4


`


Household income


Less than $50,000 62.1




`


Reformulation

Table D.11: Proportion of HSR products by year and star rating, and average HSRa

HSR Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4

0.5 0.6 3.3 4.0 3.9

1.0 0.6 3.4 3.7 3.7

1.5 3.6 6.7 6.8 6.1

2.0 5.4 6.4 6.4 7.1

2.5 4.5 5.3 4.8 4.7

3.0 6.0 7.8 10.1 9.8

3.5 14.5 15.2 17.3 17.2

4.0 32.3 26.6 22.8 22.4

4.5 15.1 11.5 11.3 10.7

5.0 17.2 13.8 12.9 14.4

Average 3.8 3.5 3.4 3.4

Notes: a. Sample Year 1 n=331, Year 2 n=1,907, Year 3 n=3,225, Year 4 n=4,617.

Source: FoodTrack™; FoodTrack

Table D.12: Average nutrients for products participating in the HSR system, per 100g or 100mL

Energy (kJ) Saturated fat

(g)

Total sugars

(g)

Sodium (g)

Year 1 997.2 3.6 10.6 269.0

Year 4 987.7 3.5 10.6 255.6

Difference - 9.6 - 0.1 - 0.1 - 13.4

Percentage change (%) - 1.0 - 3.0 - 0.6 - 5.0

Observations 1,804 1,804 1,803 1,804

P-valuea 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00

Notes: a. One-tail test


Table D.13: Average nutrients for products not participating in the HSR system, per 100g or 100mL


(g)

Total sugars

(g)

Sodium (g)

Year 1 1,098.9 5.2 12.2 505.0

Year 4 1,101.8 5.2 12.1 502.6

Difference 2.9 - 0.0 - 0.1 - 2.4

Percentage change (%) 0.3 - 0.0 - 0.6 - 0.5

Observations 3,954 3,956 3,957 3,947

`



(g)

Total sugars

(g)

Sodium (g)

P-valuea 0.19 0.45 0.16 0.34



Table D.14: Difference in nutrient status over time for HSR and non-HSR products, per 100g or 100mL

Energy (kJ) Saturated fat (g) Sodium (g)

HSR - 9.6 - 0.1 - 13.4

Non-HSR 2.9 - 0.0 - 2.4

Degrees of freedom 4,032 2,716 5,539

P-valuea 0.00 0.00 0.07



Table D.15: Difference in average and median star rating between Years 1 and 4, HSR products

Average star rating Median star rating

Year 1 3.3 3.0

Year 4 3.4 3.5

Difference 0.1 0.5

P-valuea 0.00 0.00



Table D.16: Difference in average and median star rating between Years 1 and 4, non-HSR products

Average star rating Median star rating

Year 1 2.7 3.0

Year 4 2.7 2.5

Difference - 0.0 - 0.5

P-valuea 1.97 0.76



`


Table D.17: Statistical test for difference between average star rating for participating and non-participating

products

HSR products Non-HSR products

Average HSR in Year 1 3.3 2.7

Average HSR Year 4 3.4 2.7

Average difference 0.1 0.0

P-valuea = 0.00

Notes: a. Two-tail test


`


Appendix E: Text-based Alternatives for Figures

Figure 2: Conceptual Framework

It shows that awareness is the first and necessary component for nutrition information to have an impact on

consumer’s purchasing decisions. It is followed by attitude formation which has four main elements: trust,

usefulness, understanding of the HSR system and to which logo consumers most preferred. Having met all

of these, it will lead to the decision making of whether the product's participation in the HSR system has

influenced the consumer to purchase it or not.

Return to Figure 2 source.

Figure 3: Evaluation Framework

The diagram presents the different questions for each element of the evaluation framework. The questions

for Monitoring Implementation are “What is the uptake of the HSR system?” and “Do manufacturers comply

with the HSRC and guidelines?” For Evaluating Outcomes, there are separate questions for each factors that

affects the consumer outcomes. For Awareness, the question is “Are consumers aware of the system?”. For

Attitude Formation, there are 4 questions: “Do consumers trust in the HSR system?”, “Do consumers find the

HSR system useful?”, “Do consumers understand how to use and interpret the HSR?”, and “Which HSR

logos do consumers prefer?”. And to evaluate the impact on decision making, the question is “Does the HSR

influence consumers to make healthier choices?”. To evaluate the system outcomes, the question is “Has

the HSR system had an impact on reformulation?”

Return to Figure 3 source.

Chart 1: Participation of HSR products from FoodTrack™, by Year

Bar graph showing how the implementation of the Health Star Rating system is being monitored during the

first four years from June 2014 to June 2018. In year 1, 363 products participated. Year 2 with 2,021

products with a 457.7% increase in rate of growth. Year 3,3,587 products with 77.5% rate of growth. Year 4,

5,448 products with a 51.9% increase in rate of growth. The total number of unique products participating in

the system over a four-year period is 7,312.

Return to Chart 1 source.

Chart 2: Participation of HSR products from additional in-store collections

From the in-store collection method, 1,526 products were identified to have participated, currently

participating or soon to be participating in the HSR system in September 2015, 3,024 products in January

2016, 3,956 products in May 2016, 5,560 products in August to September 2016, 7,048 products in February

to March 2017, 8,400 products in August to September 2017 and in March 2018, 10,333 products.


Chart 3: Uptake of HSR products as a proportion of eligible products

It shows that HSR products accounted for 2.9% of eligible products in year 1,14.6% in year 2, 22.7% in year

3 and 30.5% in year 4. The overall total proportion of HSR products accounted for 21.8% of all eligible

products throughout the years.


`


Chart 4: Proportion of products participating in the HSR system from the top five categories

It shows that frozen potato products category had no products participating in the HSR system in year 1

however by year 4, 64.5% of the products participated in the system. Similarly, the breakfast drinks category

had no products participating in year 1 but by year 4, 77.5% products participated in the system. For hot

cereals - plain category, 27.6% of products participated in year 1 with a consistent increase to 84.2% in year

4. Ready to eat breakfast cereals category started with 36.4% in year 1 and increased to 90.2% in year 4.

Hot cereals - flavored category had 47.5% uptake in the first year and continued to increase in year 4 to

95.0% of products participating in the system.


Chart 5: Categories with the largest contribution to uptake

The two categories with the largest number of products participating in the HSR system are the

Confectionary and Sugar (or artificially) sweetened beverages category. In year 1, 5.8% of the products are

from the confectionary category and 1.1% are from the sweetened beverages category. In year 2, 7.08% are

from confectionary and 1.7% are from sweetened beverages. In year 3, 7.5% are from confectionary and

4.0% are from sweetened beverages. In year 4, 6.7% are from confectionary and 5.8% are from sweetened

beverages.


Chart 6: Sales weighted HSR uptake versus unweighted HSR uptakea,b

In year 3, there is no difference between unweighted uptake and sales weighted uptake with both at 23.3%.

In year 4, the unweighted uptake is 31.8% and the sales weighted uptake rate is 37.9%.

Return to Chart 6 notes.

Chart 7: Distribution of difference between sales weighted uptake and unweighted uptake, Year 4

Bar graph showing the difference between sales weighted uptake and unweighted uptake by proportion of

categories. 27.0% of categories had decreased by 0 to minus 10 percentage points, 4.8% decreased by -10

to -20 percentage points, and 3.6% had a decrease greater than -20 percentage points. 26.5% of categories

had increased by 0 to 10 percentage points, 22.9% of categories had increased by 10 to 20 percentage

points and10.8% of categories had an increase greater than 20 percentage points.


Chart 8: Comparison in uptake of HSR system and DIG, by months post implementation

Line graph showing the comparison in uptake of HSR and Daily Intake Guide (DIG) by months post

implementation. The data shows that 78 months after implementation, the DIG appeared on over 7,202

products while the HSR system graphic appeared on 7,312 products 48 months after implementation.


`


Chart 9: Comparison in uptake of the HSR system in Australia and New Zealand, by yeara

The data shows that in year 1, Australia has 363 participating products and it increased to5,448 products in

year 4. In New Zealand, from almost no participating products in year 1, it increased to 2,997 products in

year 4.


Chart 10: Coverage of Private labels

It shows that in year 1, 36.4% of the participating products are from Coles and 14.0% are from Woolworths.

In year 2, 1.1% of the participating products are from Aldi, 29.9% are from Coles and 26.9% are from

Woolworths. In year 3, 5.0% of the participating products are from Aldi, 29.8% are from Coles and 24.2 are

from Woolworths. In year 4, 10.2% of the participating products are from Aldi, 25.2% are from Coles and

21.0% are from Woolworths.


Chart 11: Proportion of growth in HSR due to growth in private labels, by HSR year

In year 2, the private labels contributed 59.5% in the overall growth of the HSR system, 60.3% in year 2 and

51.4% in year 4.


Chart 12: Proportion of technical and design variations, by yeara

It shows that in year 1, 8.1% of the products has technical variations while 6.8% has design variations. In

year 2, 7.0% of the products has technical variations and 9.0% has design variation. In year 3, 4.5% of the

products has technical variations and 9.7% has design variations. In year 4, 4.0% of the products has

technical variations and 7.9% has design variations.


Chart 13: Type of design variation, by yeara

One type of design variation is having a combination of HSR logos on front of pack. 80.8% of the products

has this type of variation in year 1, 31.1% in year 2, 37.7% in year 3 and 17.1% in year 4. Another type of

design variation is having a second logo on back of pack. It can be noted that there is no product with this

type of variation in year 1. However, 16.8% of products displayed this variation in year 2, 1.6% in year 3 and

34.1% in year 4. The next type of design variation being shown in the graph is the placement of nutrient

value expressed to incorrect decimal place. No product displayed this type of variation in year 1 but it is

present in year 2 to year 4 with a proportion of 17.9%, 27.9% and 26.8% respectively.


Chart 14: Type of technical variation by Yeara

One type of technical variation is the incorrect nutrient reference measure. This variation can be seen in

64.5% of the products in year 1, 35.8% in year 2, 60.7% in year 3 and 33.3% in year 4. Another type of

technical variation is having the percentage DI displayed differently from the guidelines. 9.7% of the products

displayed this variation in year 1, 23.0% in year 2, 3.6% in year 3 and 19.0% in year 4.

`



Chart 15: Compliance with the HSR Style Guidea

In year 1, 92.7% of the products are compliant in the Style Guide, 94.4% in year 2, 95.7 in year 3 and 95.8%

in year 4.


Chart 16: Compliance of products with the HSR calculatora

In year 1, 98.1% of the products are compliant with the HSR calculator, 97.1% in year 2, 92.4% in year 3 and

89.7% in year 4.


Chart 17: Proportion of products displaying the HSR system with star rating over or understateda

The data presents that in year 1, 1.9% of the products understated their HSR while no products overstated it.

In year 2, 1.6% understated while 1.0% overstated their HSR. In year 3, 4.8% understated while 2.8%

overstated and in year 4, 5.0% understated and 5.2% overstated their HSR.


Chart 18: Distribution of over and understated HSR calculations, by Yeara

Bar graph showing the proportion of products that have over and understated HSR calculations. 52.4% of

products understated the HSR by 0.5 stars over the 4 years. 5.4% understated the HSR by 1.0 star. 34.7%

overstated the HSR by 0.5 stars and 3.4% overstated the HSR by 1.0 star.


Chart 19: Unprompted awareness of food logosa

For HSR logo, 12.5% of the consumers has unprompted awareness of this logo. This rate went up to 20.2%

in year 4.

For Australian made logo, 16.0% of the consumers has unprompted awareness of this logo with a slight

increase to 16.8% in year 4.

For HF Tick logo, 36.0% of the consumers has unprompted awareness of this logo however this decreased

to 23.2% in year 4.


Chart 20: Prompted awareness of the HSRa

In year 2, 56.8% of the consumers are aware of the HSR when prompted, 74.0% in year 3 and 83.3% in year

4.


`


Chart 21: Proportion of consumers that trust in the HSR systema

In year 2, 50.2% of the consumers stated that they trust the HSR system while 55.4% of the consumers

reported that the HSR is a credible system.





The growth in trust and credibility over time for trust is 8.0% per annum and 5.4% per annum for credibility.


Chart 22: Confidence in the HSR systema

In year 2, 58.5% of consumers reported a very low or somewhat low confidence in the HSR system, 25.9%

of them say that they are indifferent towards it and 12.4% has a high or somewhat high trust rating of the

HSR. In year 3, 23.3% of consumers answered very low or somewhat low, 22.9% answered indifferent and

51.4% answered high or somewhat high. In year 4, 9.9% answered very low or somewhat low, 21.0%

answered indifferent and 67.2% answered high or somewhat high.


Chart 23: Usefulness of the HSR, proportion of respondents that agree or strongly agreea

The information presents the different consumer attitudes towards the HSR system. 76.8% of the

respondents reported that the HSR makes it easier for them to identify the healthier option within a category.

Meanwhile, 65.3% of consumers reported that it helps them in make decisions about which foods to buy

while 28.2% of them said that HSR makes shopping more confusing.


Chart 24: Unprompted understanding that HSR is rating or guide to the healthiness of a producta

The data shows that 54.0% of consumers has unprompted understanding that the HSR is a guide to the

healthiness of a product in year 2, 53.6% in year 3 and 55.8% in year 4.


Chart 25: Proportion of respondents that agree the HSR makes it easier compare productsa

The data shows that in year 2, 72.3% of consumers considered the HSR helpful in comparing products,

71.1% in year 3 and 72.3% in year 4


Chart 26: Consumer understanding of one versus five starsa

The data shows that 83.2% of consumers in year 2 understand that products with 5 stars are the most

healthy, 86.7% in year 3 and 88.3% in year 4. On the other side of the graph, it shows that 86.5% of the

`


consumers in year 2 understand that products with 1 star is the least healthy, 84.2% in year 3 and 88.7% in

year 4.


Chart 27: Understanding of the HSR systema

In year 2, 72.3% of consumers reported that the HSR makes it easier to compare products of the same

category, 71.1% reported the same in year 3 and 72.3% in year 4. On the other side of the graph, it shows

that 57.9% of consumers in year 2 incorrectly understood that the HSR makes it easier to compare products

of different category, 57.1% reported the same in year 3 and 58.2% in year 4.


Chart 28: Use of the HSR, Year 4a

In year 4, 27.2% of the consumers use the HSR to compare products or help make better choices. 19.0% of

consumers reported that for them, the HSR is a general or quick guide to healthiness while 12.9% answered

that they will not use the HSR. Another 12.9% of the consumers use the HSR to make healthier choices and

9.0% use the HSR to check the nutritional value.


Chart 29: Overall preference of HSR logo, Year 4a

63.3% of consumers prefer Option 1, 9.8% prefer option 2, 4.9% prefer option 3. 21.1% prefer option 4 and

0.9% prefer option 5.


Chart 30: Consumer preference for HSR logos, Year 4a

For option 1, 15.2% of the consumers reported that this logo is the easiest to understand, 9.3% reported that

it is the easiest to recognise and 20.1% said that this logo provides sufficient information.

For option 2, 3.7% of the consumers reported that this logo is the easiest to understand,3.1% reported that it

is the easiest to recognise and 4.6% said that this logo provides sufficient information.

For option 3, 2.1% of the consumers reported that this logo is the easiest to understand, 2.3% reported that it

is the easiest to recognise and 2.5% said that this logo provides sufficient information.

For option 4, 11.6% of the consumers reported that this logo is the easiest to understand, 17.5% reported

that it is the easiest to recognise and 4.8% said that this logo provides sufficient information.

For option 5, 0.8% of the consumers reported that this logo is the easiest to understand, 1.1% reported that it

is the easiest to recognise and another 1.3% said that this logo provides sufficient information.


Chart 31: Consumer preference for Option 1 and 4 over timea

For the easiest to understand attribute, 52.6% of consumers prefer Option 1 in year 2, however preference

for this logo declined to 45.7% in year 4. While 20.3% of consumers preferred Option 4 in year 2 and this

increased to 34.6% in year 4.

`


For the easiest to recognise attribute, 43.7% of consumers prefer Option 1 in year 2, however preference for

this logo declined to 28.0% in year 4. While 32.78% of consumers prefer Option 4 in year 2 this increased to

52.4% in year 4.

In terms of providing sufficient information, 61.2% of consumers prefer Option 1 in year 2 and this slightly

increased in year 4 to 63.3%. While 11.2% of consumers prefer Option 4 in year 2 this also increased to

21.1% in year 4.

In terms of to which logo is the most preferred, 56.9% of consumers prefer Option 1 in year 2 and this

increased to 63.3% in year 4. 16.5% of consumers prefer option 4 in year 2 and the number increased to

21.1% in year 4.


Chart 32: Distribution of logos displayed across HSR products, Year 4a

5.1% of HSR products displayed option 1, 23.1% displayed option 2, 17.0% displayed option 3, 38.9%

displayed option 4 and 14.8% displayed option 5.


Chart 33: Distribution of logos displayed across HSR products over timea

For Option 1, 33.7% of the HSR products displayed this logo in year 1, 15.5% in year 2, 8.8% in year 3, and

5.1% in year 4. For Option 2, 13.5% of the HSR products displayed this logo in year 1, 30.9% in year 2,

32.6% in year 3, and 23.1% in year 4. For Option 3, 14.1% of the HSR products displayed this logo in year 1,

12.3% in year 2, 10.6% in year 3, and 17.0% in year 4. For Option 4, 24.6% of the HSR products displayed

this logo, 32.9% in year 2, 34.4% in year 3 and 38.8% in year 4. For Option 5, 8.6% of the HSR products

displayed this logo, 5.5% in year 2, 9.8% in year 3 and 14.8% in year 4.


Chart 34: Consumer preferences compared to logos on pack, Year 4a

Option 1 appears on 5.2% of packs and is preferred by 63.3% of consumers.

Option 2 appears on 23.4% of packs and is preferred by 9.8% of consumers





Chart 35: Option 1 – consumer preference compared to logos displayed on packa

Consumers preference for option 1 compared to proportion of products in percentage over the years. Year

2, 56.9% of consumers preferred option 1 while 15.5% of products displayed option 1 on pack. In year 3,

62.4% of consumers preferred option 1 while 8.8% of products displayed option 1. In year 4, 63.3% of

consumers preferred option 1 while 5.1% of products displayed option 1.


`


Chart 36: Purchase of HSR products over the past 3 monthsa

In year 2, 48.5% of consumers reported that they purchased a HSR product, 8.4% did not purchase it while

43.1% were unsure whether they purchased a HSR product or not.


29.7% were unsure whether they purchased a HSR product or not.


24.8% are unsure whether they will purchase a HSR product or not.



In year 2, 57.5% of the consumers stated that the HSR influenced their decision to purchase a product,

34.3% stated that the HSR did not influence their decision-making while 8.2% are unsure.






Chart 38: Proportion very likely or likely to be influenced by the HSR in the futurea

In year 2, 71.0% of consumers stated that they are likely to be influenced by the HSR in the future, 60.2% in

year 3 and 53.0% in year 4.



In year 2, 46.2% of consumers that are influenced by the HSR stated that the HSR confirmed usual

purchase while 53.8% stated that they purchased a HSR product with more stars.

In year 3, 47.8% of consumers that are influenced by the HSR stated that the HSR confirmed usual


In year 4, 47.6% of the consumers that are influenced by the HSR stated that the HSR confirmed usual



Chart 40: Sales weighted average HSR versus unweighted average HSR,a Year 3 and Year 4b

In year 3, the unweighted average HSR is 3.2 while the sales weighted average HSR is 3.3. In year 4, the

unweighted4 average HSR is 3.3 while the sales weighted average HSR is 3.4.


`


Chart 41: Composition of those who purchased a HSR product with more stars, by year a,b

In year 2, irrespective of influence from the HSR, 30.9% of consumers purchased a product with more stars,

while 69.1% made no change to their purchases.






Chart 42: Composition of population who purchased a HSR product with more stars by influence, Year 4a,b

A total of 69.5% of the consumers purchased a HSR product, 46.0% of these consumers did not change

their purchase where 24.7% were uninfluenced by the HSR. Of the 44.7% influenced by the HSR, 23.4%

purchased a product with more stars while 21.3% stated that the HSR confirmed their usual purchase.


Chart 43: Proportion of HSR products by year and star rating, and average HSRa,b

Year 1- 0.6% of products are 0.5 star. 0.6% are 1 star. 3.6% are 1.5 stars. 5.4% are 2 stars. 4.5% are 2.5

stars 6.0% are 3 stars. 14.5% are 3.5 stars 32.3% are 4 stars. 15.1% are 4.5 stars 17.2% are 5 stars.

Average rating is 3.8 stars.

Year 2- 3.3% of products are 0.5 star. 3.4% are 1 star. 6.7% are 1.5 stars. 6.4% are 2 stars 5.3% are 2.5




stars 10.1% are 3 stars. 17.3% are 3.5 stars 22.8% are 4 stars. 11.3% are 4.5 stars. 12.9% are 5 stars.






Chart 44: Change in average nutrient content for HSR productsa

Average energy, Year 1- 1014.8 kilojoules. Year 2- 1026.2 kilojoules. Year 3- 1062.0 kilojoules. Year 4-

996.1 kilojoules. Average Saturated fat, Year 1- 2.4 grams, Year 2- 3.5 grams. Year 3- 4.5 grams. Year 4-

4.5 grams. Average Sugar, Year 1- 12.2 grams. Year 2- 14.4 grams. Year 3- 13.9 grams. Year 4- 13.4

grams. Average Sodium, Year 1- 230.1 grams, Year 2- 224.4 grams, Year 3- 228.3 grams. Year 4- 250.9

grams.


`


Chart 45: Difference in nutrient status over time for HSR and non-HSR products, per 100g or 100mL

There is a 9.6 decrease in energy content for HSR products and 2.9 increase for non-HSR. For HSR

products, there is a 0.1 decrease in saturated fat and no change for the non-HSR products. Both 0.1

increase in total sugar content for HSR and non-HSR products. 13.4 decrease in sodium for the HSR

products and 2.4 decrease as well for non-HSR products.


Chart 46: Average and median star rating for paired sample HSR products, Year 1 c.t. Year 4a

The average star rating for HSR products in Year 1 is 3.3. Whereas in Year 4 the average star rating is 3.4.

The median star rating for HSR products in Year 1 is 3.0 while in Year 4 the median star rating is 3.5.


Chart 47: Star rating for paired sample of non-HSR products, Year 1 c.t. Year 4a

The average star rating for non-HSR products in Year 1 is 2.7 which is also the same star rating in year 4.

The median star rating for non-HSR products in Year 1 is 3.0 while in Year 4 the median star rating is 2.5.


Figure B.1: Hierarchy of categories used for the HSR system

HSR Category

1 Beverages

1D Dairy beverages

2 Food

2D Dairy foods

Oils & spreads

3D Processed

HSR Category Name

Bakery fats

Baking goods

Breakfast drinks

Biscuits - savoury

Biscuits - sweet

Bread

Breakfast spreads

Cakes, muffins & other baked goods

Cereal based bars

`


Confectionary

Butter

Cheese - hard & processed

Cheese - soft

Cooking sauces

Cream & cream alternatives

Crisps & similar foods

Custards & dairy desserts (non frozen)

Dairy milks - flavoured

Dairy milks - plain

Dessert toppings & baking syrups

Dips

Dried fruit & nut mixes

Edible oil spreads

Eggs

Finishing sauces

Flour

Formulated foods

Frozen dairy (& soy) desserts

Frozen desserts (fruit-based)

Frozen potato products

Fruit - dried

Fruit - plain

Fruit – shelf stable

Fruit & vegetable juices

Fruit bars

Fruit pies, tarts & crumbles

Grains - plain

Grains - processed

Hot cereals - flavoured

Hot cereals - plain

Jelly

Legumes – canned/shelf stable

Mayonnaise & aioli products

`


Meal kits

Meat - plain

Meat - processed

Milk modifiers & flavourings

Milk substitutes

Mueslis

Nut & seed bars

Nuts & seeds

Pasta & noodles - plain

Pasta & noodles - processed

Pastry

Poultry - canned

Poultry - plain

Poultry - processed

Ready meals

Ready to eat breakfast cereals

Recipe concentrates

Relishes, chutneys & pastes

Salad dressings

Sandwiches

Savoury pies, pastries & pizzas

Savoury snack combinations

Seafood - canned

Seafood – plain

Seafood - processed

Seasonings, herbs & spices

Small goods

Soups

Spreads – nuts & seeds

Stocks

Sugar (or artificially) sweetened beverages

Sugar & sugar alternatives

Tea & coffee

Tomato & other table sauces

Vegetable oils

Vegetables - plain

`


Vegetables - processed

Vegetarian - processed

Water

Yoghurt

Return to Appendix C.